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

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #10574338
I will give away my fastpack 300 (or it might be a 250, I'm not too sure) to the first person here who meets me personally in Hong Kong.

wow!! I like that 300 hahaha... but my trip to china is still on december and I am not even sure if I could drop by hong kong

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #10574338
Then I won't read your post too.... aw darn it... too late.

Maybe this will help
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …&FLI=0&API=0&Le​nsComp=645

Wow, the Nikon kindof bites wide open. I tend to shoot macro lenses at F8 - F32 anyway, ISO200 usually since I use off camera lighting in a soft box. Really anything works at those apertures, probably including the bottom of a milk bottle

monk3y wrote in post #10574401
wow!! I like that 300 hahaha... but my trip to china is still on december and I am not even sure if I could drop by hong kong

I'm serious dude, I don't want to keep it because it takes up too much space in my apartment and my Crumpler Customary Barge takes over the "hybrid backpack" role.

tim wrote in post #10574416
Wow, the Nikon kindof bites wide open. I tend to shoot macro lenses at F8 - F32 anyway, ISO200 usually since I use off camera lighting in a soft box. Really anything works at those apertures, probably including the bottom of a milk bottle

That's true.

I'd say the only reason to get the 105 is for macro too (if you have the 70-200 2.8 VR II that is). I'm not sure about the bokeh difference though. Maybe the 105 has better bokeh... anyone can confirm/deny that?

tim wrote in post #10574416
Wow, the Nikon kindof bites wide open. I tend to shoot macro lenses at F8 - F32 anyway, ISO200 usually since I use off camera lighting in a soft box. Really anything works at those apertures, probably including the bottom of a milk bottle

isn't canon sharper at 100mm f/2.8?, by the way tim, I did saw a book that teach how to use VASELINE to have some soft/dreamy effect on the subject. hahaha I remembered your comment a while back about putting vaseline at f/8-11 and still get sharp photos.

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #10574420
I'm serious dude, I don't want to keep it because it takes up too much space in my apartment and my Crumpler Customary Barge takes over the "hybrid backpack" role.

yeah... that's why its so sad for me..I am so near you yet I can't even get it. or I might if there are no other POTN members there hahaha

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #10574420
I'm not sure about the bokeh difference though. Maybe the 105 has better bokeh... anyone can confirm/deny that?

Personally I don't care about that, unless the bokeh looks like actual poo. Pretty much everything's in focus at F22 anyway.

24-70 + 36mm Kenko Tube
(That's my dinged up wedding band...)

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #10574420
That's true.

I'd say the only reason to get the 105 is for macro too (if you have the 70-200 2.8 VR II that is). I'm not sure about the bokeh difference though. Maybe the 105 has better bokeh... anyone can confirm/deny that?

You can say that about the 100L too.
Honestly they both are good portrait lenses also.

I wouldn't call the 105VR not sharp wide open. That's just crazy, and those charts at TDP will give you nightmares. Not to mention the fact that sometimes it is dead wrong.

tim wrote in post #10574447
Personally I don't care about that, unless the bokeh looks like actual poo. Pretty much everything's in focus at F22 anyway.

That's a good point. If your just stopping down, then the choice is pretty simple. Whatever cost the least.

nicksan wrote in post #10574467
24-70 + 36mm Kenko Tube
(That's my dinged up wedding band...)

how close can you get with this set up? that's amazing details... there's a hair though hehe

nicksan wrote in post #10574467
24-70 + 36mm Kenko Tube
(That's my dinged up wedding band...)

Excellent, that's pretty good for a tube! I guess i'd need a real macro lens to get it much bigger... I sometimes have the ring half the width of the frame. Tubes are $160, a lens $450... not a huge difference really.

monk3y wrote in post #10574487
how close can you get with this set up? that's amazing details... there's a hair though hehe

That's the closest I can get it.

tim wrote in post #10574494
Excellent, that's pretty good for a tube! I guess i'd need a real macro lens to get it much bigger... I sometimes have the ring half the width of the frame. Tubes are $160, a lens $450... not a huge difference really.

Well, you can always use a 1.4x TC but yeah, a dedicated macro will get you closer than that.

I'll decide later... not ordering stuff for a week or two. I'm not looking forward to the bill!

nicksan wrote in post #10574474
I wouldn't call the 105VR not sharp wide open. That's just crazy, and those charts at TDP will give you nightmares. Not to mention the fact that sometimes it is dead wrong.

Agree absolutely. Maybe they tested a bad lens? We have a 105VR and, while I haven't the patience to do detailed tests, I've never looked at anything it's produced at f2.8 and thought whoa that's soft.

Rob

nicksan wrote in post #10574467
24-70 + 36mm Kenko Tube
(That's my dinged up wedding band...)

Looks like you own a dog!

Fred Eric Norris wrote in post #10576108
Looks like you own a dog!

Try 3 cats.