And too lebih for most hobbyist wallet too.

Noted !

Any one can suggest a good wide angle len on DX?

general part lol...

like " i heard canon parts is cheap but price drop also faster compare to nikon"?
or quality vs value...

bla bla

----

BTW what is Nano Coating? what is it for? resistant tougher?

12-24 f4? or 10-24 f3.5-4.5
Bro, you strike lottery recently?
Can share some of your fortune?

---

Added on February 17, 2011, 2:51 pmNano coating helps to reduce flare and ghosting
But on certain lens with nano still pretty weak to flare

This post has been edited by pikipiki: Feb 17 2011, 02:51 PM

Not really cheap, depending on budget; For some people, getting 70-300 VR, add 1K can go for 80-200 f/2.8D second hand. Difference is HUGE.

For people on budget on DX body, want a cheap telephoto, lightweight, etc. 55-200 VR or 55-300 VR can fit the bill, unless they really need the faster focusing speed. The price of 70-300 VR is almost double 55-300 VR. 55-300 VR have people selling less than 1K (last I saw is RM950).
So it depends on the person requirement, and budget. Some people, they spend more on higher end lens, then for a cheap, lightweight, they just want to spend a little as long as it can deliver the job.

Yeah ! Gold font with gold ring

the 80-200 has no VR which for a telephoto is kinda useless. The keep rate is just too low.
But yeah like you said, if they just wanna buy a lens that can deliver the job(telephoto) then just grap the cheaper ones if IQ is not a problem to them.
However, cheap things no good, good things not cheap.

---

Added on February 17, 2011, 3:13 pmFor which of your lens? UV or CPL?

This post has been edited by pikipiki: Feb 17 2011, 03:13 PM

KTCY's quote which make me look to my wallet.
and another one : You pay peanut you get monkey.

Good lens too heavy for your body, so no need to think so much before you upgrade your body.

24mm f/1.4G !

Waaaa, new toy?
XS-pro UV for that lens about 290.

This post has been edited by pikipiki: Feb 17 2011, 03:21 PM

I don't need you to tell me the price
I think I know better than you and I get it lower than that

^ just guessing the price.

If i got fortune i wont share out to you (i know u also joking lar so i am )

i will give all to charity =)

humble talk before got.. after got?

Enjoy your camera gears bro. Why don't you consider upgrading to FX? You seem to have sufficient resources to do so.

Use FX but lens is al cheapo lens ?

After got, buy D3s D700 D3x all the gold ring 3x sb-900, one lambo one ferrari one mansion and the balance for charity.

---

Added on February 17, 2011, 3:41 pmWho? that bro?
He seems to have some deep pocket now, surely he can afford good lenses.

This post has been edited by pikipiki: Feb 17 2011, 03:41 PM

Haiya KTCY just say only ar , no point to anyone .

I dont have deep resources.

I wont buy ferrari lar , i m not the guy born here to enjoy my life. I will buy a good car who allow me to long drive can d.

I use my camera to learn and shoot more pics , hope can use the pic to touch ppl heart and realized something , eg, there is alot Vietnam kids who cannot afford their study fees , their study fees just only RM5. I buy camera to shoot them , the real face and the happening around the world. We are in malaysia , we should appreciate always , and if we got extra , try to spare some to the people who poorer than us.

I am looking wide-angle len because i want to learn to be photojournalist w/o salary. so i want to ask only , what i know is most of the photojournalist use wide angle to shoot their subject , use wide angle step forward to close to their subject and shoot, but most of us use the wide-angle len step back to shoot. (but also got 70200 lar )

That is me lar, dont shoot me if i say something wrong. again my english very suck lo


Not humble lar.

This is what i think only.

This post has been edited by bbuser91: Feb 17 2011, 03:54 PM

Errr... Buy the 24-70 AND upgrade to D700? Wouldn't that break the bank?

What are you guys talking? Isn't 17-55 on DX equal to 25.5-82.5? That's very similar to 24-70 on FX.

On the DX and if you happen to use the 17-55, do you see yourself using more wide end or on the tele end?

If on the wide side, perhaps you can settle for the cheaper 16-35mm f/4 which is a stop slower lens than the 24-70mm f/2.8?

Must a lens have VR for it to become useful? How did people shoot with Nikon when the earlier 400mm, 500mm and 600mm lenses were without telephoto but yet still delivery stunning images?

I sometimes think we rely too much on technology. With proper shooting technique, you'll have no problems getting high keep rates with the 80-200mm f/2.8.

Besides, if you're into shooting fast action sports, you'd usually shoot without VR since VR interferes slightly with the focus acquisition and the time the camera needs to lock focus. Of course VR is useful during panning but even then it's not necessary.