an unker

Nope. Not interested on that. My buddy all went

This post has been edited by KTCY: Feb 14 2011, 06:20 AM

it was raining !!!!

sigma 10-20

Yerp. for me wide enough.
as I myself not so much into wide lens person. you give me wide lens IDK what to shoot.

10-20 wide meh ? 8-16

8mm? + FX sensor walawe.. like fish eye loo..

10-20 not FX lens la
Dohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ! Don't even know yet speak like a mastarrrrrr

sample sample pls stalk for long time only see numbers here...totally no idea what you talking about

I know 10-20mm is not an FX lens. but what I wrote there is 8mm and it is FX lens isn't it?
I myself not sure

---

Added on February 14, 2011, 10:22 amwell. I myself not sure about 8-16. never read the review..
but please chill down. the way your response totally.
oh ya moreover. I am not speaking like a master. you are.
Relax dude relax.. it is early morning

This post has been edited by aldosoesilo: Feb 14 2011, 10:28 AM

8-16 FF meh ? Of course I know you're talking about DX that's why I replying back with DX lens la.
12-24 siggy is FX lens
8-16 is not !

some poisons
all shot with 70200, except last one shot with 1750

sample shot taken using d7000 + nikkor 1755 f2.8

DSC_4130 by michaelbyz23, on Flickr

Both 17-55 and 70200 condition looks a bit

Sounds logic

Anyway, picture spam

My neighbour's wedding hehe

I agree with this.

When I compare 2 sample pictures taken with 17-35mm at 35mm f/2.8 and 24-70 at 35mm f/2.8 using a same camera with same shutter speed and ISO, the picture taken with 17-35mm will appears slightly brighter.
Then, I compare 2 sample pictures taken with 50G at f/2.8 and 24-70 at 50mm f/2.8 using all the same setting again, the picture taken with 50G also appears slightly brighter.

I think the number of elements inside a lens does affect the amount of light loss when light passes through the lens into the sensor. Glasses in the lens still reflects some lights away when light passes though it, that's why we are able to see the "'elements" in the lens. When we look into the lens from the front, we can see multiple reflections of our self on the elements. That also proves that not 100% light passes through the glass when we are taking photos. Some amount of light that enter the lens are reflected back outside the lens by the glasses.

My lecturer gave us a common theory when looking for lens, "The lesser the amount of element in a lens, the better it is for taking photos. "

This post has been edited by edwardgsk: Feb 14 2011, 11:31 AM

ya glass is not 100% let light pass trough ...if not we already always hit glass hahahaha... (because if 100% light pass through the object, means invisible.)

hii...
i want to ask the nikonian...
as we know...
the size of nowdays picture is a big to storage...
for ur storage...
u'all convert the size of the picture or not?
if resize...
what is the ideal size that give the best quality for printing during future??

now leaning towards nikkor 16-85 instead of nikkor 18-200 or the 18-105 kit lens.
sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 also potential candidate but i prefer to get longer zoom if possible.
tight budget ... my next lense will surely be below 2k ..LOL! funding ... funding... hehe.

dun resize
instead of that get a 1TB harddisk

or maybe zip the file?

HDD so cheap nowadays. why bother resizing ?