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

jdizzle wrote in post #9809606
Wow! That lens is sharp! Thanks for posting those samples.

Off topic: Who is that dude in your avatar Lisa? Clay Aiken?

Yeah it looks really nice. There's a thread on the cafe too...not great samples yet but it shows some lovely bokeh. Here's the pbase link from that thread
http://www.pbase.com/s​arheat/nikkor_24mm_f14​_

and GAH!! NO!

Laurence Olivier

Took a test run on Monday with the D3. Storm clouds came but, no rain. On a downside of things no spectacular light showed up. So, I converted it to b&w. Let me know what you guys think. Thanks!

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Redirected to error image by ZENFOLIO PROTECTED

^ clouds look great, but the water's a bit static for my taste?

Permagrin wrote in post #9808927
Did I miss it being posted already...did you guys see that the nikon 24 1.4 is $2200 usd??

unfortunately yes. I've got one on order with the funds sitting in my paypal account. I had to sell my 24-70G and 14-24G to fund it (swapped them out for different less expensive options).

I'm digging this shot:
http://photo.net …b/photo?photo_i​d=10794572

Played around with friends d3 last night with a 80-400 lens. Thinking about getting this lens if i buy a nik for sports. Unsure about it though seemed a bit slow to focus... any thoughts?

Yeah...To rich for me. I'm pretty satisfied with my lineup...hard to get better than that.
That's funny, the MGM is where we usually stay in Vegas. Makes me wanna go back! Go thing we've got tickies for June

Permagrin wrote in post #9808927
Did I miss it being posted already...did you guys see that the nikon 24 1.4 is $2200 usd??

edit: probably did. I see it's been known for a while. I don't know why I thought it was $1699

more samples from it:
http://photo.net …lder.tcl?folder​_id=958843

jacobsen1 wrote in post #9813819
^ clouds look great, but the water's a bit static for my taste?

I agree the water is pretty static but, the wind was blowing prety hard here. If I went for a longer exposure, the trees would've been blurred. I had to shoot something while I was out.

I was wondering about the 35 f/2 and it's performance. How is it? Thanks!

J_TULLAR wrote in post #9813945
Played around with friends d3 last night with a 80-400 lens. Thinking about getting this lens if i buy a nik for sports. Unsure about it though seemed a bit slow to focus... any thoughts?

I have heard very specifically that it is too slow for sports. If you have a crop body, I am a huge fan of the 70-300VR if its fast enough and has enough reach. If not, you may want to consider a 70-200VR and a TC, or a fast prime, but those get expensive very quickly. At least, to me they are very expensive.

J_TULLAR wrote in post #9813945
Played around with friends d3 last night with a 80-400 lens. Thinking about getting this lens if i buy a nik for sports. Unsure about it though seemed a bit slow to focus... any thoughts?

The 80-400 is an absolute wreck when it comes to AF speed, which is why people are clamoring for an AF-S upgrade. Check out the 70-300; similar range and it focuses far faster. It's not quite ring USM if I recall correctly, but the micromotor USM is far faster then the Canon 70-300's.

J_TULLAR wrote in post #9813945
Played around with friends d3 last night with a 80-400 lens. Thinking about getting this lens if i buy a nik for sports. Unsure about it though seemed a bit slow to focus... any thoughts?

I agree. It's well known for it's slow AF. The 70-300VR is better but still a bit slow to AF action. The 300F4EDIF is a nice lens, about the same price as the 80-400 but much faster AF than both of those. Even the 70-200 VR1 has faster af with a tc than both of those first two.

jdizzle wrote in post #9814231
I was wondering about the 35 f/2 and it's performance. How is it? Thanks!

Great bang for the buck lens. For me it's good enough that I don't even hardly want a 2200 dollar 35 1.4 if they ever come out with it. I posted sample pics earlier in this thread! It's small and light, decently quick to af, a little noisy (screw drive) but definitely usable wide open and has good bokeh.

Mr. Clean wrote in post #9814956
Great bang for the buck lens. For me it's good enough that I don't even hardly want a 2200 dollar 35 1.4 if they ever come out with it. I posted sample pics earlier in this thread! It's small and light, decently quick to af, a little noisy (screw drive) but definitely usable wide open and has good bokeh.

yeah, I've determined to make due with my ai-s 35 instead of shelling out the cash for the 24 either. My zooms are good enough for almost everything. And we have the 50, 60 and 85 AF primes so I think I'll just work on getting better with mf.

Permagrin wrote in post #9815052
yeah, I've determined to make due with my ai-s 35 instead of shelling out the cash for the 24 either. My zooms are good enough for almost everything. And we have the 50, 60 and 85 AF primes so I think I'll just work on getting better with mf.

hahaha, isn't that the truth. You can totally tell the 85 1.4 pics vs the 24-70 pics of my car. Dure the DOF gives it away but the clarity and sharpness of the 24-70 are just in a class of their own.

Dean Rachwitz wrote in post #9814411
I have heard very specifically that it is too slow for sports. If you have a crop body, I am a huge fan of the 70-300VR if its fast enough and has enough reach. If not, you may want to consider a 70-200VR and a TC, or a fast prime, but those get expensive very quickly. At least, to me they are very expensive.

I also use the 70-300 VR only on FF. It replaced my 100-400 and I don't have any regrets.

Mr. Clean wrote in post #9815395
hahaha, isn't that the truth. You can totally tell the 85 1.4 pics vs the 24-70 pics of my car. Dure the DOF gives it away but the clarity and sharpness of the 24-70 are just in a class of their own.

if only they made a f/2 or faster zoom I'd be content with zooms.

Soft open wide but since it's cheap it's understandable. Starting f/2.8 is sharp.

jdizzle wrote in post #9814231
I was wondering about the 35 f/2 and it's performance. How is it? Thanks!