|
That's still in your zoom range.
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 17:27 |
|
|
Costello Jello posted:That's still in your zoom range. The 50mm 1.4 is a FX lens, right? So on my crop sensor it would equate to something around 75mm? Maybe I'm mistaken.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
MalleusDei posted:The 50mm 1.4 is a FX lens, right? So on my crop sensor it would equate to something around 75mm? Maybe I'm mistaken. The only difference between an FX lens and a DX lens is the sensor size it will cover. A 35mm FX lens on a DX body is going to have the same angle of view as a 35mm DX lens. If you're looking for something nice outside your zoom range, the 85mm f/1.8 might be worth checking out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
MalleusDei posted:The 50mm 1.4 is a FX lens, right? So on my crop sensor it would equate to something around 75mm? Maybe I'm mistaken. Focal length is always the same. The focal lengths listed on all the DX lenses aren't "corrected" to be DX. Your 17-55 provides an FX-equivalent FOV of ~25.5-82.5. The 50mm will give you the same view as your zoom set at 50mm. This confused me for a long time, too. The only difference between DX and FX lenses is that the DX lenses are usually designed for that smaller sensor, and will typically have tremendous vignetting on FX cameras. And if you're willing to consider the 50mm f/1.8D, I bought one new for $90. Unless you need really fast autofocus, it's pretty great. I bought it as a replacement for the 35 when I went to FX, and I've been quite pleased. For under $100, it's hard to go wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
Thanks for clearing that up for me guys!
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
MalleusDei posted:I just picked up a 17-55 2.8 as an upgrade from my kit lens. I have the DX 35, but I was considering selling it and buying the 50mm 1.4, to get something out of my current zoom range. Reasonable, or should I hold on to the 35? There's nothing wrong with a 50, it just isn't a 35. vote_no posted:And if you're willing to consider the 50mm f/1.8D, I bought one new for $90. Unless you need really fast autofocus, it's pretty great. I bought it as a replacement for the 35 when I went to FX, and I've been quite pleased. For under $100, it's hard to go wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
One thing about FX lenses on DX bodies is that the corner performance should be better than on an equivalent DX lens. The edges of a lens's projected image aren't as good as in the center, and since a crop sensor is using less of the projected image (cropping off the edges, hence the term), you're leaving out more of those bad bits. That said, DX lenses are also cheaper overall, and it's probably not worth the extra cost if it came down to getting the FX version over the DX version.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
Yeah but the FX 35 is like 600 so heh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
MalleusDei posted:I just picked up a 17-55 2.8 as an upgrade from my kit lens. I have the DX 35, but I was considering selling it and buying the 50mm 1.4, to get something out of my current zoom range. Reasonable, or should I hold on to the 35? As someone with a lens purchasing problem, I've owned the DX 35, the 50 1.8D, and the 50 1.4D. I had the 1.4 for all of a few weeks before it ended up as part of a trade for something else. It's a great lens, but if you need 50mm that bad, just grab the 1.8 and spend the money you saved getting a 35 too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:As someone with a lens purchasing problem, I've owned the DX 35, the 50 1.8D, and the 50 1.4D. I had the 1.4 for all of a few weeks before it ended up as part of a trade for something else. It's a great lens, but if you need 50mm that bad, just grab the 1.8 and spend the money you saved getting a 35 too. Seems like the consensus is keep the DX 35, and buy something in a zoom range you like/want. The 17-55 should cover me for just about everything and I've been thinking about a telephoto anyway, so maybe that'll be my next lens. Edit: Thanks everyone, I appreciate the advice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
If you're looking for a super cheap tele, and you are OK with manual focus lenses, you might consider the legendary 105mm f/2.5 AI. I followed the thread's recommendation and picked one up for $130. It's awesome, and I'm not even a portrait photographer. If I were, I'd probably never take it off the camera except for candids that needed quick focus. It might be a bit too tight on a DX crop, though. Everyone seems to like the 85mm f/1.8G, too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Anyone have a nifty fifty for Nikon that they want to part with? EDIT: poo poo meant to post this in the proper buy/sell trade, but I guess it can work here as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
pootiebigwang posted:EDIT: poo poo meant to post this in the proper buy/sell trade, but I guess it can work here as well. No it sorta can't, but feel quite free to post in the buy/sell!
