If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Help me pick out a lens for the Nikon D80
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 05:55:11 GMT, Jürgen Exner wrote:
As far as I know you are the only person I have ever heard of that has said that the 60mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor does not perform well. Thank you. I truely appreciate this clarification. I readily admit that I don't own this lens. However I have been looking for a macro lens for myself recently and the review at http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...duct/98/cat/12 for the lens isn't all that great. Not much information was provided as to how slrgear tested this lens. Aperture and focal length (fixed at 60mm) was displayed in interactive charts, but I didn't find any mention of the lens to subject distance that was used for the tests. Were the distance the same as was used in the tests for the 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.8 lenses? Was it 6 inches? 10 feet? 20 meters? BTW, if you play with the interactive chart, you'll see that almost all of the terrible blur is gone by the time the lens is closed down one stop. Unfortunately, the lens to subject distance wasn't shown, and it's an important factor. According to http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html (David Ruether's SUBJECTIVE Lens Evaluations) the 60mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor rated 3.5 at infinity and 5.2 at close distances, with the comment that at infinity the poor performance wide open eventually became excellent when closed down. Not surprising, since the Micro lenses are really designed to be at their best at close distances. These ratings ("subjective lens evaluation numbers") are described as: 3 -- fair image quality, perhaps good at one or two stops 4 -- good to excellent image quality at most normally used stops, a professional-level lens, but with some limitations (this level, with many fractional gradations, includes most Nikkors) 5 -- excellent image quality at all stops, with only minor limitations So the lens had excellent performance at all stops at close distances, and probably low quality wide open at infinity, but fair to good performance at infinity when closed down. Slrgear's review is incomplete and may well be misleading. Ruether also shows how many lenses were used for the evaluations, which can range from 1 to many. For the 60mm Micro two lenses were tested. Slrgear doesn't provide this information, so the number of lenses tested is probably one, which doesn't allow the reviewer to account for any sample variation. Interestingly, there are two different 105mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor lenses (an AF and a MF version) and Slgear prefers one of these to the 60mm lens, but doesn't indicate which of the two was compared. Ruether's ratings for both of these lenses (5 samples) were 4.4 and 4.8 at close distances, so according to his evaluations, the 60mm lenses outperformed the 105mm lenses at close distances. At infinity, the 105mm lenses outperformed the 60mm Micros, but if the "Micro" designation means anything, their purpose in life is to be used close up, not at infinity. Also, there wasn't any mention that the 105mm lens underwent the same tests. Just that the reviewer used one extensively on his own D70 and in his opinion the 60mm lens didn't do as well wide open. This sort of anecdotal comparison, while useful or interesting in other types of reviews, isn't what belongs in what purports to be a scientifically performed set of lens measurements and evaluations. One would also like to see the charts for the 105mm Micro Nikkor, perhaps some measure of flatness of field, and the aforementioned lens to subject test distances. Although it would require more work, the lenses would ideally also be tested at several standard distances, allowing the results to be compared with "standard" 50mm non-Micro lenses that undergo similar tests. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Help me pick out a lens for the Nikon D80
C J Campbell wrote:
On 2007-04-29 08:45:17 -0700, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04 @aol.com said: C J Campbell wrote: I also like the 18-200mm VR lens. It focuses closely enough for light macro work. It has enough telephoto to bring the mountains closer for those background mountain shots. It has decent mid-range zoom for portraits. It goes wide enough for landscapes. TOTAL AND UTTER BULL****! I see you labelled your post properly. It describes pretty much everything that followed that line. The 18-200mm VR does *NOT* do macro it does close-up work. It does have a decent FoV equivalent to a 135mm lens, but it would have been nice for it to have the same as a 200mm lens. The biggest problem with this lens is its poor build quality and poor light gathering properties. The lens creep and many complaints of the front element working its way loose and falling off are totally