|
The Locator posted:I appreciate that good lenses are expensive, but for my purposes (I am not a professional by any stretch of the imagination) it's just far beyond the price I could consider paying. I do understand it's a professional lens and may be priced appropriately, but drat, for a hobby type user like myself, it's still expensive as hell! There's always the excellent Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 with VR if your budget doesn't stretch to the Nikon one. What I would kill for is a FX version of the 40mm Micro-Nikkor. Please make it happen Nikon!
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 10:38 |
|
|
The Tamron is legit really good if you don't feel like throwing nikon a cool 2Gs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
The Locator posted:I appreciate that good lenses are expensive, but for my purposes (I am not a professional by any stretch of the imagination) it's just far beyond the price I could consider paying. I do understand it's a professional lens and may be priced appropriately, but drat, for a hobby type user like myself, it's still expensive as hell! This bears repeating but photography is a terrible hobby that is a giant pit of burning money
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
1st AD posted:This bears repeating but photography is a terrible hobby that is a giant pit of burning money it's a matter of perspective. ever met someone whose hobby is boats or planes?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
If I have a D7000, what's the next step up for me? I remember thinking the D7100 added some features and took some away, and on balance, I didn't like it more than the D7000. I don't have such an opinion (yet, I'm still looking) about the D7200. (Edit: It looks like the big thing I didn't like about the 7100 is fixed in the 7200 - buffer size.) Is the D7200 worth it over the D7000? What's the next step from there? What should I consider? It looks like a D7200 runs $1200 from KEH, so a D800 isn't much of a stretch at $1600. I know the glass I have wouldn't work on (or, wouldn't take full advantage of) the D800, but is it worth stepping up to anyway? Krakkles fucked around with this message at 05:28 on Jul 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
what do you want to do with a new camera that you can't do with the 7000 now?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
From a D7000, I'd say the next step is full frame (D610, D750, D810). But that's assuming you're actually starting to feel limited by your gear somehow.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 08:08
|
|
|
Think long and hard about whether you need anything better, and whether the upgrades are worth the literal weight on your shoulders.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 10:17
|
|
|
I'm interested in that new 16-80mm DX, but the only two reviews I've spotted are Rockwell's which isn't particularly useful, and one in Czech which is only slightly more helpful. Any particularly good sites to keep an eye on who get fast but good feedback on new releases? Or just wait for feedback on DPreview? It's a lot of money, but it sounds like the ideal walk about (if only it was a fixed 2.8 but it's expensive enough without that).
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 12:53
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:I'm interested in that new 16-80mm DX, but the only two reviews I've spotted are Rockwell's which isn't particularly useful, and one in Czech which is only slightly more helpful. Any particularly good sites to keep an eye on who get fast but good feedback on new releases? Or just wait for feedback on DPreview? It's a lot of money, but it sounds like the ideal walk about (if only it was a fixed 2.8 but it's expensive enough without that). I'm having trouble understanding why anybody would buy this lens when a used 17-55 f/2.8 DX in KEH EX condition is less money (and the Tamron 17-50 non-VC that everybody seems to love is like a third of the price used). You should probably look at those.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 13:21
|
|
|
That's exactly why I'm keen to read feedback, I want a comparison especially to that 17-55, as anything I buy in this range would be replacing my 17-55 kit that I recently picked up and dig. The extra reach on that 80mm is quite useful and the new lens is saying 4 stops of VR (and I feel like a caffeine riddled jittery shooter even at low focal ranges) which might be to my advantage... but yeah, I won't be pointlessly splurging out cash on a lens just because it's the latest thing out there so quality feedback is what I'm waiting for.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 13:28
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:I'm interested in that new 16-80mm DX, but the only two reviews I've spotted are Rockwell's which isn't particularly useful, and one in Czech which is only slightly more helpful. Any particularly good sites to keep an eye on who get fast but good feedback on new releases? Or just wait for feedback on DPreview? It's a lot of money, but it sounds like the ideal walk about (if only it was a fixed 2.8 but it's expensive enough without that). help me understand how the 16-80 is really worth 10x as much as the kit lens heck i don't even understand how a used 17-55 2.8 is worth 5x as much as the kit lens
