u got the new 35mm af-s lens?

how much is your 35mm? and where did u get it?

what lens do u guys think is a good all rounder?

This post has been edited by alpha_company: Apr 17 2009, 01:58 AM

hehe.... not unlimited lar. im not the DONALD (donald trump)

btw, i've decided to get a 18-70mm (d70 kit lens)

This post has been edited by alpha_company: Apr 18 2009, 10:49 AM

get the VR version..seriously it makes a difference. i tried it for quite a while now and it's much much better than the one without VR at 200mm.

read this : http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/55-200mm-vr.htm

to be honest im thinking of not selling my 55-200... happy with the closeup/macro performance.. wanna get a raynox 202 or 250 and get betttter results for macro shots..

This post has been edited by alpha_company: Apr 19 2009, 03:41 AM

@bolded : seen pics of it already lar. why ido u think t's called a "MACRO" lens if it's not better then other lenses in macro shots?

yeah.. there's a lot of REAL macros on the internet la... i've seen it already. maybe u haven't seen how a true macro lens burn holes in your pockets. especially when im not going to specifically shoot macro.. duh

---

Added on April 19, 2009, 1:56 pmhaha i dont agree with xandman. why? because i OWN and TESTED the 55-200 against the kit lens .wait till you try a 105mm ability to burn pocket holes

it's not like i want to go macro kaw2.. i get raynox fine already.

This post has been edited by alpha_company: Apr 19 2009, 02:05 PM

i like it at 1.1m because the bugs are less likely to fly away..hehe

guys.. im thinking of getting either the famous Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 OR Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5... which do u think has better image quality and better price-performance ratio?

under 2k already burn holes for you maybe...

both are under 2k.. so which is better?

i wont stick to my kit lense. sold it already.

thanks

btw, the mfd minimum focus distance of the sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 is 20cm and in that sense it's much better in close up shot than tammy 17-50 f/2.8

the mfd/close up capabilities of sigma 17-70 is impressive compared to tammy 17-50. that's something to think about

difference :

mfd Sigma 17-70 : 0.20m (max. magnification ratio 1:2.3)
mfd Tamron 17-50 : 0.27m (max. magnification ratio ~1:4.5)
Sigma better

aperture sigma : f2.8-4.5
aperutre tamron : f2.8 constant
tamron better

sharpness wise on a canon:
http://www.pbase.com/alexis/compare

Still confused as to which is better quality wise because I've heard that tamron 17-50 has some focusing problems on d90..back focusing or something

This post has been edited by alpha_company: Apr 24 2009, 12:00 AM

So durability and built quality, which one is better?

Which would be the one that would be less likely to have probs later on?

This post has been edited by alpha_company: Apr 24 2009, 07:56 AM

earlier tammy doesnt have built in motor laaa..so cant use on d40/d40x/d60 anyways.

---

Added on April 24, 2009, 2:24 pmthe sigma 18-50 f2.8 is more expensive than even tamron 17-50 f2.8 right?

This post has been edited by alpha_company: Apr 24 2009, 02:24 PM

if only rm 300 buy the raynox 250 OR raynox 202 macro filter.

a NEW d40 kit should be that price but i've seen people selling new D40 kits as high as rm16xx. a ripoff indeed

a 6mp camera with a fast flash sync compared to d60 or d40x.

This post has been edited by alpha_company: Apr 28 2009, 12:00 PM

there's numerous tutorials on the internet.

read and understand about ISO, Aperture & Shutter speed. then go out and take some pics..

guys.. tamron 17-50 f2.8 and sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.5... which one better? wanna get one tomorrow

and flash nissin Di622 OR cybertik mz45?

sb600 about rm8xx

nissin OR cybertik OR falcon eyes - rm 430

not a few cents for sure.. that's a rm380-rm4xx difference.

yeah... leaning towards that tammy .. compared to the sigma 17-70 though the sigma has a really nice MFD minimum focus distance. got a person in alpha thread showing a pic of a finger touching the 17-70 filter still in focus...

thanks for the opinion

---

Added on May 1, 2009, 12:59 ami can get around rm 790 and still it's a few hundred more exp than nissin or cybertik

This post has been edited by alpha_company: May 1 2009, 12:59 AM

you mean 3rd party FLASH right?

yeah.. maybe 1st try 3rd party flash..then later got budget maybe go to sb800..

nk bli bila? ari ni want to go kedai already..wanna get tammy 17-50 and a flash.

sb800 later la..

discon already ka? but anyways i wont go sb900, suck battery realll fast.

nissin got power to do bounce flash and at only rm4xx more powerful than sb600 for sure..so going for that.. jimat also