I have heard of using Vaseline on clear filters and seem some amazing photos taken with that technique. It seems they put Vaseline around the outside of the filter to blur the edges. That is another thing I have to try someday. Another good topic for a thread. Lots to do with this hobby. So much to do and so little time. I am sure the D400 will be here long before I get to my nylon and Vaseline experiments!

When Ritz Camera went under, on the latter days the filters were a dollar each. So, I grabbed a few including the soft focus ones, and even a few extra for use as Vaseline bases.....one can be far more creative with Vaseline than almost anything else when used properly.

Right, digital imaging is so, so cool because the the immediacy of seeing your results, the ability to manipulate the image after taking it and the ability to share images electronically.

I should try some of those nylon stockings over lenses sometime. That would be an interesting subject for a new thread. What type of images can everyone produce with that technique, try it and post them in the thread.

donaldejose said:
Admittedly, I have seen plenty of wonderful portraits taken with "hazy" lenses which do not produce sharp eyes. […] I think some lenses were even once developed and marketed to produce hazy portraits for a more "dreamy" look.

That's cool, but messing up the image quality is not something that I'd pay over 450 bucks for. After all, it's also easy to degrade a picture in the post. In the 60s, the often uses nylon stockings in front of the lenses. (I heard. I wasn't there :-) But my old photography books in the 80s always said that.)

Right, right, right! The first think I look for in a portrait is tack sharp eyes (both of them). The eyes engage me first. The expression engages me second. Perhaps that is just me. Perhaps I can be accused of having an eye "fetish." Admittedly, I have seen plenty of wonderful portraits taken with "hazy" lenses which do not produce sharp eyes. Blur or overall haziness has been a deliberate portrait technique I first became aware of in the mid 60's when I was looking at senior portraits. I think some lenses were even once developed and marketed to produce hazy portraits for a more "dreamy" look. Lensbaby produces some today.

donaldejose said:
...just for portraits once in a while where the subject often does not want every pimple showing maybe it is fine to keep using the old D version you already have.

Sort of... :-) Just looked for my test shots with the 1.8D, but unfortunately I seem to have deleted them.

No, I wouldn't say the lens is good for making skin look better. I already saw that in another thread, I find it rather strange to "blur things up" to make skin appear cleaner. This is a case for good retouching, not for hazy lenses or modes that lose detail. I would rather say, practice how to properly retouch skin – not with fully-automatic barbie-skin tools like Portrait Professional, but with Photoshop. Yes, it does depend on the job and whether you have the time for it or not, but I personally would rather have one really great-looking image than ten fully-automatic barbie-skin-retouched images.

Plus, when I shoot at 1.8, I still enjoy a tack-sharp lens; you would look for very shallow DOF, but not for hazy eyes (the point of focus), right?

All the lenses you have will work with the D800 as there is a setting on the camera which detects which lenses are full frame (FX) and which are 1.5 crop(DX). This being said, you will need to buy the best lenses to get the best results. Because the D800 has such a high megapixel rate if you use cheap lenses it will show every flaw in your images. PM me if you need more help. theoldnikonian

Chris: Good to know. Thanks. So to paraphrase your advice: if you are buying an 85mm now, get the new G, don't buy the old D version, the new G is a better lens for about the same price. If you already have the old D version and are not going to shoot at f1.8 often or many just for portraits once in a while where the subject often does not want every pimple showing maybe it is fine to keep using the old D version you already have.

Emceee said:
Which 85 are you talking about?

Sorry... Edited that post now :-)

chris_weinert said:
Just saw this excellent thread now, great work (and 'idea'), donaldejose!

Concerning the 85D and G version comparison: I had the two lenses here to compare a while ago, and I thought the D was a really nice lens, until I noticed that it's quite sensible to bright light when open wider, produces quite some haze and is rather soft. The G version was a lot better in this regard, and a lot sharper wide open. Since the price tag isn't that different, I'd (and did) really choose the G.

The actual performance improvement is a lot more than the 50D vs 50G, for example (where in my eyes it's actually debatable whether that was an improvement at all).

Which 85 are you talking about?

Just saw this excellent thread now, great work (and 'idea'), donaldejose!

Concerning the 85/1.8D and 1.8G version comparison: I had the two lenses here to compare a while ago, and I thought the D was a really nice lens, until I noticed that it's quite sensible to bright light when open wider, produces quite some haze and is rather soft. The G version was a lot better in this regard, and a lot sharper wide open. Since the price tag isn't that different, I'd (and did) really choose the G.

The actual performance improvement is a lot more than the 50/1.4D vs 50/1.4G, for example (where in my eyes it's actually debatable whether that was an improvement at all).

