I believe that was modified on purpose so that it does not cover the LCD screen.

Actually never knew the rubber cup was very low.

Wah, you're a gear collector?

Do you use the lens hood when shooting with the 80-200mm f/2.8?

Are you willing to pay RM 8k thereabouts? That's what will be the price when these new models come out.

That said, nobody knows for certain when they are going to come. Either continue to enjoy your D200 or upgrade to D700 which you know you can use TODAY.

Buy the VR2 lor...

---

Added on June 27, 2011, 3:16 pmBelieve it or not, people with 400mm, 500mm and 600mm lenses switch off the VR on their lenses when they shoot.

This post has been edited by jchue73: Jun 27 2011, 03:16 PM

Not all sports images are taken with panning motion ! There are reasons why they switch off VR (or IS for that matter) especially when shutter speeds are already high.

1. Shorter focus acquisition without VR

2. VR interferes with the quality of the captured images

Anyway, your VR2 should be able to detect panning motion.

---

Added on June 27, 2011, 5:45 pmPartly true. For birders, yes the mount their long lenses on tripods most of the time. For sports shooters, they only mount their long lenses on monopods.

This post has been edited by jchue73: Jun 27 2011, 05:45 PM

Eh, apa lens ni? Putih punya kah?

Yup. Speed and timing is everything with sports photography.

I understand that the panning motion isn't exactly right to left horizontally but the VR2 should be able to detect ANY panning motion and compensate for that panning movement and not make correction in that motion. Other movements beside the panning movement will be corrected.

This is a lens which Nikon should make. Small and hand holdable.

The D5100 makes great pics. It's still new. I would suggest getting better lenses to add to your arsenal since you only have the kit and 50mm.

What type of photography are you interested?

Don't be afraid to experiment with high ISO up to even 3200 so long as you nail the exposure correctly (i.e. exposure settings are correct for the given surroundings).

Just for discussion sake, I noticed that the EV compensation for that shot was +2. So in actual, the shot could have been taken at ISO 400 instead of ISO 1600. The other issue is with WB. One trick to dial in correct WB is to use Live View and dial in the WB temperature manually until you get correct WB colour.

I did not have the chance to own one since I'm on FX now. If Nikon did not release FX bodies, I would have gotten the 17-55mm f/2.8 sooner or later.

That said, from all the things I have read about it, it's nothing short of stellar. Usability and range is equal to the 24-70mm f/2.8 on FX.

Don't know about the Tamron or the Sigma but how far are they in terms of performance when compared to the Nikkor?

On DX body, the 24-70mm f/2.8 range would not be wide enough although it's an excellent glass.

This is a very old pics with D70.





It does not seem that you are in a hurry. If that's the case, then carry on with the D200 and wait. Expect to pay 8k plus for a D800.

Because of quality ! You don't call the durian the king of fruits because of it's size.

I think in the end it's up to vearn27 if he can justify the purchase. Because at the end of the day, even though the lens is an expensive purchase, you can still sell it later without much lost. If any lost, just take it as "rental cost" of the lens.

Looks good. Nice colour and skintone rendition from the lens.

It's always good that you have it sharp first and foremost. However if your lens is not sharp, you can never achieve a sharp picture.

It's just like cars. If your car is capable of hitting 200km/hr, your can always drive slower to 110km/hr. If your car is only capable of hitting 110km/hr, you can never expect to accelerate to 200km/hr.

The other thing I treasure more besides quality is speed of focusing. Very important. No use of having a good quality lens but gets focus wrong half the time.

Yes, that's what I think about Zeis manual lenses. They can be the best but it is of no use if you cannot get to focus correctly.

Yes it's nice to have the 24-70mm f/2.8 but what's the point when you're not going to be fully utilising the lens' range? Oh, not forgetting that it's not a cheap lens either. So paying a lot of money upfront when you're only going to fully utilise it a few years later on the FX body is a little wasted in my opinion. The 24-70mm f/2.8 will always be there and he can always get it once he has jump fully to FX body.

Sometimes, I think it is better to leave your pics unedited or with minimal editing. Looks much better and more natural.

Me thinks it's a good price. Back in the time when I lusted for one, I believe it went for RM 4k plus. How much is it in HK?

It would be crazy if volume shooters shoot RAW.

Hope you realise that boosting the JPG sharpness does not work all the time. You get noise artifacts when you try to bump up the ISO or shoot in low light. There is a reason why Nikon put the default at a conservative 3.

The worst part about JPG files are that they are irreversible unlike RAW.

I think that question was posted to vearn27 and if I'm not wrong, the FX upgrade path is NOT anytime soon. If it was like a few months down the road, I would say abandon the 17-55mm f/2.8 idea altogether and get the D700 body right away.

---

Added on June 28, 2011, 2:04 amAgree that Nikon bodies tend to be a little conservative when it comes to sharpness of the JPG files when compared to what Canon does to their JPGs. It has been this way for quite a while.

That is why the Canon is always perceived to look "better" when compared JPGs out of the camera at default settings.

This post has been edited by jchue73: Jun 28 2011, 02:04 AM

Noise grain is one thing. Noise artifacts is different.

That's true. One thing led to the other and it happened pretty quick in a short time frame. But like you said, he just upgraded to D7000. What are the chances he'll sell and get the D700 after a few months? In one post, he estimated that he would get the FX maybe in a year.



I think in between that time to fill, the 17-55mm f/2.8 is a nice lens to get.

