It's in stock in Denmark :-) But it costs $283 + about $14 for shipping..

NSXType-R said:
Talking about lenses, did anyone review the 85mm 3.5? I know someone's mother received one in this forum and he did a quick review of it, but did any major online reviewers review it?

None yet. I ordered one, and should have it before the end of the week. I most likely wont do a full review for a few weeks though, I like to give a lens a month before I give any in depth comments.

^^^ My copy was definitely not that sharp...
Those corners at 3.5 are also way sharper than some of the tests show:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/443-nikkor_1024_3545?start=1

Here are some of my 10mm samples:
10mm @5.6...the whole left border is suffering from distortion/softness.
http://dave.oc7.org/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=41779&g2_serialNumber=1
10mm @f/8...Left and right corners are distorted, left side mostly soft.
http://dave.oc7.org/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=41887&g2_serialNumber=1

24mm is a bit sharper, but still not as sharp as it could be...
http://dave.oc7.org/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=41901&g2_serialNumber=1
http://dave.oc7.org/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=41971&g2_serialNumber=1

It was fine at 24mm, but 10mm was always soft somewhere, no matter what aperture I was at.

Oh, and the 35/1.8 is back in stock on Amazon.com...
http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-35mm-AF-S-Digital-Cameras/dp/B001S2PPT0

-- Dave

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2647/4174032203_a559081ffc_b.jpg

1/8, f3.5, 10mm

Perhaps my eyes aren't that good anymore, but this does not look soft to me.

$900 ain't cheap. . .for a soft lens, WTH?! confirmed my suspicions. . .

ted2001 said:
I find nothing disappointing about the 10-24. It is a much more useful lens for my purposes than the 11-16 with its extremely limited zoom range.

I tried about six samples of the 10-24 and all of them were soft. For $900 you shouldn't be getting soft optics...

An earthquake is simple ... you just shake the camera, someone could throw some rubble off a roof to make it more realistic.
A tsunami is a bit trickier, capturing the real thing could prove fatal. Though you could use a housing and something that makes the camera buoyant so that at least the camera is recovered and used as a last testament to the unlucky photographer.

All joking aside, I don't think I would even try photographing such a disaster. A major storm would be a different matter (perhaps). I couldn't even bring myself to go and capture a burning building or a car crash as I wouldn't really relish the idea of people taking shots (apart from the police/fire dept) if something like this happened to me.

I'll wait for the resurrected Nikonos for that kind of work. I used to take mine to the coast during Pacific storms. Probably not smart, but it was fun. Aquatech makes a housing that's submersible, but not for deep diving. It's rated to only 10m or 33 feet, but it's smaller and lighter than any other.

Here in No. California your first thought is self preservation, not images when an earthquake hits. After that it's the safety of friends, family and neighbors.

Hmm.. sounds like a neat project to try.. do you think my camera will get wet ? ...

An earthquake would be impossible to capture in still images given that they can occur so suddenly and violently. They only last a few seconds so by the time you come to your senses and get your camera out it will most likely have ended. The aftermath is what you will want to quickly capture not the actual quake. I guess there is always the chance that you are taking pictures of something when the quake starts and you might capture damage as it happens but I doubt you'll get a clear "perfect" photo with the ground shaking.

Documenting a natural disaster as it happens is something you obviously want to capture with video instead. However your first priority should always be your own safety. There is a reason you don't see beautiful HDR landscapes of a beach while a Hurricane/Typhoon is coming ashore!

I was reading some Haiti coverage and I got to thinking, "How the heck would one photograph an earthquake or other natural disaster?"

NSXType-R said:
Talking about lenses, did anyone review the 85mm 3.5? I know someone's mother received one in this forum and he did a quick review of it, but did any major online reviewers review it?

your saying my review doesn't count?! GRRRR!!

I pre-ordered both the 35 1.8 and 50 1.4G. . .not only because they were the only available primes for my D40x that auto focused, but because they were priced competitively. . .then Nikon raised their prices, took a crap on their QC, and here we are. . .

I decided to hold off on the 10-24 because it was priced to high initially. . .it still is, and I had already had a bad copy of a Tokina 11-16, so I was clamoring for something wide on my DX. . .glad I held patient for the Tokina, got a sharp copy in Aug '09 and it rarely leaves my body (usually tote around the 11-16, 35, 50 and/or 60 in my Domke day to day bag). . .

alphanikonrex said:
IDK.

Ken Rockwell? ;^)

(As a fact, he hasn't done a real review.)

I'm interested because Thom Hogan is complete baffled by it. :D

IDK.

Ken Rockwell? ;^)

(As a fact, he hasn't done a real review.)

Talking about lenses, did anyone review the 85mm 3.5? I know someone's mother received one in this forum and he did a quick review of it, but did any major online reviewers review it?

*No Comment*

You two can argue it out ;^)

I find nothing disappointing about the 10-24. It is a much more useful lens for my purposes than the 11-16 with its extremely limited zoom range.

alphanikonrex said:I mean, what's been Nikon's latest truly disappointing lens?

I'd have to put that at the 10-24... that was very disappointing for the price.

It doesn't hold a candle to the Tokina 11-16 (which by the way, hasn't left my camera more than twice since I bought it a year ago =P).

NikoDoby said:
If you believe all the crying on the main NR blog page that would be the new 70-200 VRII! :^(

Blah blah blah. Looks like a great lens to me. OK, what were the problems again?

1. Fo-Zoom: Yeah yeah yeah whatever that's just the way the optics are. If you want a good reproduction ratio look at a macro lens, you know, the things called Micro-NIKKORs?

2. Peeling plastic thing: not a problem 'cause Nikon says so.

If they don't like their lenses then they can give them to me, because (for maybe the first time ever) I needed VR today. I don't get what all the complainin' is about. Great glass, for a special purpose(s). Don't use it for macro. Don't look inside the lens. End of story.

Has anyone claimed the issue effected performance? Or only cosmetic?

alphanikonrex said:
I mean, what's been Nikon's latest truly disappointing lens?

If you believe all the crying on the main NR blog page that would be the new 70-200 VRII! :^(

I wish it could work the same for bodies, but it seems like the earliest "guaranteed" problem is using 3rd party software to read your RAW's. *Sigh*

Usually I don't see why not to get in line for the lenses. I mean, what's been Nikon's latest truly disappointing lens?

When the 35/1.8 was announced the world seemed to groan - a new prime, but for DX? and 35mm? Then people started using it and it took off, aided by it's low price. I can't image Nikon could have predicted it's success. I'm glad I got one of the first batch.

When a new lens comes out you can gamble that the price will decline and wait, or you get can get in line. I got in line for both the 35/1.8 and the 10-24. If I had waited, I would have saved money on the 10-24, but might still be waiting for the 35. I'm happy with both and regret neither the purchases nor the timing. I bought them and used them immediately.

It's not surprising it's out of stock again. It's a great prime lens. Mine is permanently attached to my D90.

The more the merrier Pete :)