Tele is always "easier" to shoot. Wide angles are more difficult to shoot get good shots.

You need both 24mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/1.4.

When in doubt, buy all.

I was even using 135mm on DX. Agree that it's long and therefore one of my lease used primes. Now on the FX, the 135mm is nice. It feels just like 85mm on DX.

Now that would be a HUGE lens !

Instead of waiting for Nikon to solve your problem, you can solve it yourself by getting another body with another lens.

KFs are difficult as they are small, easily spooked and hard to find especially perched on a clean branch. Looks like it was quite near. KFs are usually shot at 500mm to 800mm if you want to fill the full frame.

The AF-S 300mm f/4 (at least my version) is not noisy. Same sound as any AF-S motor. Just that it hunts if shot in low light or not with a cross type sensor in difficult conditions. Similar problem you get when doing the same thing with a 24mm f/1.4 or the 35mm f/1.4. I assume the same thing as well on the new 85mm f/1.4.

Same silent noise as any AF-S lens.

Errr... The 50mm and the 24-70mm you're suggesting also no VR wor...

We've debated a lot about 17-55 vs 24-70. The summary of it is to buy what you need NOW. No use getting a better glass like the 24-70 only to say that the focal length tak ngam on DX.

Not super but it's fine. Comparing just quality, lenses like the 17-55 and the 24-70 are still better though.

Limited budget and the 24-70 lens does seem to be a paradox. They do not belong in the same line.


17-55 is a more general / event type lens. Of course it's not in the super wide category which you may want for landscapes.

For events, super wide may be a nice lens to have but not if you want to shoot group photos. Distortion is horrible.

IS/VR is a nice feature to have but it is not the be all end all of things to have. Likelihood of getting motion blur is quite high too at 1/15.

If you really need to shoot at those lighting conditions, get a body like the D700 where you can shoot at ISO 6400 at 1/60. Or an f/1.4 lens at 1/60 at ISO 1600. Take your pick.

There are no such things as free telephoto. It comes at the expense of having less efficient photosites.

Sigma already has one.

Yup. Heavy too and a monopod would be a welcome relief if you're going to be shooting long.

FX and DX is a perfect marriage.

With that kind of reach and in a photograher's pit, you'd use a monopod to support the heavy lens + body combo anyways.

That's not a great example. More of a lucky shot that the AF was on the spot lights near the main subject and you barely get sufficient focus on the main subject, thanks to a small f/7.1 aperture.

80-200mm f/2.8 old?

Some of the more challenging concert photos I took a while back with the venerable AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8.

Backlighting





Dim and hard to focus





When loads of light, it's fantastic.

Agreed. Actually, the AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8 is heavier than the 70-200mm f/2.8.

My guess... Photojournalism?

I really dig shooting at concerts and I miss shooting at fashion shows. It presents the most challenging situation for the shooter when whatever you read is being put to practice. But to be able to shoot at one (especially concerts) is quite difficult as you need proper credentials.

Agreed. DoF at f/2.8 wide open and at those focal lengths is quite a lot and usable for weddings / events. Landscape usually use small aperture and any reasonable wide angle lens is able to perform nicely.

Well, it's just nitpicking as it's only very slightly heavier than the 70-200. Actually the 70-200 is more hand holdable since it's easier to hand hold the barrel.

I think you meant shooting at the wide end (14mm) as oppose to shooting wide open at f/2.8...

Yes, it looks lovely on FX. You can still use it on DX though but it's a little awkward since you can save and go with cheaper DX lens options. If you need to use the 14-24mm f/2.8 on a DX body, you must really know what you're doing and need the lens' strengths and accept no compromises.

What I like about the 14-24mm f/2.8 is the ability to use f/2.8 and still get sharp in the middle and reasonably sharp across the frame.

Thanks. Sometimes 1.4x TC also not enough for birding. I've gone birding with people using 600mm + 1.4x TC on a DX body !





This was my old attempt at KF at the backyard of my house. Too far away and quality not as good as I was using the version 1 of the 2.0x TC.



I have a recent one which I shot a month or two ago with the latest 2.0x TCEIII. Need to look for it. If I recall, the KF was closer but the background was a little more busy.

Yes, you cannot get the AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8 new as Nikon has discontinued this lens quite while back when the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR1 came out. So getting it from a reputable shop like YL is quite important to guarantee that you don't receive a dud since older lenses with AF-S motors is quite expensive to replace.

Is there a HB-17 lenshood included? I don't see one. Perhaps the reason why it's relatively cheaper and have not been sold yet. The HB-17 lenshood is not easy to find.

Have you sourced for it yet? I'm told the price is close to Nikon's 35mm f/1.4. Is that correct?

For push-pull, shouldn't be that price. Expensive.

You're still hood-less?

Speaking about the 14-24mm f/2.8, did you guys see this from dpreview?

Congrats ! So you're gonna shoot your diecast with the D7000?

You planning to buy which FX? Sempat meh?

I have no idea on the performance of the new Nikon 85mm but the Tamron is one of the better 3rd party lenses for not so much money.

For macro, AF speed is not so important. You'd need to manual focus most of the time anyways.

Don't need to look at replacement model. The latest and greatest will always be expensive.

Therefore if budget is a concern, aim for the D700 only. Kautim.

Fuh !

Yes, I use a Canon 500D filter attachment (this is the only Canon in my photographic armory) on my 300mm f/4 or 80-200mm/f2.8 lenses. Good for pseudo macro work.

Anyway, you get what you pay for. The best would be Nikon's 105mm f/2.8 VR.