unacceptable. And what compounds the problem is the need to have a lot of light to wake this lens up. I find it near impossible to shoot below ISO 400 and +0.7 EV compensation. It's a decent walk around lens in principle, but takes a lot of work to get used to if you are accustomed to shooting with good glass. It's overpriced for what you get. Fortunately I was able to sell a total of three of these dogs to offset the cost of justify keeping mine. At $750 it is a rip-off and Nikon should be ashamed of themselves. Pity the fool that paid more than $750 MSRP, though I'm glad they do. You say close-up; I say light macro, which is probably not as technically correct but still reasonable. The lens has the FOV of a 200mm lens when focused at infinity, which is what the OP would be doing when taking pictures of distant mountains. That is what he wanted it for, after all. Poor build quality and poor light gathering qualities are subjective. Most reviewers rave about this lens. You, OTOH, have a hatred that borders on psychopathic. "Many" complaints about the front element falling off? Nonsense. This is a new complaint that you made up. Neither is lens creep unique to this lens. It is common to nearly all lenses in the price range that the OP was talking about. Not everyone can afford to spent $1500 on a lens, Rita. The biggest lens creep around here is you. I have had it with your unsubstantiated claims. Just once I would like to see where you showed that you knew what you were talking about. The fact is, the few pictures you have posted have been very inferior work. Thanks, C.J., I agree. The 18-200mm VR is an excellent, sharp lens, and very versatile. I've been very happy with it and recommend it highly as an all-in-one. Tuli |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Help me pick out a lens for the Nikon D80
On Apr 29, 4:39 am, "Gary Seven" wrote:
Hello all. Can some of you good folks here help me out here? I am thinking about buying the Nikon D80. I don't want to start or hear flames either for or against Canon/Nikon, just looking for some advice here. I will probably go for the D80 mostly because it fits my hand much better than say, the Canon 30D. There are other little "pleasantries" I like, especially the viewfinder. I'm at a loss though, of the type of lens or lenses to purchase with the body. There are two types of shooting that I do: (1) family shots of my two little girls (indoor and outdoor) and (2) landscape style photography, mostly of my vineyards here in Priorat (Spain). Along those lines I like to do shots of vines, overall vine/row shots, background "mountain" shots, and I would also like to do very close-up (macro?) shots. So what to do here? I have the feeling that buying just one lens (I assume a tele-wide) will NOT be a one-size-fits-all solution. I get the feeling I will need two, but simply don't know which way to go here. Of course, my budget is not unlimited and I simply can't plop down another $2000 in glass on top of the $900 I will be spending on the body. Thoughts anyone? TIA. G7 The first two I'd look at are the Nikor 18-70, and older kit lens but has a fan base, kind of slow at f3.5-4.5, or the Tamron 17-50 f2.8, this is a very nice lens. The get the Nikor 70-300 VR there have been very good reports on this lens too. The Tamron and the 70-300 will run just under $1000. I really think this is you best bang for the buck. Tom |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Help me pick out a lens for the Nikon D80
"Jürgen Exner" wrote in message news:3xfZh.476$YW4.295@trndny06... C J Campbell wrote: As far as I know you are the only person I have ever heard of that has said that the 60mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor does not perform well. Thank you. I truely appreciate this clarification. I readily admit that I don't own this lens. However I have been looking for a macro lens for myself recently and the review at http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...duct/98/cat/12 for the lens isn't all that great. quote At the end of the day, I'd have to say that this is only a mediocre lens, not really worth its relatively high selling price. /quote Maybe the review is wrong, maybe they tested a lemon, maybe the reviewer just had a bad day. I don't know. But if you are saying it's a decent lens after all, then maybe I put it back on my list of candidates, too. See my comments on the Nikkor 60mm f2.8 on my Nikkor comparison list, at www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html (keeping in mind that all of the ratings and comments are based on full-frame film coverage). For the smaller digital sensor area, the reservations I had about the 60mm near infinity focus with FF do not apply, and it is otherwise a superb lens. Since the 50-100mm range of lens FLs is especially easy to design for excellent performance, most of these lenses by all manufacturers tend to be at least very good. -- David Ruether http://www.donferrario.com/ruether |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Help me pick out a lens for the Nikon D80
