Got a Nikon? Share your thoughts and photos here or ask a question! (II)

"Imported" lenses go to B&W for warranty repairs, USA goes to Nikon.

I went with the 16-35 F4 VR over the 14-24. I wanted VR for dark churches, and the 14-24 looks easy to scratch. F2.8 makes no difference to me for a wide angle lens. 24-70 is an awesome lens, as is the 70-200. I also have the 50 F1.8 G. I looked at the 1.4 but it's slow to focus, and 0.4 stops is nothing really. I think the 17-35 is an older lens.

What are you shooting?

You know, I've got to hand it to Nikon and their stellar high ISO performance handling. I've had this camera since January and I've amazed. ISO 3200 with no effort on my part:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

tim wrote in post #13377944
"Imported" lenses go to B&W for warranty repairs, USA goes to Nikon.

I went with the 16-35 F4 VR over the 14-24. I wanted VR for dark churches, and the 14-24 looks easy to scratch. F2.8 makes no difference to me for a wide angle lens. 24-70 is an awesome lens, as is the 70-200. I also have the 50 F1.8 G. I looked at the 1.4 but it's slow to focus, and 0.4 stops is nothing really. I think the 17-35 is an older lens.

What are you shooting?

I will be shooting land/cityscapes and architecture (obv fast & stabilized doesn't matter) but do I some portraiture and would like to start 2nd shooting events. From what I've read the 14-24 is a little sharper and the 16-35 has more distortion, which could create a lot of extra PP for me. I've heard there are issues with flare on the 14-24 and getting filters on that lens is impossible without an expensive adapter.

For events, the idea of getting an extra stop from the iris vs the shutter is appealing when trying to freeze moving subjects, but if im going wide/close the flash can fill (althought I prefer natural light.) According to snapsort, the D7000's iso performance affords me an extra half stop in high-iso performance and 2.4 stops better dynamic range with the D7000 vs the 7D which i see as the Canon equivalent.

I know I'm asking too much to have a perfect setup as these two subjects (landscape vs event) are so different... I'm just worried that if the D800 is released at a much higher pricepoint, I wouldn't be able to get to a higher megapixel full-frame body. I foresee being interested in making prints up to 40x60 so thats a whole other issue, 12MP from d700 may not cut it for that

I haven't noticed distortion with the 16-35, but I shoot people not straight lines. Perspective distortional, which is common to all lenses, would far outweigh other problems. For architecture you want a tilt shift anyway. VR is really handy when shooting in dark churches. I don't use filters, but landscape people do.

An extra stop at the wide end for portraits is pointless. If your shutter speed's that slow just add light or crank up the iso.

60" prints from a D700 would be awesome.

tim wrote in post #13379491
I haven't noticed distortion with the 16-35, but I shoot people not straight lines. Perspective distortional, which is common to all lenses, would far outweigh other problems. For architecture you want a tilt shift anyway. VR is really handy when shooting in dark churches. I don't use filters, but landscape people do.

An extra stop at the wide end for portraits is pointless. If your shutter speed's that slow just add light or crank up the iso.

60" prints from a D700 would be awesome.

Tim, I know you shoot FF but have you personally seen results from a D7000 + AF-S 17-55 ED-IF DX combo? I can't imagine the 17-55 being as sharp as the 24-70, what are your thoughts/experiences?

bswpu012 wrote in post #13382159
Tim, I know you shoot FF but have you personally seen results from a D7000 + AF-S 17-55 ED-IF DX combo? I can't imagine the 17-55 being as sharp as the 24-70, what are your thoughts/experiences?

I have no knowledge or experience with Nikon crop bodies or the Nikon 17-55 lens.

A crop body with a 17mm lens will have the same perspective distortion as a FF body with a 24mm lens. Perspective distortion gets worse as you get wider, at 16mm on FF it's pretty bad if your subjects are within a few meters of the camera.

Nikon's 35mm f/1.4 as good as Canon's 35L?

