Outline ·
[ Standard ] ·
Linear+
The Official Nikon Discussion Thread Ver.22, NEW RUMORE Nikon DF!
|
exquisite_markas
|
Oct 6 2013, 10:44 AM
|
|
Dear Nikon sifus,
I have a question regarding lens servicing. Usually how much will Nikon charge to service one lens? This is my first time sending my lens for cleaning and servicing.
Also, I came across a seller selling his BNIB Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 Xr Di-II for RM600. Is it a good buy?
Advice much appreciated.
Many thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
exquisite_markas
|
Oct 11 2013, 03:45 PM
|
|
I have read and saw a lot of reviews on the 18-55 mm kit lens, and almost all said this is the best lens (compared to 18-70, 18-105 and 18-135). Is that really true? I will be getting a D5100  , and I already have the 70-300. Looking for a wider lens. So which one should I be getting? This post has been edited by exquisite_markas: Oct 11 2013, 03:46 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
exquisite_markas
|
Oct 11 2013, 03:50 PM
|
|
QUOTE(Agito666 @ Oct 11 2013, 03:49 PM) i hear this is best of kit lens, which i sold like 2 years ago XD Seriously bro? The best? Not 18-55?
|
|
|
|
|
|
exquisite_markas
|
Oct 11 2013, 03:57 PM
|
|
QUOTE(Agito666 @ Oct 11 2013, 03:56 PM) i said KIT LENS.  18-55 not kit lens meh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
exquisite_markas
|
Oct 11 2013, 04:07 PM
|
|
QUOTE(Agito666 @ Oct 11 2013, 04:04 PM) oh i thought after 18-70 discontinued, they introduce 18-55 VR... didn't know got 18-55 also i thought 18-55 is the one with nano coat... oh well about 18-70 i forget who was told me about that.. not sure built quality or the IQ is still decent  I was talking about the 18-55 kit lens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
exquisite_markas
|
Oct 11 2013, 04:11 PM
|
|
QUOTE(bb100 @ Oct 11 2013, 04:08 PM) You put so many userbars ahh, Ah Wang will nuke your siggy lahh. My ManUtd userbar kena that guy nuke lohh. Got one bro say the 18-70 is best kit lens wohh. Wanna have Jerry mia ahh? No leh. You read Kent Rockwell's review. He says 18-55 the best. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-55mm-vr.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
exquisite_markas
|
Oct 11 2013, 05:47 PM
|
|
QUOTE(Pro3363 @ Oct 11 2013, 04:53 PM) If u wan to get 18-105 is still ok... Overlap a little bit only... unless ur saying 70-200 + 18-200... What if I buy both the 18-55 and 18-105 to add to my current 70-300? Does it sound silly?
|
|
|
|
|
|
exquisite_markas
|
Oct 11 2013, 06:28 PM
|
|
QUOTE(andyz @ Oct 11 2013, 06:17 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
exquisite_markas
|
Oct 12 2013, 10:34 AM
|
|
QUOTE(alpha001 @ Oct 11 2013, 11:48 PM) wow, why you want entire focal range covered, are u a journalist? i  to second photo,nice  Nope, I am a newbie. So thought of exploring the available focal lengths to know more about my photography preference. Any advice?
|
|
|
|
|
|
exquisite_markas
|
Oct 12 2013, 10:36 AM
|
|
QUOTE(gerald7 @ Oct 12 2013, 12:05 AM) whats wrong with owning a lot of glass? hehe but i think if got 18-105 then no need 18-55 dy la.. 70-200 better ! *runs* Do you think owning a 18-70 and a 70-300 is a good combo? Or 18-135 and 70-300? This post has been edited by exquisite_markas: Oct 12 2013, 10:36 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
exquisite_markas
|
Oct 12 2013, 10:45 AM
|
|
QUOTE(PF T.J. @ Oct 12 2013, 10:39 AM) My advice is, save the money  18-105mm is good enough for you to learn~ Save the money for the next lens (which will undoubtedly be more expensive) after you are done familiarizing with the kitlens haha XD So your advice is get the 18-105 and forget about 18-55, 18-70 and 18-135? But the 18-70 comes with a metal mount. So tempting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
exquisite_markas
|
Oct 12 2013, 02:06 PM
|
|
QUOTE(NightFelix @ Oct 12 2013, 01:07 PM) ah I see.. if is fix focal lens, then would it be hard that you can't zoom in or out to snap, so we have to take our camera to walk closer or further to snap our target? Another thing I not quite understand between ISO and Aperture ( I read the guide from The Verge here) ISO is light absorb into the sensors, so the aperture means??  so the more the better or lesser the better or manual? holy  Aperture is just an opening in the lens where light will travel into your camera. So the bigger the opening, more light can enter the camera, and vice versa. You may notice that f/x corresponds to an aperture setting. Since x is the denominator, the smaller the value of x, the bigger is the value of f/x. Therefore, the bigger is the aperture opening. For instance, f/2 is bigger than f/5.