"C J Campbell" wrote in message news:2007042921514927544-christophercampbell@hotmailcom... On 2007-04-29 07:42:03 -0700, RichA said: Get an 18-135mm ED DX and some screw-on macro lenses for the front. $350 for that grouping. Several reviewers have complained about chromatic aberrations and distortion. The one good thing they have said it is sharp. Also, the zoom ring is either too stiff or else it suffers from the same lens creep as the 18-200. Build quality is inferior to that of the 18-200. Also the 18-135 has the same plastic lens mount as the 18-55 and 55-200, which some find a bit off-putting. I have the 18-55 and 55-200 myself, find both plenty sharp in general use and like them very much for what evidently is their intended purpose, inexpensive lightweight lenses to go with the inexpensive lightweight D40. The plastic lens mount may last forever for all I know, but I'd have a lot more confidence in it if it were metal. Neil |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Help me pick out a lens for the Nikon D80
"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message ... C J Campbell wrote: The 18-200mm VR does *NOT* do macro it does close-up work. It does have a decent FoV equivalent to a 135mm lens, but it would have been nice for it to have the same as a 200mm lens. The biggest problem with this lens is its poor build quality and poor light gathering properties. The lens creep and many complaints of the front element working its way loose and falling off are totally unacceptable. And what compounds the problem is the need to have a lot of light to wake this lens up. I find it near impossible to shoot below ISO 400 and +0.7 EV compensation. It's a decent walk around lens in principle, but takes a lot of work to get used to if you are accustomed to shooting with good glass. It's overpriced for what you get. Fortunately I was able to sell a total of three of these dogs to offset the cost of justify keeping mine. At $750 it is a rip-off and Nikon should be ashamed of themselves. Pity the fool that paid more than $750 MSRP, though I'm glad they do. You say close-up; I say light macro, which is probably not as technically correct but still reasonable. Right! What the hell does "light macro" mean? Either use the terminology right or don't use it at all. There are people new to this group that might mistake you for having a clue as to what you are talking about. What's the "right terminology" for this anyway, and how is it determined? "Close-up" is not at all specific. Some insist true macro must mean going down to 1:1, but there have been several genuine macro lenses that only go to 1:2 and many zoom lens makers call their products "macro" when they go to 1:4. The term is loose at best, and "people new to this group" might as well learn that early on. Poor build quality and poor light gathering qualities are subjective. Most reviewers rave about this lens. You, Which reviewers would these be? I mean the ones without a vested interest in pushing this lens? Well, I've had one for a couple of weeks, I'm prepared to rave about it and I have no "vested interest in pushing this lens." I think it's an absolutely fabulous, glorious, supercalifragilisticexpialidocious lens. OTOH, have a hatred that borders on psychopathic. "Many" complaints about the front element falling off? Nonsense. This is a new complaint that you made up. Neither is lens creep unique to this lens. It is common to nearly all lenses in the price range that the OP was talking about. Not everyone can afford to spent $1500 on a lens, Rita. Hey, I don't hate the lens, in fact I think in principle and concept of turning a D200 or a D2x into a P&S on steroids is awesome. On the other hand, I guess one could buy a decent P&S for $750 that will perform almost as well. I . . . don't . . . think . . . so. I have all of Nikon's last and finest Coolpix "prosumer" models, which is the sort of thing I suppose you mean by "P&S," and while the 8700 and 8800 are wonderful cameras they are certainly not comparable to the 18-200 on an SLR. As for the front element falling off, it is a legitimate complaint and very common. If you don't believe me just check the front of your 18-200. I've just checked the front of mine and I'm happy to report it isn't falling off. When is this supposed to happen? Where are the reports of this "very common" complaint? The biggest lens creep around here is you. I have had it with your unsubstantiated claims. LOL! You're a fool if you find it acceptable for a $750 lens to have lens creep and other QA problems. I don't see lens creep as being a "QA problem," and mine hasn't crept anyway, so far. But then I carry it with the lens shortened. I read somewhere that the lens creep mostly occurs when the camera is carried with the lens somewhere in mid-zoom, which seems to make sense. If mine (which is still quite new) does eventually creep I still won't see it as a quality problem. The part of the lens that extends has some weight, after all, and there's a reasonable limit to how stiff one wants the zoom control to be. Neil |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Help me pick out a lens for the Nikon D80