Anyone?

vmlopes wrote in post #13375963

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

The Cloud Maker by vmlopes (getting back in the swing), on Flickr

where the hell is the LIKE Button very nice Victor

tim wrote in post #13379491
I haven't noticed distortion with the 16-35, but I shoot people not straight lines. Perspective distortional, which is common to all lenses, would far outweigh other problems. For architecture you want a tilt shift anyway. VR is really handy when shooting in dark churches. I don't use filters, but landscape people do.

An extra stop at the wide end for portraits is pointless. If your shutter speed's that slow just add light or crank up the iso.

60" prints from a D700 would be awesome.

I agree... barrel distortion is present at 16mm but that's it, I don't even notice it much too.

I like it very much btw

tim wrote in post #13382297
IA crop body with a 17mm lens will have the same perspective distortion as a FF body with a 24mm lens. Perspective distortion gets worse as you get wider, at 16mm on FF it's pretty bad if your subjects are within a few meters of the camera.

I understand, I am trying to be *somewhat* budget conscious with my kit however I do prefer the sharpest possible shots. So while a 17-55 + 70-200 combo could provide decent coverage for event/landscape, AND it would free up $1300+, I still would prefer quality FX zooms as opposed to purchasing a DX lens + a specialized (and $1800+) PC-E lens.

You would be in aggrement on this approach?

This is the Nikon thread, so bear with me. My D5100 was damaged by accident (talk about an unlucky past month). Everything works just fine except for the fact that I get pitch-black exposures. The two-curtain shutter doesn't open when I lock the mirror for cleaning. Any way to fix this without sending it in for repair? Glad I can still use my D90 in the meantime I suppose.

anybody care to identify what lens this is?

HTTP response: 500 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 500 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 500 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

bswpu012 wrote in post #13382516
I understand, I am trying to be *somewhat* budget conscious with my kit however I do prefer the sharpest possible shots. So while a 17-55 + 70-200 combo could provide decent coverage for event/landscape, AND it would free up $1300+, I still would prefer quality FX zooms as opposed to purchasing a DX lens + a specialized (and $1800+) PC-E lens.

You would be in aggrement on this approach?

Nope. If you know you might upgrade to a full frame body later i'd buy the 17-55 second hand now, sell it later, and get the 24-70 then.

SuperHuman21 wrote in post #13382584
This is the Nikon thread, so bear with me. My D5100 was damaged by accident (talk about an unlucky past month). Everything works just fine except for the fact that I get pitch-black exposures. The two-curtain shutter doesn't open when I lock the mirror for cleaning. Any way to fix this without sending it in for repair? Glad I can still use my D90 in the meantime I suppose.

Sounds like a dead shutter to me man..in which case, you gotta send it in...And it could be pretty pricey to fix

bswpu012 wrote in post #13382159
Tim, I know you shoot FF but have you personally seen results from a D7000 + AF-S 17-55 ED-IF DX combo? I can't imagine the 17-55 being as sharp as the 24-70, what are your thoughts/experiences?

If you shoot crop, Buy the 17-55, if you shoot FF, buy the 24-70, if you have both, buy the one for the body it would be used more with

The 24-70 is kinda wasted on any crop body, Any difference of sharpness is negated by the fact you're carrying around a much larger and heavier optic and dealing with a much less appealing range (36-105)

I know Nikon's 17-55 isnt really the best piece of glass from a benchwanking perspective, but you should still be able to get fantastic images out of it

Heres some:

http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?len​s=177

From my perspective, I'd save money and get the Sigma 17-50 OS which gives you OS as well as being about half the cost, its also built pretty nice (not as nice as the Nikkor, but its half the price...) and the AF isnt too shabby on it, with the FLD elements and that its probubly one of the best normal-range APS-C zooms out there....its also smaller and lighter than the Nikon...

KenjiS wrote in post #13383727
Sounds like a dead shutter to me man..in which case, you gotta send it in...And it could be pretty pricey to fix

This camera is weak. Even my d90 didn't get anything like this and it fell worse. I was hoping the repair isn't more than a couple hundred.