|
|
|
|
|
|
exquisite_markas
|
Oct 13 2013, 05:23 PM
|
|
Dear all the Nikon sifus, I have a dilemma again with lens. Don't know which one should I choose - the 55-200 mm or the 70-300 mm. I own a 18-70 mm lens now. People say the 55-200 mm image quality is more superior than the 70-300 mm. But it will be silly coz I will have an overlap in focal range. Hope sifus sekalian can give me some opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
exquisite_markas
|
Oct 13 2013, 07:21 PM
|
|
QUOTE(Pro3363 @ Oct 13 2013, 05:52 PM) Overlap a little nevermind one... 70-300 more futureproof... When one day u step into the FF world, u can still use it..  That's what I am thinking also, overlap a bit only mah. By the way, what's FF? Sorry still noob.
|
|
|
|
|
|
exquisite_markas
|
Oct 13 2013, 07:26 PM
|
|
QUOTE(Silverfire @ Oct 13 2013, 05:55 PM) I assume you wanna get the 70-300 VR? To be honest, I tried the 70-300 non VR and kinda impressed with it being RM390 brand new. Tried it with D600 FX and as far as I know its much sharper on FX. Colour fringing and aberration both negligible. If your hands not steady, get the 70-300 VR lo. BTW Oktoberfest '13! » Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... « I am looking at the non VR. But really so impressive meh? Any opinions on the 55-200mm? Thanks for the feedback bro.  -edit- The 70-300 mm VR very the expensive leh... This post has been edited by exquisite_markas: Oct 13 2013, 07:45 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
exquisite_markas
|
Oct 13 2013, 07:28 PM
|
|
QUOTE(Pro3363 @ Oct 13 2013, 05:58 PM) Please C&C... Still new into macro Snail by Pro3363, on Flickr Very nice bro. But like Silverfire sifu said, if a bit in focus then better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
exquisite_markas
|
Oct 13 2013, 07:30 PM
|
|
QUOTE(PF T.J. @ Oct 13 2013, 06:41 PM) Great try man~ Good photo there  I think it has all the elements of a good macro shot, apart from the out-of-focus part as what silverfire sifu has mentioned  Its nice to have bokeh in both foregrounds and backgrounds (Not only for macro shots)  . I think the trick to this photo (if you still want to frame it like this), is to know which area of the subject to be put in focus; in this case its the shell, rather than the snail's stalk eyes  That's because the shell is much larger, imho its better to keep it in focus. However, for other normal insects etc., usually people love to focus on the eyes~ Wow, the sifu really has spoken. When I start venturing into macro photography, I will sure come to you for more advice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
exquisite_markas
|
Oct 13 2013, 09:22 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
exquisite_markas
|
Oct 13 2013, 09:23 PM
|
|
QUOTE(gunzerdude @ Oct 13 2013, 09:04 PM) Just change perspective can already This photo isn't about what's in focus and what's not, perspective is important even in macro, try to get down to their level instead of photographing them from above.  Wow!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
exquisite_markas
|
Oct 13 2013, 09:58 PM
|
|
QUOTE(gunzerdude @ Oct 13 2013, 09:50 PM) eh? noneed big capital for basic macro la dude 50mm 1.8D (RM200+ used) Auto extension tubes (RM200+ also) Extension tubes is used to move the lens further away from the camera body, increasing the native magnification of the lens. Google if you want detailed photos and explaintion  What kind of lens is suitable for macro photography? Is there any special signs? Like if the lens has a constant focal length, it is a sign of a prime lens, this kind of signs? Macro photography sounds very interesting indeed.
|
|
|
|
|