As promised some time ago, here is the 85mm f1.8 D lens on the D600 body.

More portraits taken with the old 85mm f1.8 D lens on a D600 are posted in this thread. http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=15698

Sorry, don't have one to try but I see it has had some good reviews. Plastic and light should fit well with a D600 as a light travel combo.

Has anyone tried the AF 28-200 f/3.5-5.6 G? I'm considering to buy it as a travel lens instead of the 28-80 f/3.3-5.6G in order to get a little more reach, but am unsure about the image quality comparison. Any real world experience would be helpful.

I'm using a AF 20mm 2.8D on my D600 now, which is an excellent lens for the price. I thought about buying one of wide zooms, but am glad I sticked to "cheap" approach... :)

@ Gitzo

The answer is in the forum rules posted by {NR} admin:

"I changed the edit post function - now you can edit your posts up to 24 hr after posting it, after that the edit button will disappear."

.

It's phine. Don't wurry about it.

Here's a question for anyone understanding how this website "works".............how long does one have, after making a post, to go back and edit the post in order to fix a "typo" ?

I just now noticed, in the next to last paragraph of my reply to the OP, I mistakenly referred to his "percent" camera, when I SHOULD have typed, his "present" camera.........also, in the last paragraph, the seventh word from the end should be "thorough", rather than "through".......(ugghh !)

(Maybe I should fire my proofreader ?)

@ bydavidrosen

Are you still with us? Maybe you can shoot some photos and post on Photo-A-Day....We always like to see what folks are shooting.

bydavidrosen asks / says........

I'm a little confused though about something. I was thinking about possibly at some point upgrading to a Nikon D800. Which if any of these lenses will be compatible? From what I understand there are two types of mounts, DX and FX, and the D800 is an FX mount, but I can't seem to get a grasp of which kind my 3 current lenses are (i believe the Sigma is a DX though). And if they are DX, will they work and if there are any shortcomings.

Hi David;
You're getting a lot of advice, but before you even think about buying another camera, something you said in that statement tells me that you are a bit mixed up about "something"........Quote: "I understand there are two types of mounts"............
The "mount" refers to the physical "attachment" on the small end of the lens which enables it to "mate" (and physically "attach" to ANY Nikon camera body; (and it hasn't changed "physically" for years and years now, although newer Nikon bodies have various electrical contacts that were lacking on older film bodies.

The "DX" and "FX" simply refers to the size of the sensor used in a particular camera; The FX sensor is called "full frame", as it presents approximately the same size "format" as used in 35mm film cameras. The DX ( or "APS-C") size sensor is about 3/4 as big as the FX sensor. Now..........

All lenses are designed to collect light from a "subject", then bring that light "to focus" on the sensor; this was a bit easier to grasp in the days of 35mm film cameras, because regardless of how much the particular camera cost, they ALL had the same 35mm "format" (of 36mm X 24mm), because they ALL used the same 35mm film. With digital cameras, the sensors come in a "bunch" of sizes, (the inexpensive "point & shoot" cameras have sensors much smaller even than the so=called" DX bodies; but because they don't have interchangeable lenses, we can forget about them for the moment.

A so-called DX lens produces a "light cone" which is just ample to cover the smaller DX sensor; If you put it on an FX body, the cone of light would be too small to cover the larger FX format; however.......as FX lenses are designed to produce a somewhat bigger cone of light, it WILL cover the smaller DX sensor; however.........if the FX lens is say, 50mm in focal length, when you bring that size cone of light to focus on the smaller size DX sensor, the same lens nows has an "effective focal length" of 75mm. ( This is all very confusing unless you happen to be an optical engineer / lens designer, which I definitely AM NOT !)

As "confusing" as it may seem, until you throughly understand it all, I would advise sticking with your percent camera, take a lot of pictures, read everything you can get your hands on, and you may "be ready" to "upgrade" to FX surprisingly soon; ( in the meantime, you can take excellent photographs with your present camera, assuming you throughly understand it's capabilities and know how to operate it.) (and GOOD LUCK !)

The goal of any photographer should be to take "great pictures". Using expensive, "high end" cameras DOES make taking great pictures easier, but ONLY if the photographer has progressed in his / her "knowledge" of the basics of photography to a point where they have a through understanding of the equipment being used.

Just a guess here, but I don't think you would see any significant difference in sharpness at f5.6 or f8. Neither lens is in the DxOMark tests so we have no objective DxOMark data on each lens using the same testing protocol on the same camera body. But we do have these two tests which suggest the new zoom would be sharper at f4 when pixel peeping but you may not really see it when the image is viewed at less than 100%.