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
That's the boat I'm in. If the evidence isn't there to say why this lens is worth the extra money, I won't be buying it. I don't have the cash to throw away aimlessly, and I try to buy S/H whenever I can. It's definitely a lot of money given from what I can tell, it's the same quality of build as the rest of the DX line (i.e. fine but nothing special). I think this will end in no purchase, but it's definitely a lens that's intrigued me so it's worth looking into.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:what do you want to do with a new camera that you can't do with the 7000 now? 404notfound posted:From a D7000, I'd say the next step is full frame (D610, D750, D810). But that's assuming you're actually starting to feel limited by your gear somehow. evil_bunnY posted:Think long and hard about whether you need anything better, and whether the upgrades are worth the literal weight on your shoulders. I'd say the things that I value that I think the 7200 (or something else) might do better are: shooting fast (either higher FPS or larger buffer, or both), shooting in low light (7000 is good, are others better?), and better autofocus (again, 7000 is good, are others better?). Resolution, I'm not unhappy with, but jumping to 24mp wouldn't probably make my pictures worse. I'm not set on going full frame, but if the 800 or another camera offers big advantages, I'm open to it. What is the difference between 610, 750, and 810? 610 looks practical, cost wise, so it'd be the most likely of those - is the 610 better than the 800? (800 is within the price range, 810 is probably not). Krakkles fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Jul 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:That's the boat I'm in. If the evidence isn't there to say why this lens is worth the extra money, I won't be buying it. I don't have the cash to throw away aimlessly, and I try to buy S/H whenever I can. It's definitely a lot of money given from what I can tell, it's the same quality of build as the rest of the DX line (i.e. fine but nothing special). What kind of evidence would convince you that it's a valid purchase?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:What kind of evidence would convince you that it's a valid purchase? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
Update: I'm looking at online specs, and it looks like the 610 doesn't offer what I like (fast responsive shooting, specifically) - so I'm looking at the 800 or the 7200. For the most part, specs seems slightly on the side of the D800, but I'm not sure how much benefit I'd see without FX lenses - would I be able to use it in DX mode and get still get the benefits? (like, 36MP isn't possible through DX lenses, right?) Also, the 7200 is a brand new camera, whereas the 800 is about 3 years old at this point. Probably doesn't matter, but maybe the newer processors are better or something?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:What kind of evidence would convince you that it's a valid purchase? Essentially the elements that I can't deduce from tech listings. Does the 4th stop of VR genuinely help much? What is the build quality like? Is the lens sharp through the entire focal range, and if not where does it suffer? etc I trust people who handle a wide range of lenses professionally, and if the consensus is that Nikon are charging too much money for a lens that doesn't do much more than what I have, I'll go on my merry way. As said earlier, I would've prefer a fixed 2.8 aperture across the board so that's already a mark against it for me. I bought the 18-55 because I found it cheap. I like it enough that it was pretty much the only lens I used on my last trip, but it's not perfect and for something I paid $70 for I'm not expecting it to be. I've got lenses from 17mm up to 300mm and I find 17-55 covers most of the range I like, but a bit more on either end for a single lens would be nice. I'm aware there's a few variants of the kit that extend it further, so I'm looking into where my money is best spent. Until I see real feedback on the new one, I don't have an opinion on it. EL BROMANCE fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Jul 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:Essentially the elements that I can deduce from tech listings. Does the 4th stop of VR genuinely help much? What is the build quality like? Is the lens sharp through the entire focal range, and if not where does it suffer? etc I trust people who handle a wide range of lenses professionally, and if the consensus is that Nikon are charging too much money for a lens that doesn't do much more than what I have, I'll go on my merry way. As said earlier, I would've prefer a fixed 2.8 aperture across the board so that's already a mark against it for me. Has Nikon published anywhere where the aperture starts to drop off? If it's anything like the sigma (17-70) it's not worth it over the 17-5X 2.8's just for that because it starts to drop off @24mm, and gets to f/4 by 45mm or so. It's a better replacement for the 1X-8X 3.5-5.6 zooms more than the 17-5X 2.8's