It's a personal preference. That's noise grain and to me, it does very little to affect the sharpness and the dynamic range of your capture. It's only a "problem" if you pixel peep at 100% on the monitor. If you print it out, you'd not notice the grain anyways.

If you say that I want the image to be clean and grain free, putting noise reduction does take away some sharpness in the picture. Becareful especially when dealing with people as the subject because it does make the skintones look plastic and un-lifelike. But then again, you only see this at 100% on the monitor. Once you print it out or view the normal size on the web, you probably hardly notice it.

Adoi... If a person cannot accept the slight wrinkle on the cheek, might as well not kahwin and bersanding in public.

Anyway, a good MUA would be able to solve the problem and get the bride looking good.

+1

Aiks ! Cannot compare Japanese skin. They are number one. I think Agito666 can vouch for it.

Actually you can find Malaysians also with similar skins.

Eh, isn't Korea and Japan with 4 seasons?

Hmmm, then you have not been poisoned by bokeh from 24mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.4 and 135mm f/2.0.

Some beautiful samples taken from dpreview that I came across from the 135mm f/2.0 DC;



Photos credit to the thread starter;

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat...thread=38660506

Very similar. Both are legends in their own right. Sharp wide open.

The other lens that in the same focal length that enjoys cult following is the Sony / Minolta STF 135mm f/2.8 [T4.5] manual focus lens. I believe the working principle is similar to Nikon's DC ring.

The DC (defocus) ring is suppose to control blur of the bokeh in front or at the back of the subject. Suppose to work like that lah but I have actually never experimented with mine and just use it like a normal lens. Wide open at f/2, it's sharp.

Posted some of my own examples before although on older D70 and D2Hs cropped bodies;










Does not mean it's an L lens it's better. The Nikon may be slower and more noisy due to the screw driver type AF but on Nikon DSLRs bodies, their focus have been very reliable.

You need patience using it. It's used back in the film days to create dreamy effect portraiture. Maybe a little out of place in these times. But the f/2.0 is always handy.

Thank you.

http://forum.lowyat.net/Showcase

I guess so. I notice that the old Nikon teles are generally much more expensive than Canon's. Must be based on old pricing. Only lately has Nikon been competitive with their lens lineup pricing.

Then again, Canon brought down their prices of tele lenses in Malaysia. Don't know if the 135mm f/2.0 L was one of the affected lenses.

Dull? I think the correct word is the colour is more faithful / natural. The newer lenses are always more contrasty.\

Anyway, be mindful that the ones I posted were on the much older D70 and D2Hs cropped bodies.

You flew in and out of Changi airport? How much was the Thinktank?

Woow... Where did you find it?

For your information, Shashinki listed the 105mm f/2.0 DC as RM 3695 and it's a well known fact that their prices are always slightly higher than what you can get from shops in PJ/KL.

So you decide...

Difficult to say as you have two variables i.e. body and lens. Comparing lens, I'm guessing the 24-70mm f/2.8 is very slightly better than the 17-55mm f/2.8. With bodies, if I'm not wrong, at lower ISOs, they are pretty much equal. The difference will be noticeable when shooting at higher ISOs which the D700 will win. So base on this guestimation, the D700 + 24-70mm f/2.8 combo is the better one when it comes to quality.

The correct word to describe is larger sensor (FF) is more efficient at light gathering given the same amount of light between FF and DX sensors. FF sensors have less dense light photons and therefore the amount of light that ONE light photon is able to capture is better than the light photons from the more dense a DX sensor.

Most definitely.

That's correct.

Anyway, in instances where more reach (in wildlife photography / sports) and more DoF (macro) is required, DX bodies are still more desired.

This post has been edited by jchue73: Jul 1 2011, 08:06 PM

The D300s/D300 bodies are considered semi-pro.

I too prefer CF card. They are faster and more durable. I don't understand why they choose SD. On a DSLR, how much space on the body design can you save lar going from CF to SD?

Dynamic range as in the ability to cover high contrast scenes i.e. ability to expose for bright skies as well as shadows.

Dynamic range and colour contrast on the D700 at higher ISOs is much better than D7000 or any other DX bodies.

Revisiting this subject again?

If you find the wide 24mm end of the lens too long on the DX, you should NOT buy it. Why buy a lens to think that you can use it 1 to 1.5 years later? How about buying for the present moment? Isn't that more important? No point having the best lens when you are not going to enjoy using it.

Buy a 17-55mm f/2.8 now should not be a problem since you can sell it later when the FX body is within your reach. It's a Nikon lens anyway. Not a Tamron or a Sigma or even a cheap kit lens where it would be harder to sell or sold at a higher loss.

BTW, I don't think the price of the 24-70mm f/2.8 would not go up. So buying it later would have no consequence.

Oh, when you say the D700's replacement should be in the same price range, which price are you referring to? RM 5k or RM 8k when the D700 first came out?

On the wide side, it gives excellent range. On the tele side, too short in my opinion. Unless of course you are ok with it...

+1

If you need to go nearer, you can use a Kenko 1.4x TC on your 80-200mm f/2.8. You have more reach and can get closer to your subject. If you want to get a closer working distance, add something like Kenko extension tubes or a diopter attachment like the 500D.

I've used my AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8 indoors as well as outdoors but almost always indoors. It's one of my favourite lens to shoot events or even portaiture.

Some old samples outdoor;

http://www.photomalaysia.com/forums/showth...=145817&page=16

You went to Singapore via car across JB causeway or by fly in / out of airport?

Some more samples of the 135mm f/2.0 although not shot wide open.