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/92/cat/12

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1526/cat/13

I would say that increased sharpness is not a reason to add the 24D to the new AF-S 24-85G VR.

Anyone have any thoughts on new AF-S 24-85G @ 24mm versus the older AF 24mm f/2.8D? I have the 24-85 and I think it's is going to almost equivalent to the 24mm minus the 2/3rds of a stop. I really want a wide angle prime and think the 24mm is a good fit but I don't think I will gain much in sharpness over my 24-85.

Yes, I'm too happy with my older lenses. Being force-feed the DX format Fuji S2, D90, I'm very happy I can use my old primes again.
Cheap as in low-cost! No low-cost quality, even my 50mm f/1.8 D is unbelievable sharp. SO is my 24mm 2.8.
I don't have the 28-80 f3.3-5.6G, but the non G (kit lens of my wife's F65 is soft.)
My 24 and 50 even look cool on my D600!

Yes, some of the improvements you find in the new lenses are AF-S (a silent wave motor built into the lens for faster focusing). VR (vibration reduction), and Nano Crystal Coating (anti-reflective coating). Sometimes you also find a new optical design. At various times and in various conditions these new innovations will produce clearly superior photos. At other times and in other conditions you will not see a difference because the advantages they offer are not needed for that image. For some photos you don't have a need for anti-reflective coating, fast focusing or vibration reduction.

I posted links to reasonably larger sizes of all images I posted in this thread just so anyone would be able to evaluate the lens themselves at the largest size most people would ever print and I posted links to reviews of the lens when I could easily find them. If you click on the photo itself you will be taken to my flicker account where you can find a 100% image for "pixel peeping>" You can download any of these photo and run them through whatever post processing you use to see how they respond. If anyone is interested in any of these old lenses they can see if it offers enough "quality" for their needs.

Think of this thread as sort of a fun and interesting experiment: not necessarily as what you should do to select your prime lens for your new body. That said, I am anxious to put my very cheap and very light 28-80 f3.3-5.6G lens on my very light D600 to obtain the lightest FX camera with a medium zoom lens I know of and take a lot of "walk around" photos. I have been very impressed with that lens. When traveling or walking around it is nice to have a very light camera hanging from your neck instead of one with the heavy 24-70 f2.8 lens. Different lenses suitable for different purposes.

@donaldejose I am not necessarily saying old glass is mediocre, but in most cases the lenses have been updated and for a reason. If nothing else to add something like AF-S or coatings on the lenses. So I think they do perform better. Sure there are old gems and old lenses can be sharp, but they can also have their down falls.

If I had a compatible body I would no doubt have some of the older AF lenses. Even with them not autofocusing I have been tempted several times to just buy one, but part of me is glad to have newer AF-S glass. I personally wouldn't put myself in the situation of buying a new body then having to scrap together lenses with whatever funds I have left...that is all I am saying. Especially if it is your main lens. But if it isn't a lens I would use much or just trying to expand or try other lenses then that is different.

I won't keep arguing though...I don't have much input on older glass.

tcole1983: I think you are falsely assuming old glass is mediocre glass. For example, the 90mm 2.8 macro is "old glass" but some still consider it one of the sharpest lenses Nikon ever produced. You are also arguing a moot point. No one is saying, or has said, the "latest and greatest" glass is not the latest and the greatest glass. No one is saying if you have $10,000 to spend get a D600 and old AF glass for a total of only $2,500. If you have $10,000 to spend you should get a D4 or D800 and a 24-70 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8.

But some people don't have $10,000 to spend. Some people would like to get a start in FX "on the cheap." The D600 does open new possibilities. For the price of a D800 body (same as a D700 cost when introduced) you can you get a D600 plus lots of "good," if not the "latest and greatest," glass? Is it possible to start shooting FX digital for an investment now of only $2,500 so you can shoot now while you are saving up the additional money for the holy trinity of glass? I say yes and that is the narrow focus of this thread. It is not for all people. Another option is to start FX shooting with a used D700 or D3 body. Ferrari always said the entry level Ferrari is a used last generation Ferrari.

No one really disagrees here. I for one would like a D600, a D800 and a D4 since they each have different features I would use at different times: the D600 as a light walk around and family photo camera; the D800 for serious portraits and landscapes; the D4 for sports. Makes sense but that is not going to happen. I would also like the Nikon Holy Trinity but will settle for last generation's Holy Trinity glass. It is all about "price point" and the minimum investment needed to get started in FX. If you are not so constrained this thread is only of academic interest to you.