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
Oops, meant 'Cant deduce', but are the manufacturers published specs gospel for things like that? I'd like to think so, but there's so much bullshitting out there for every type of product that I like to find independent, comparative reviews personally. e: and just to clarify, I don't have the 18-55 2.8, I have the 3.5-5.6 kit version. Someone else brought up the 2.8 which is a bit cheaper than this new lens, more available on the second hand market and I think it's a metal build as well. I'm probably being selfish and want the best of both lenses in one at $1,000. I'm guessing one of the 3rd parties has it covered at least.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
Just generally speaking I think it's an error to think in terms of 2/3/4 times as good = 2/3/4x the cost. I think with any enthusiast stuff you'll find that at a point the product that is 25% better is going to cost 5x whatever you're comparing it against. If you're expecting a lens that is 10x the cost of a kit lens to be TEN TIMES as good, you're going to be disappointed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
I like the range of my 24-120 on full frame. The classic 24-70 zoom range always seems a bit too short on the long end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:Just generally speaking I think it's an error to think in terms of 2/3/4 times as good = 2/3/4x the cost. I think with any enthusiast stuff you'll find that at a point the product that is 25% better is going to cost 5x whatever you're comparing it against. If you're expecting a lens that is 10x the cost of a kit lens to be TEN TIMES as good, you're going to be disappointed. Absolutely. I always think the same in anything involving technology, and working out where the sweet spot is for price/performance. The 'lets mock audiophiles' thread is bookmarked for this reason. powderific posted:I like the range of my 24-120 on full frame. The classic 24-70 zoom range always seems a bit too short on the long end. Yep, I found myself wanting to expand past the 55mm of my 18-55, and find I stay mainly between 70-120 on my 70-300. Would be nice to cover 90% of what I find myself shooting at in a single lens. If a more expensive lens doesn't offer me much, I know there's a 18-120 or something along those lines that's essentially the kit lens with more range.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
If you want FPS and a cool buffer stick to a high end DX body.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:If you want FPS and a cool buffer stick to a high end DX body.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
powderific posted:I like the range of my 24-120 on full frame. The classic 24-70 zoom range always seems a bit too short on the long end. I picked up a cheap 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5, and while not being the fastest lens, it is my general walkabout one. Also does 1:2 macro which is a bonus.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 11:45
|
|
|
Krakkles posted:Roger that. Ordered the 7200! edit: yes i know its way more, but it's literally the only body that has pulled me from replacing my own D7000.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
What do you guys think of the Sigma 105MM F/2.8 MACRO DG EX (1:1) as compared to the Nikon 85MM F/3.5 G MICRO ED DX AF-S VR? This would be for macro photography, both indoor still photos on a tripod and outdoor nature photography in handheld. I'm shooting with a D3200. On KEH I can get a like-new Sigma 105 for $328 compared to the Nikon 85 costing $418. Seems to me the 105mm wins on aperture, speed, and price... but loses on VR. I'm having a hard time deciding which is more useful to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:What do you guys think of the Sigma 105MM F/2.8 MACRO DG EX (1:1) as compared to the Nikon 85MM F/3.5 G MICRO ED DX AF-S VR? If you want to shoot macro handheld then VR is def. worth it. And because you rarely shoot macro at f2.8 (at least I don't because dof) you can make good use of the extra stops the VR adds. Another thing to consider is that the Sigma is a full frame lens and the Nikon is a DX lens, so if you ever plan to upgrade your body to full frame you'll be able to keep using the Sigma. Oh, and some websites say the Sigma has better optics. I'd lean toward the Sigma. Have you checked if there are any OS HSM versions of that lens available for a similar prices? Because that would make the decision a no-brainer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 11:49
|
|
|
Nikon set to unleash AF-S Nikkor 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR lens
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