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 10:39:07 +0200, "Gary Seven"
wrote: Hello all. Can some of you good folks here help me out here? I am thinking about buying the Nikon D80. I don't want to start or hear flames either for or against Canon/Nikon, just looking for some advice here. I will probably go for the D80 mostly because it fits my hand much better than say, the Canon 30D. There are other little "pleasantries" I like, especially the viewfinder. I'm at a loss though, of the type of lens or lenses to purchase with the body. There are two types of shooting that I do: (1) family shots of my two little girls (indoor and outdoor) and (2) landscape style photography, mostly of my vineyards here in Priorat (Spain). Along those lines I like to do shots of vines, overall vine/row shots, background "mountain" shots, and I would also like to do very close-up (macro?) shots. So what to do here? I have the feeling that buying just one lens (I assume a tele-wide) will NOT be a one-size-fits-all solution. I get the feeling I will need two, but simply don't know which way to go here. Of course, my budget is not unlimited and I simply can't plop down another $2000 in glass on top of the $900 I will be spending on the body. Thoughts anyone? TIA. It's all a matter of preference, of course. If it were my choice, I would get a fast prime lens, like the 35mm f/2 AF-D Nikkor. A zoom gives you more versatility, but at the price of bulk and slow speed. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Help me pick out a lens for the Nikon D80
"Alexander Arnakis" wrote in message
... It's all a matter of preference, of course. If it were my choice, I would get a fast prime lens, like the 35mm f/2 AF-D Nikkor. A zoom gives you more versatility, but at the price of bulk and slow speed. This 35/2 is a good choice I find for a "one lens" setup, as it will focus very close for taking macro type shots although I don't think it quite goes to 1:1. Indoor shots are fine with f2 so better than pro zooms, and although not a wide angle on digital I like the landscapes I get with this lens. When I can afford it I will possibly get a nice compact D40 as a second body and a 20/2.8 & 85/1.8 to cover wider & longer shots without having to switch lenses. I initially sold my kit 18-70 lens and got the 17-55 (now also sold) but this was such a heavy & massive beast and seemed to draw a lot of attention as other photographers would often ask me about it, but I prefer the discreetness of the tiny 35/2. cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Help me pick out a lens for the Nikon D80
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:47:39 -0400, Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
But it might not be as good as you think. After all, when used in Antarctica one was known to fall apart. Don't go there, hear? g I got a kick out of that when I read it. But seriously, I don't think that any lens should fall apart under normal use. I hope Neil doesn't come in here six months from now crying that his front element fell off. If that happened, Ann Coulter would drop him like a hot potato. Or maybe that should be like a limp noodle. g |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Help me pick out a lens for the Nikon D80
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 22:46:21 +0100, "Adrian Boliston"
wrote: When I can afford it I will possibly get a nice compact D40 as a second body and a 20/2.8 & 85/1.8 to cover wider & longer shots without having to switch lenses. I initially sold my kit 18-70 lens and got the 17-55 (now also sold) but this was such a heavy & massive beast and seemed to draw a lot of attention as other photographers would often ask me about it, but I prefer the discreetness of the tiny 35/2. You know, of course, that these lenses won't autofocus with the D40. If you're content with manual focus, an even more compact choce would be the 45mm f/2.8P. This supports autoexposure on the D40. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Help me pick out a lens for the Nikon D80 | Gary Seven | Digital Photography | 63 | May 7th 07 07:19 PM |
How to pick a macro lens? | Roy Smith | Digital SLR Cameras | 24 | April 7th 07 11:33 AM |
FS in Ottawa Canada nikon F80 / nikon lens / sigma lens / kirk shoulder stock / nikon battery pack | Michel | General Equipment For Sale | 1 | October 2nd 05 01:57 PM |
FS in Ottawa Canada nikon F80 / nikon lens / sigma lens / kirk shoulder stock / nikon battery pack | Michel | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 1 | October 2nd 05 01:57 PM |
**HELP** Pick the BEST one ** | Guru | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 0 | May 30th 04 07:35 PM |