Photography The Official Nikon Discussion thread V6, Nikon announcement on Mar/Apr ?!
|
|
 Mar 14 2011, 04:40 PM
Return to original view | Post
#81
|
 
All Stars
12,505 posts Joined: May 2007 From: Triumph in the Skies Status:In LoV3 Again 
|
QUOTE(Bliz @ Mar 14 2011, 03:58 PM) If u want minimal distortion by all means spend a lot of cash on a wideangle prime 14-24 very good. Just another 1k on top of 16-35   |
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 14 2011, 07:13 PM
Return to original view | Post
#82
|
|
All Stars
12,505 posts Joined: May 2007 From: Triumph in the Skies Status:In LoV3 Again
|
QUOTE(Bliz @ Mar 14 2011, 04:53 PM) I choose the 16-35 over the 14-24 not because of budget, because of the following reason True enough but Lee filters already come out the holding for 14-24 1. 16-35 has a more useful range to me, can stay on camera longer 2. can use filter 3. lighter+VR Never regret not getting the 14-24 QUOTE(ifer @ Mar 14 2011, 05:05 PM) coz after you have corrected the fish eye like distortion, you have to crop the side of the photo. hence, less resolution. ifer i see it as tighter composition. i won't get 16mm angle anymore, it's more like 18mm or 20mm. so for what i am doing, the 16-35 is basically useless.  Seldom see you back in here. Mostly at PM  |
|
|
Mar 14 2011, 09:24 PM
Return to original view | Post
#83
|
|
All Stars
12,505 posts Joined: May 2007 From: Triumph in the Skies Status:In LoV3 Again
|
QUOTE(Kiki-Lala @ Mar 14 2011, 08:47 PM) I got an ebay ID. But but..i'm scared paypal always there  just joking. Later he gonna ask me pay.  |
|
|
Mar 14 2011, 10:09 PM
Return to original view | Post
#84
|
|
All Stars
12,505 posts Joined: May 2007 From: Triumph in the Skies Status:In LoV3 Again
|
QUOTE(eddy230379 @ Mar 14 2011, 09:51 PM) just tried out the 16-35 on my D90 ... i am amazed by its sharpness even at f/4 ... do you need 2.8 ?its going to be a hard decision to make between the 17-55 & the 16-35 ...  if not, 16-85 all the way |
|
|
Mar 14 2011, 10:16 PM
Return to original view | Post
#85
|
|
All Stars
12,505 posts Joined: May 2007 From: Triumph in the Skies Status:In LoV3 Again
|
QUOTE(eddy230379 @ Mar 14 2011, 10:12 PM) i was giving it a try cos it has VR plus its cheaper brand new than the 17-55 ... not forgetting it has Nano coating as well ... the distortion on my D90 is not as bad as on a FX body ... really headache ... Sorry I wrongly read as 16-85 FX lens with Nano coating & VR or DX lens with f/2.8 & longer range ... 16-35 vs 17-55 ? I'd take 17-55 anytime Even going FF, I will not recommend take that. 24-70 way better ! |
|
|
Mar 14 2011, 10:19 PM
Return to original view | Post
#86
|
|
All Stars
12,505 posts Joined: May 2007 From: Triumph in the Skies Status:In LoV3 Again
|
QUOTE(Irfan2397 @ Mar 14 2011, 10:18 PM) is 70-300mm good to take wedding picture?its worth it for 650 Tamron ? |
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 14 2011, 10:23 PM
Return to original view | Post
#87
|
|
All Stars
12,505 posts Joined: May 2007 From: Triumph in the Skies Status:In LoV3 Again
|
QUOTE(C_Sagi @ Mar 14 2011, 10:19 PM) Its gonna be a bit hard cause u need to stand further away and ppl tend to block u. Is not about that. I used 70200 for wedding also.If the price he mentioned, probably Tamron 70-300 which focus speed is slower than snail ! |
|
|
Mar 14 2011, 10:31 PM
Return to original view | Post
#88
|
|
All Stars
12,505 posts Joined: May 2007 From: Triumph in the Skies Status:In LoV3 Again
|
The without VR brand new going for RM 4xx only.