Caryna posted:If you want to shoot macro handheld then VR is def. worth it. And because you rarely shoot macro at f2.8 (at least I don't because dof) you can make good use of the extra stops the VR adds. Another thing to consider is that the Sigma is a full frame lens and the Nikon is a DX lens, so if you ever plan to upgrade your body to full frame you'll be able to keep using the Sigma. Oh, and some websites say the Sigma has better optics. Thank you. Can you explain what OS HSM means?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Thank you. Can you explain what OS HSM means? Ahh, sorry. OS is Sigma's version of VR and HSM (Hyper Sonic Motor) is their newer/better focusing motor. So basically an updated version of the lens you are looking at: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-105mm-f-2.8-EX-DG-OS-HSM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx Here in the UK you can get them new for less than $600. So I think you might be able to find a used one that's in your price range and definitely worth the few extra bucks. It's a beast of a lens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
This is going to be one to watch for us wildlife photographers, it seems to be Nikon's answer to the Tamron and Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 lenses. Sigma Contemporary/Tamron are ~USD$1100. Nikon 200-500 is listed at about USD$1400 on Amazon, B&H, and Adorama. Sigma Sport is $2,000. So if the Nikon is super sharp at f/5.6 or 6.3 @ 500mm it might be worth getting over the Tamron or Sigma. (though I don't have any personal experience with the Sigma yet) The Tamron usually isn't super sharp until f/8, and is more reliably sharp at f/9 but the bokeh gets ugly. Then just add the Nikon 1.4x extender and shoot at f/8 @ 700mm. It's appreciably heavier than the Tamron or Sigma C by a little over a third of a kilo, though still lighter than the Sigma S. Has a shorter minimum focus than any of the other lenses, too. Sample images all shot wide open at f/5.6: http://www.nikon-image.com/products/lens/nikkor/af-s_nikkor_200-500mm_f56e_ed_vr/sample.html Goddamn. Kenshin fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Aug 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:This is going to be one to watch for us wildlife photographers, it seems to be Nikon's answer to the Tamron and Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 lenses. Wow, if that lens fits the kind of shooting you do, then the results really look fantastic. The bokeh is so pleasing and although those are downsampled, the images seem to be plenty sharp wide open.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
Caryna posted:Ahh, sorry. OS is Sigma's version of VR and HSM (Hyper Sonic Motor) is their newer/better focusing motor. So basically an updated version of the lens you are looking at: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-105mm-f-2.8-EX-DG-OS-HSM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx Ah! Yeah, $570. Two hundred fifty bucks more is kind of a lot. I'd have to really want that VR and motor I guess. But thank you for the recommendation. It's tough for me to justify a single lens that costs more than my entire camera and the two kit lenses it came with put together, but... man, this hobby is crazy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Ah! Yeah, $570. Two hundred fifty bucks more is kind of a lot. I'd have to really want that VR and motor I guess. But thank you for the recommendation. It's tough for me to justify a single lens that costs more than my entire camera and the two kit lenses it came with put together, but... man, this hobby is crazy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
So I just started a new photography job and they gave me a D4S. Holy gently caress it's a monster and since I'm a Canon shooter I'm SO lost. Everything is backwards, the power switch is....attached to the shutter button (da fuq?) and the menus are vastly different. I have a lot of learning to do and figuring out how to make the best of something so foreign to me!
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
I love that the power switch is attached to the shutter button, because you can just pull it out with one hand and be shooting 11 fps bursts before you've even raised it to your eye
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:I love that the power switch is attached to the shutter button, because you can just pull it out with one hand and be shooting 11 fps bursts before you've even raised it to your eye
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 10:38 |
|
|
somnambulist posted:So I just started a new photography job and they gave me a D4S. Holy gently caress it's a monster and since I'm a Canon shooter I'm SO lost. Everything is backwards, the power switch is....attached to the shutter button (da fuq?) and the menus are vastly different. Wild EEPROM posted:I love that the power switch is attached to the shutter button, because you can just pull it out with one hand and be shooting 11 fps bursts before you've even raised it to your eye Somna, what I'd advise is running through the custom settings on a quiet evening, and making good use of the customizable menu, then bind it to a button. Back button AF-start is your friend.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 11:01
|
|