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:In my experience the D is actually faster on a body with a capable motor. If the body and lens aren't worn out, yes. My newspaper kit -- some flavor of D2 with a screw-drive 80-200mm they got when they bought D1s in 1999 -- is pretty sloppy. My personal rig, a lightly-used D7000 and like-new '90s 75-300mm, focuses as fast as the OG D1 with 17-35mm AF-S when new. If I had $1000 to spend, I'd get this for the short end. It's what I'm used to, focal-length-wise, and  aperture.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 16:06
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
evil_bunnY posted:In my experience the D is actually faster on a body with a capable motor. That's what she said.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
Hi guys. I'm going to  a bit but the tl:dr is that I'm brand new to consumer-end Nikon DSLR and would like some simple pointers for options for macro. I also want to know if it's OK to buy an off-brand second battery or if I should stick to the (much more expensive) Nikon ones. OK so: I've been a Canon loyalist for decades, but have never owned a DSLR before. My first camera was a Kodak 110 flippy camera I had as a kid, but my first "real" camera was a Canon AE-1. When I went digital I stuck with canon. Also love their printers. My last camera that I've enjoyed for several years is a PowerShot A720IS. I actually got the add-on 250 D lens for it since I do a lot of macro photography. I've been hitting the limits of an older point-and-shoot lately, though, and months ago I got to jawing with my dad about cameras and he has been using Nikon for as long as I've been shooting Canon. He has some Nikon DSLR from 5 years ago, I don't know what exactly. So last friday was my birthday and out of the blue he bought me a Nikon D3200! It's a package deal, I think from Costco, which came with a nice bag and two lenses: the AF-S DX 18-55/3.5-5.6G VR, and the AF-S DX VR 55-200/4-5.6G IF-ED. Also a little plug-in wireless adapter, like five manuals, a copy of ViewNX2, a video to watch, a book about taking photos... all kinds of poo poo. I'm blown away by the generosity of the gift, but I'm also completely new to Nikon. I'm starting in on my stack of manuals, and my dad pointed me at some online reviewer guy named Ken Rockwell who basically says for most things the best camera is the D3100 which I guess is why he picked this one. The thing is, I don't see much on there about macro photos. One of the reasons I loved my A720IS so much is that in macro mode, the minimum focal distance was extremely short. I can get sharp focus on a bug standing less than an inch from the lens. I've gotten some good results (by sub-$200 point-and-shoot pocket camera standards of 2008) by getting very close to the subject. So my question 1 is, Can I get decent Macro results with the AF-S DX 18-55, or should I consider a dedicated macro lens? If the latter, do I have any reasonable sub-$200 options? I'm also used to a camera that takes AA batteries. The advice seems to be that I'm going to want at least one more rechargable battery for my D3200. I looked on Amazon and I see a bunch of off-brand batteries for around $17+ for one. Also an option of two off-brand batteries with a cigarette-lighter charger for $40. Are these cheap batteries going to gently caress up my camera somehow? A genuine Nikon battery seems to be $50, which strikes me as crazy expensive, but what do I know. So my question 2 is, What battery should I buy?. Thanks for your help.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:
In order of cheap to spendy: Extension tubes (you lose metering and af with these unless you opt for expensive automatic tubes that allow AF and Metering), Raynox Macro Filter, 50mm 1.8 + reversal ring, 40mm Micro, 85, 90, 105, 200mm Micro. The third party battery question is gonna piss you off. All 3rd party batteries are crippled now by Nikon and a firmware update. You are stuck with Nikon brand batteries. Musket fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Feb 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Thanks for your help. Firstly, stop listening to anything Ken Rockwell says except for lens specifications. Then buy a used 40 2.8 which will probably be less than $200 used since it's like $250 or something new.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
What's a cheap FX macro lens? Or should I just get extension tubes?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
1st AD posted:What's a cheap FX macro lens? Or should I just get extension tubes? The 60 2.8 isn't too expensive. Or the Tamron 90.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
I don't think anyone makes a bad 90 macro anymore. So get that.
evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Feb 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
I picked up a screw drive Tamron 90mm off KEH and have been very happy with it. Most of my shots in this gallery are with it: http://jonhustead.smugmug.com/Other/Bugs/i-k59f2NK (there are a couple with an older AI Nikon 100mm)
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
The 40mm Micro Nikkor is a great lens that can focus extremely close, but it is terrible for actual macro work. At 1:1, your working distance is only an inch and change. You can do macro with it, but it's extremely difficult to light your subject. The 105 Micro is also a superb lens and gives you enough working distance to make macro work practical. It won't autofocus on your D3200, but you'll probably find yourself manually focusing for macro anyway. It's about $300 used, as are most of the third-party macro lenses in this focal length range.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
Musket posted:In order of cheap to spendy: Extension tubes (you lose metering and af with these unless you opt for expensive automatic tubes that allow AF and Metering), Raynox Macro Filter, 50mm 1.8 + reversal ring, 40mm Micro, 85, 90, 105, 200mm Micro. OK, thanks for this rundown. It looks like a Raynox snap-on is a good inexpensive option. Is this the 40mm you mean? That's outside my budget for today, but something I could save up for pretty easily. SoundMonkey posted:Firstly, stop listening to anything Ken Rockwell says except for lens specifications. May I ask why? This is just some dude's blog my dad reads, so I have nothing invested there, I'm just curious. quote:Then buy a used 40 2.8 which will probably be less than $200 used since it's like $250 or something new. The 40mm I linked above is pre-order on Amazon. Is there an older model I should search for? TheJeffers posted:The 40mm Micro Nikkor is a great lens that can focus extremely close, but it is terrible for actual macro work. At 1:1, your working distance is only an inch and change. You can do macro with it, but it's extremely difficult to light your subject. Oh. Well, I have used autofocus when for example trying to catch insects in flight, but part of that is because manual focus on the fly on a point-and-shoot is somewhat cumbersome. But I assume for most purposes I'll be using manual focus when doing macro shots, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:May I ask why? This is just some dude's blog my dad reads, so I have nothing invested there, I'm just curious. He's got some real bad and wrong opinions that don't make any sense (tripods are obsolete, the SB-400 isn't worthless garbage, the D40 is good, superzooms make (something) obsolete, filter diameters are "wrong", every G lens is terrible, tried to both invent and copyright 'RealRaw' and 'RealRaw EXR' to refer to film) and at one point actually reviewed a lens that doesn't exist. His photos are pretty bad too but his advice is worse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
In addition, his "crappy superzoom is just as sharp as this 24-70 and is cheaper and lighter therefore don't buy the 24-70" is sooo misleading and his example photos suck real bad and are useless for the basis of comparison.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
1st AD posted:In addition, his "crappy superzoom is just as sharp as this 24-70 and is cheaper and lighter therefore don't buy the 24-70" is sooo misleading and his example photos suck real bad and are useless for the basis of comparison. I mean he's terrible enough he even has a Dorkroom thread tag just for him. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Well alrighty then! Hey I just dug out my old AE-1 and I'd totally forgotten I have this Vivitar Series 1 28-105mm F2.8-f3.5 lens. Can I assume since this mounted to a Canon that it won't mount to a Nikon? Also haha I have the receipt in the box, I paid $239 in August 2000 for this lens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Canon FD lenses definitely don't mount to Nikon F without corrective optics (which are universally terrible please don't look into this). However you totally can mount Nikon F lenses to both Canon FD and EF bodies with cheap glassless adapters from eBay if you're ever inclined to do so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
OK, thank you. You camera guys are a big help.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