And that lens basically rubbish, soft even at f/8  |
|
|
Mar 14 2011, 10:32 PM
Return to original view | Post
#89
|
|
All Stars
12,505 posts Joined: May 2007 From: Triumph in the Skies Status:In LoV3 Again
|
QUOTE(Str33tBoY @ Mar 14 2011, 10:31 PM) well i use 24-70 before... Because you use on DX ! in my opinion... it's a not up not down lens... erm... easier to under stand is not perfect in portrait & not perfect in wide... as usually we will use dis 2 range more often... dat's y i sold my 24-70 to get 85G & 16-35...  Please at least state that you use it on DX body. Else, mislead !If on FX, it shines. |
|
|
Mar 14 2011, 10:36 PM
Return to original view | Post
#90
|
|
All Stars
12,505 posts Joined: May 2007 From: Triumph in the Skies Status:In LoV3 Again
|
QUOTE(Str33tBoY @ Mar 14 2011, 10:34 PM) erm... Tamron 17-50 is another rubbish lens if compare with 24-70N on FF i would say say d same if i'm using FX... as i used d range of 17-50 F2.8... similiar range... jz imagine dat i hav d same quality of 24-70 on it... i would say it's jz an all rounder onli... can't be perfect...  |
|
|
Mar 14 2011, 10:37 PM
Return to original view | Post
#91
|
|
All Stars
12,505 posts Joined: May 2007 From: Triumph in the Skies Status:In LoV3 Again
|
QUOTE(edwardgsk @ Mar 14 2011, 10:35 PM) I doubt you use 24-70 on FX before based on what you say. Obviously ! 24mm on FF = 16mm on DX.On FX it's like 17-55 on DX. SUPERB!!  And he said 16-35 useful. I wonder how useful if so |
|
|
Mar 14 2011, 10:38 PM
Return to original view | Post
#92
|
|
All Stars
12,505 posts Joined: May 2007 From: Triumph in the Skies Status:In LoV3 Again
|
QUOTE(Str33tBoY @ Mar 14 2011, 10:36 PM) erm... 85G is the cheapest N prime lens. Wait till you try out 24G, 35G or 200G ya... i think like dis before i tested 85G... not after dat... btw... i said i imagine i'm using a tamron 17-50 wif a 24-70 quality... i would say d same oso... Tamron vs Nikkor ? How about Ferrari Vs proton ?  |
|
|
Mar 14 2011, 10:41 PM
Return to original view | Post
#93
|
|
All Stars
12,505 posts Joined: May 2007 From: Triumph in the Skies Status:In LoV3 Again
|
QUOTE(edwardgsk @ Mar 14 2011, 10:39 PM) Like I said again, people here likes to take different class lens to compare one Take tokina 116 compare nikkor 12-24, take 50mm compare with 35mm, take tamron 17-50 compare with 24-70N   Already used to it.This post has been edited by KTCY: Mar 14 2011, 10:42 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 14 2011, 10:47 PM
Return to original view | Post
#94
|
|
All Stars
12,505 posts Joined: May 2007 From: Triumph in the Skies Status:In LoV3 Again
|
24-70 all the way. UWA ? 14-24
 |
|
|
Mar 14 2011, 10:54 PM
Return to original view | Post
#95
|
|
All Stars
12,505 posts Joined: May 2007 From: Triumph in the Skies Status:In LoV3 Again
|
17-35 already very good in term of IQ
|
|
|
Mar 14 2011, 11:09 PM
Return to original view | Post
#96
|
|
All Stars
12,505 posts Joined: May 2007 From: Triumph in the Skies Status:In LoV3 Again
|
17-35 price and 14-24 brand new price different by 1k like that IIRC
 |
|
|
Mar 14 2011, 11:24 PM
Return to original view | Post
#97
|
|
All Stars
12,505 posts Joined: May 2007 From: Triumph in the Skies Status:In LoV3 Again
|
Might grab Sigma 12-24 if I really want for crazy wideness |
|
|
Mar 14 2011, 11:57 PM
Return to original view | Post
#98
|
|
All Stars
12,505 posts Joined: May 2007 From: Triumph in the Skies Status:In LoV3 Again
|
QUOTE(Irfan2397 @ Mar 14 2011, 11:53 PM) nikon a forumer offering RM 600 for that is it worth it? Without VR right ?Brand new at 4xx only. Why bother get second hand ? And this lens IQ sucks, |
|
|
Mar 14 2011, 11:59 PM
Return to original view | Post
#99
|
|
All Stars
12,505 posts Joined: May 2007 From: Triumph in the Skies Status:In LoV3 Again
|
D3100 can't auto focus with old 70-300 lens !
|
|
|
Mar 15 2011, 12:03 AM
Return to original view | Post
#100
|
|
All Stars
12,505 posts Joined: May 2007 From: Triumph in the Skies Status:In LoV3 Again
|
QUOTE(Irfan2397 @ Mar 15 2011, 12:01 AM) oh mistake its atcually a sigma SIGMA 70-300MM F4-F5.6 APO DG MACRO Forget about that as well ! You don't really need telephoto in wedding. And this lens is slow as well ! |
|
Topic ClosedOptions
|
| Change to: |  0.0458sec
 0.84
 7 queries
 GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 17th December 2025 - 11:06 AM |
Quote