Wah... 14-24mm f/2.8 on a D5100?

Woow ! That's a real 14MP full frame dinosaur. Does Nikon still service it?

BTW, is that your new newborn baby? Congrats.

May's issue of the N Photo magazine did a review of various macro lenses available for the Nikon body up to 105mm focal length. You can check it out.

The 85mm is not a stellar lens from what I've read. The tried and tested Tamron 90 is still the one to beat in terms of price / performance. The best is still the Nikkor 105 but the Tamron's quality is pretty close to it. Heck, it seems Sigma's 105 is better than Nikkor's 105.

Good suggestion but comparing it as a macro lens, the reviews said that the Tamron 60 suck in image quality. Don't know how true it is.

A lot of people confuse working distance with minimum focusing distance (MFD) of the lens. MFD is not calculated from the front of the lens but rather it's calculated from the sensor plane in the camera body to the subject unlike working distance which is calculated from the front of the lens to the subject at MFD.

MFD's are not calculated by formulas. They are already a given characteristic for a certain lense. If you want the longest working distance, the Nikkor Micro AF-D 200mm f/4 is the best but cost a bomb. Second best probably goes to the more modern Sigma 150mm f/2.8 that can come with OS or non OS.

Looking at both cameras, the D800 has more advance features. Sports? While the D800's AF is faster at achieving focus lock, it has 4fps vs 5 fps (or 8fps with battery grip) on the D700. Is that important?

If you shoot low light, the AF on the D800 is more reliable but if you compare per pixel noise level, the D700 wins. When you start to reduce the D800 pic to view or print at the same size as the D700, the D800 wins.

If you shoot in landscapes in daylight, there is no question that the D800 is the better camera with better dynamic range and resolution.

So the question is what kind of photos do you take?

Wah, your sensor looks very dirty ! Congrats on the new toy.

the only way to know if D600 is true, is to wait and see what Canon will release first...

anyone upgrade from d700 to D800 because D800 have 100% viewfinder?

I doubt that's the main reason of upgrading lolzzzz

hi all, need ur opinions... today i went to shop to inquire about the 50mm f1.4D/f1.8g and 16-35mm VR f4...

i plan to buy UWA to take landscape while traveling plus a 50mm as a light weight, all rounder lens to compliment the UWA

but but.. the owner n his son poisoned me with the 35mm f1.4/g and Voigtländer 20mm f/3.5

when i compared the 50mm f1.4d n 35mm 1.4g, the image sharpness and color richness of the 35mm is much better than the 50mm

any opinion on these lens, especially the Voigtländer?

This post has been edited by seather: Apr 28 2012, 09:53 PM

Covered bersih all the way till 15 mins before teargas. Damn lot of images omg.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/voigtlander/20mm-f35.htm

20mm and 35mm diff is big.
just get which focal you really comfortable with.

ya... i wanna get the 16-35mm VR F4 n 50mm 1.4D combo...

but they recommended me get the 35mm 1.4G & 20mm Voigtländer instead...

i love the small size of the Voigtländer, it is so small n light that you can put it in ur front pocket..

the Voigtländer is half the size of the nikon 20mm

plus they say the less elements between the subject n sensor, generally IQ will be better... any true?

yes, in layman term less elements means light travel lesser steps.
suggest you try it out. but 16-35mm is more into versatility.

u compare 50mm f/1.4D with the 35mm 1.4G of cos got so big difference...1 is such a old lens.
if you stop down the 50mm to around f/2.2 then you will see improvement in sharpness and contrast.

imo, i think the shop thinks u are a waterfish.
35mm 1.4G and voigtlander...here fishy fishy fishy

just get 16-35 and 50mm 1.8G should be good enough.

---

Added on April 29, 2012, 12:03 amif less elements between subject n sensor, then technically if you just stick someone's spectacles in front of the sensor you should get the ultimate in image quality...



This post has been edited by Everdying: Apr 29 2012, 12:03 AM

nah.. they r pushing the voigtlander only since i looking for a UWA... i tamak and play wif the 35mm... tat is why got poisoned

they also loan me the nikon 20mm together with the voigtlander to take a few pics , ask me take home to view in the pc and compare...

after doing some research online, mite juz get the 85mm 1.8g (for shooting my mate during travel) + voigtlander (for landscape)

they oso not totally treat me as water fish la... they only intro me the 50mm 1.4d although they have the 50mm 1.4g in stock...

This post has been edited by seather: Apr 29 2012, 12:08 AM

the G version of the lens usually have better quality tho~ that is if you feel paying the extra 'dough' is worth it that is..

20mm? sure u dont want to go wider?
landscape dont necessary have to use wide angles all the time.
telephoto also can be used to isolate certain areas u dont want in etc.

extra 1k for 2/3 stop (50mm 1.8g -> 50 1.4g) or extra RM750 to upgrade from a 1.4D lens is a price i don't think i can pay at the moment... ... i don make money from the gears i buy...

haha~ up from the same minimum aperture le~ the upgrade of 50mm 1.8g to 50mm 1.4g is another type of upgrade.. i was talking about 50mm 1.8d vs 50mm 1.8g or 50mm 1.4d vs 50mm 1.4g..

then again, the choice to upgrade is yours.. if you feel that to pay that amount is not justifiable.. then just go for the cheaper alternative that you prefer.

just chipping in that, if it was me, I'd opt for the G version as it usually provides faster AF speed and better IQ (as far as I know)

that is why next week going back to test the 16-35 when they have stock...

i like to take those sweeping landscape pics... like u standing in front of a great temple/hall/building and getting that awe perspective

why the shop never poison you with 14-24?

Actually, my main upgrade points from D700 to D800 would be the 100% VF and new AF module which is supposedly better than D700's.

14-24 F2.8 is not so flexible for normal occasion...
kinda hard for most of d ppl...
so i skip that and go 16-35...
but 14-24 is indeed a very very poisonous lens...
if nikon come out with a 16-35 F2.8 den will be perfect...

coz he knows i can never afford it atm why try to sell a BMW to a person who can barely afford a honda

agreed.. very specialized lens... plus it is expensive... not something i will buy juz to play play unless i know what i wan to do wif it... got the skills to backup the gear

btw got 17-35mm f/2.8 mar...

This post has been edited by seather: Apr 29 2012, 03:08 AM