There's also keh.com if you want to check out some cheaper used lenses. Their rating systems are very conservative as well. You could also use 35mm Nikon lenses (AI and up), but you won't get autofocus and/or metering. No autofocus because those lenses use the screw-drive to do the focussing and your D3200 doesn't have that (D7100 and up), and no metering if they do not have the electronics inside. Also, because Nikon is weird, their macro lenses are called micro. On keh: The 40mm micro is $205 for an EX lens 60mm looks to be $245 for an EX lens 85mm: $364 for an EX Basically ken rockwell's thought process consists of: - You should buy this, it is the best thing in the world - I'm a professional photographer and if you want to be a professional too do what I do. - Everything I do is the best thing in the world because I do it. Did I mention that I'm a professional photographer? - My opinion is the most important opinion. I'm a professional photographer. - My gear is the best gear in the world, because I am a professional photographer. The only thing he's said that is completely true is his advice not to listen to any photographer who doesn't show off his portfolio. Mostly because it applies to him. Pictures he takes? Always a palm tree, pictures of his kids, and the headlight of his car. Basically nothing else. He's also posted reviews of newly released products which nobody has used yet. Like the new Nikon D3300, before he edited it, was a copy paste of his D3200 article with 3200 replaced with 3300. Already has his opinion and his thoughts shooting with it, even though nobody outside of Nikon had used it at that point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
1st AD posted:In addition, his "crappy superzoom is just as sharp as this 24-70 and is cheaper and lighter therefore don't buy the 24-70" is sooo misleading and his example photos suck real bad and are useless for the basis of comparison. My favorite is his "super telephotos are totally useless because real sports photographers get invited to the athletes homes and wildlife photographers go to the zoo" e: so this isn't just a krock post here's a high iso comparison of the new D4s vs the D4 in case any of you were wondering if it was worth it to upgrade your $6000 camera. ISO 409600 yall 800peepee51doodoo fucked around with this message at 15:47 on Feb 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
At anything lower than like 6400, it looks exactly the same except there's more NR done in camera apparently?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
1st AD posted:At anything lower than like 6400, it looks exactly the same except there's more NR done in camera apparently? Digital Gain is a blessing/curse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Also, nice of them to pick a model with strabismus to do close crop facial shots with, Lucy Liu has done wonders for this condition's acceptance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:Basically ken rockwell's thought process consists of: Like his D4S review that he posted months ago? SHOOTING WITH MY D4S IS JUST LIKE SHOOTING WITH MY D4 (which, if he doesn't actually own a D4 was a totally 100% factual and true statement) I'm glad KRock exists because just mentioning his name causes spasms of grief and rage on DPR and it makes me laugh. I dunno that his mission to convince sperging dads to stop worrying about having ULTRAGEAR to take photos of their kids soccer game is succeeding in any way whatsoever, but it's fun to watch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
So I'm debating getting a manual focus camera so I can use my grandfathers old glass and waste tons of money on film. I've read about older nikon and was wondering if anyone here can give me their opinions on what would be better to get, a FA or a FE2?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
Ezekiel_980 posted:So I'm debating getting a manual focus camera so I can use my grandfathers old glass and waste tons of money on film. I've read about older nikon and was wondering if anyone here can give me their opinions on what would be better to get, a FA or a FE2? For what it's worth a lot of nikons have manual focus and will work with those lenses. I think everything up from the baseline 3xxx series can autofocus them. e: Jesus sorry let me reword that: A lot of nikons will autofocus older lenses. Err wait are you referring to manual only lenses. Sorry! I'm retarded. VelociBacon fucked around with this message at 05:53 on Mar 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:For what it's worth a lot of nikons have manual focus and will work with those lenses. I think everything up from the baseline 3xxx series can autofocus them. wat
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 05:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 17:27 |
|
|
Nikon has been manual focus since 1959. They never stopped  **Nikon 1 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 06:07
|
|