If want to shoot 1080p video, you need Class 10.

F1, MotoGP needs long lens. Minimum is a 70-200mm range. You can go "cheaper" alternative and get the Nikon 70-300mm VR instead.

Most people don't miss it but I know quite a bit of people that focus using the AF-ON button.

I'm also not used to using AF-ON button for focusing but some people feel it is more natural to separate focusing and releasing button.

Dave Black uses the 28-300mm quite alot for his light painting.

1DMKIII is plagued with AF problems. It seems 1DMKIV also inherits the some of 1DMKIII's AF problems.

Anyway, it's all nice having 39 crossed type AF points but many fail to read the fine prints. The 1DMKIV will only have 39 high precision cross type AF (horizontal and vertical) points when a lens with a max aperture of f/2.8 or more is used or when combined with an extender. The cross type sensors vertical line sensitivity is approx two times more than the horizontal line sensitivity.

However, when using f/4 lens itself like the 600mm f/4 or by using a f/2.8 lens with a 1.4x extender, then only the centre AF point is usable as a cross type with the other 44 will only remain as non-crossed type (horizontal sensitive) only.

Using a f/5.6 lens or by using a f/4 lens with a 1.4x extender, all the AF points are horizontal sensitive and using a f/8 lens, only the centre AF can be used as a non-crossed AF while other are unusable.

I mentioned before that I don't use Live View but there were actually times when I remember that I did use it. Not to replace the viewfinder to shoot but to use it to check WB. Switch on Live View and adjust / tweak WB on the fly and watch it on the LCD screen before you take a shot.

Just for info, bokeh on the 85mm f/1.4 is more beautiful and less harsh than compared to the 50mm f/1.4. Similar case too when comparing 24mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/1.4 bokeh which ironically the 24mm f/1.4 is more beautiful.

In my opinion, the most beautiful bokeh can be had from the 135mm f/2.0.

Bokeh aside, I think you should choose your lens focal length base on which is most comfortable to you. Pick them up and test them out. For studio work when bokeh is not important, the 50mm f/1.4 (or even the f/1.8G) should be fine as it's also the cheaper one.

This is because of history. Canon was indeed ahead in the game before the D3 era with long lenses equipped with IS. Many photo agencies and newspapers already invested in a lot of Canon equipment. Changing to a new system is very costly.

Spot on.

35mm f/1.4?

Not bad. I posted this before from the Nikon 135mm f/2.0 on FF. Not mine.



This is mine but shot on DX sometime back;



This is from the 24mm f/1.4 on FF.



135mm on FF is lagi nice.

Same. I don't like the 50mm either. I don't have the motivation to shoot at the moment. Perhaps I'll pick up the 50mm and shoot on the D700.

First off, it's quite a long list. Some that I can list off my head and comparing only noteworthy ones;

Nikon AF-S 24mm f/1.4 better than Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L USM II
Nikon AF-S 35mm f/1.4 better than Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM
Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8 better than Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
Nikon SB-900 speedlight better than Canon Speedlite 580EX II

Lenses that are about equal in performance;
Nikon AF-S VR II 70-200mm f/2.8 - Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II
Nikon AF-D 135mm f/2.0 DC - Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM
Nikon AF-S 200mm f/2.0 VR II - Canon EF 200mm f/2.0L IS USM
Nikon AF-S 300mm f/4 - Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
Nikon AF-S 300mm f/2.8 VR II - Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
Nikon AF-S 400mm f/2.8 VR - Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM
Nikon AF-S 500mm f/4 VR - Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS USM
Nikon AF-S 600mm f/4 VR - Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS USM

Nikon lenses that do not have any equivalent in the Canon camp;
MF 58mm f/1.2 NOCT
AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8
AF-D 200mm f/4 Micro
AF-S 200-400mm f/4 VR II
TC 1.7x

Yeah, on the other hand, there are a few lenses in the Canon camp as what celciuz mentioned that Nikon has no equivalent including great f/4, DO, T&S lenses (which Nikon only recently added to their lens lineup without a real wide angle one like Canon's 17mm) and not forgetting the great EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM.

Nice and informative video. On a side note, I cannot help but notice that the video was very professionally produced.

Lion dance? They still allow open burning?

Why do you say so? In what ways are you loosing out more? Just curious.

Bad analogy lah that one. I would say neither because both are overpriced for what they are.

Sorry, I was referring to the Honda models being bad example and overpriced for what they are.

Wah... I've not seen a VR II being sold as 2nd hand yet. But the VR I can be as high as RM 12k for 2nd hand.

BTW, how's the 14-24mm f/2.8 been treating you?

That one is AF-D. Slow. I would at least get the AF-S Mk 1 or Mk 2 (non VR) version.

YL Camera will have these type of lenses from time to time. Currently, there is the AF-S 400mm f/2.8 (non VR) for sale at RM 17,800 (nego).

Wah... Somebody's diligently watching.

I think you can find better copies of the older AF version on Ebay.

RM 3.9k for the 300mm f/4 is not too bad. Where did you get it from?

Yeah, forgot to add that as a slightly "cheaper" alternative , one can get the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 zoom with OS built-in.

This post has been edited by jchue73: Sep 20 2011, 05:35 PM

If you mount a 24-70mm f/2.8 or a 14-24mm f/2.8 lens, it'lll be more unbalanced then.

Could use some flash to balance the background.

The 24-70mm f/2.8 is bigger than the 17-55mm f/2.8.

83 x 133 mm vs 85.5 x 110.5mm
900 grams vs 755 grams