damn it!
http://www.alanabramsphotography.com/2010/...-review-part-1/

f/5 at 300mm is insufficient la... People is going f/11-f/22 even on 105mm.
Seems like there should be good deals popping up for these item soon I guess. Car got broke in? He left the items in the car?

Bokeh/Depth-Of-Field

1. Affected by aperture
2. Focal length.

So yeah, at a long focal length you may need a smaller aperture. Try it.

my email just reply its actually an underwater set,thats why cheap warranty from nikon hk

Heh, swim swim product also mau lar with that price. agree ?

Seriously lah, why now  
So yesterday technology vs today technology, you think?

oh mistake its atcually a sigma  SIGMA 70-300MM F4-F5.6 APO DG MACRO

even if u get a long range lens, how sure are u that those other 3 photographers wont be blocking your view?

yes its true as the wedding is held at my grandmother house, I already study the area and plan where should i be to get a good angle

They cost a BOMB !  I'm thinking of modding myself with the Cokin holder.
6 years ago, it was indeed a good machine. 
Between the 16-35mm f/4 VR and 17-35mm f/2.8, I'll take the 16-35mm f/4 VR. If you must know, the 17-35mm f/2.8 isn't great at f/2.8.
Congrats. What's the damage again? RM 5.3k?
Of course the latter combination ! Anyway, I still have the AF-D 35-70mm f/2.8 with me but does not get used a lot. It's suppose to be one of the better lenses back in those days before the humongous AF-S 28-70mm f/2.8 came out (now superseded by AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8). I also have the AF-D 20-35mm f/2.8 that is superseded by the AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8. I use the 20-35mm f/2.8 as my walkabout lens on the D700 but now the 24-70 gets more time.
Perhaps I should off-load mine. 
Samples from the 28-300mm VR seems to be very good actually.
I took a lot of baby photos of my daughter when she was just born. Was quite satisfied with it. Most of the time I shot wide open. At that time I paired the Sigma with the D40x as I wanted something compact to move about.

When I got the Sigma, I also made a lot of comparisons with the Nikkor 35mm f/2. From what I read, it was a toss up in terms of sharpness. Both are about equal. That is if you get a good copy of the Sigma. The colour from the Sigma tends to be on the warm side. I took the gamble and the f/1.4 of the Sigma won as I wanted to shoot in low light. I was lucky as my copy was spot on. I was warned that the QC on the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 needs to be checked as you may get a copy that front / back focuses. When that happens, people will complain that it's soft.

ya nikon high iso for the win!! 

just sometimes people will ask, what do you deal with high iso? if you rarely go night shot haha.

oh well i just still stick to nikon  ....

this one will explain well why canon user will go over nikon? 


edited: hide youtube due to the chicks is too hot. 

Just to note that the 12-24 (I assume from Nikon) is a DX lens.
Thanks for the honest insight.
That's correct. On a Canon body, you always have to use a f/2.8 to be able to use the other AF points as it will be automatically disabled. Once your lens is f/4 or f/5.6, than only the centre point AF works if I'm not wrong. No such thing with the Nikon.
If the differences are just at 100% zoom, I think you should not get too worried. Get a lens that works for your photography. Specs is one thing but what's the point of having the best lens when it does not suite and complement your style of shooting? Don't worry too much. The 35mm f/2 is a legendary lens in it's own right.
Looks like you're enjoying the 35mm f/1.4 more than the 24mm f/1.4?
Looks to me like the focus is slightly to the back part of the hair. Is that correct?

24mm if the AF is spot on, 35 should be the same too. Only the 50mm is not good at f/1.4 heck even the older 50mm f/1.2 AiS does better wide open! I saw a comparison done by a forummer in PM with a 50mm f/1.2 AiS versus the 50mm f/1.4D. Wide open, the f/1.2 wins! Pretty surprised to see an old lens beating up the newer one.