http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24mm-f14.htm

24 1.4G or even wider?

wider than 24, but this 24 1.4 is super expensive lor

anyway.....here's a picture of the moon that i took yesterday night


DSC_9160 by K_S16, on Flickr

why so many 'colorful stars'?

and i clicked on the pic and see it large, the moon is not sharp

i dont know is star or just noise

the moon....well...shoot at 55-300mm @ 300mm + crop

cant expect good IQ from a cheapo dx lens

i dont know is star or just noise

the moon....well...shoot at 55-300mm @ 300mm + crop

cant expect good IQ from a cheapo dx lens

i've checked the exif and shows iso100

should be clean...

i dont think u noticed the disclaimer or read the review properly on photozone.
if want to compare somewhat tho, the FX test is using a D3x which has lesser pixel density than the D7000...so usually the D3x will also appear 'sharper'...and again which photozone explained in the review.
a more accurate comparison would be to compare the lens on D7000 and D800 which both have basically similar pixel density.

wider than 24, but this 24 1.4 is super expensive lor

anyway.....here's a picture of the moon that i took yesterday night


DSC_9160 by K_S16, on Flickr

i wonder why nikkor dont have wide angle G series prime lens

no market demand?

Hi guys, I have a question (and need some advice as well).

Nikon is most likely launching a D7k replacement this year right? I'm planning to come back to the DSLR world from a mirrorless system. I was originally intending to get the d600 + a prime (I plan to only shoot primes unless I suddenly can afford one of the super zooms). My budget isn't that big, but optimally I was hoping to get a 28mm f1.8 coupled with the d600 body.

I chose that focal length because I'm shooting 35mm on an APS-C sensory currently and I feel like it's just a *little* too tight for my uses of it.

Then when I thought about it, if Nikons new d7k successor is good enough, then the 28mm prime would be 42mm; Just a little less tighter compared to 52mm view if I used a 35mm prime on a crop sensor body. Going this route will save me alot of cash too.

But after reading some reviews on the lens, I found (from photozone.de), that the 28mm f1.8 performs differently on an FX and DX body in terms of MTF readings. On FX, the lens performs statistically better compared to the DX. Why?

I learned from past experience that relying on MTF readings aren't really helpful all the time, so I usually try to look for picture samples of the lens. But if the sharpness does differ on FX and DX, then it might be irrelevant for me to do so.
Any advice?

I might just end up getting the D600 with the 50mm 1.8G. But I kinda like slightly wider focal lengths. But aih, FF got good dynamic range and ISO performance.

Looks like Japan flag in thumbnail mode  except the dot is white and background is black

24mm is the best so far

what r u looking for?

16mm or 8mm?

japan is the rising sun la
maybe 24 or 18, prime lens is so nice to use and the image quality is superb

no la
for UWA
get the 14-24mm

sure, if i can afford that one

maybe will just settle for tokina 11-16 instead since i'm not the hardcore type

i wonder why nikkor dont have wide angle G series prime lens

no market demand?

sure, if i can afford that one

maybe will just settle for tokina 11-16 instead since i'm not the hardcore type

nice thing to share

sos from FB

similar to what my friend did... also SOS from FB