spraynpray said:
Oh man, Studio, you've got it bad. Step away from the internet, STEP AWAY!
Oh, yes . . . Adriana Lima is God. Take any three Brasilian Victoria's Secret models . . . now THAT'S a "Holy Trinity!"
D7000 - Which of the Holy Trinity would you take when you hang out with friends?
(120 posts) (23 voices)-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
For non pros, the 17-55 would be a huge investment indeed. But if you're a pro shooter who doesn't mind DX, it shouldn't be a big problem.
18-55 really would be what I'd carry- I hate the build quality and I haven't used it before, but I hear great things about that lens.
If it had to be the holy trinity, it would be the 24-70 though.
Posted 2 years ago # -
-
As people have gone away from the 'Holy Trinity', why not use the 18-55VR kit lens? Sharp, light, cheap and so not so much of a worry in the sand/salt scenario. If 2.8 means that much to you, go for the short Nikkor.
Posted 2 years ago # -
spraynpray said:
As people have gone away from the 'Holy Trinity', why not use the 18-55VR kit lens?I have never liked the kit lens. Sharpness aside, there are other factors affecting image quality. In bright daylight the kit lens can cope, but I would still pick any other lens I have instead. Go have a party with the kit lens if you feel like it. I sold mine away.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I'm going to just go test them out :P I've been reading good stuff about the tamron 17-50..
I'm sorry if I offended anyone by my analysis, it's just as NSX said. I don't think many would think about buying a 17-55 for their DX being that it IS a DX lens and it is a huge investment, where paying maybe 500 more would open up their road for the future FX to come :]
Posted 2 years ago # -
soshigee said:
I'm going to just go test them out :P I've been reading good stuff about the tamron 17-50..I'm sorry if I offended anyone by my analysis, it's just as NSX said. I don't think many would think about buying a 17-55 for their DX being that it IS a DX lens and it is a huge investment, where paying maybe 500 more would open up their road for the future FX to come :]
Right.
Or if you want to step up a bit in build quality, the 18-105 would be just about perfect.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I probably disagree with most on the 18-55vr. I know allot of people who really enjoy this lens but I really thought it was a junk lens. Granted what I look for in lenses are: Fast glass, Build quality, FX, optical quality, weather resistant, and can take a beating. It has the optics but that is it for me.
The 16-85mm VR is actually a great lens, too slow for me on the long end. Sharpness issues that I have seen are people who think they can shoot 85mm @ F5.6 at 1/8sec and iso 1600 and think that every photo should be sharp.
If you are in Bars etc., check on close focus distance of lenses. That can be a pain to find out.
Posted 2 years ago # -
TaoTeJared said:
I probably disagree with most on the 18-55vr. I know allot of people who really enjoy this lens but I really thought it was a junk lens. Granted what I look for in lenses are: Fast glass, Build quality, FX, optical quality, weather resistant, and can take a beating. It has the optics but that is it for me.The 16-85mm VR is actually a great lens, too slow for me on the long end. Sharpness issues that I have seen are people who think they can shoot 85mm @ F5.6 at 1/8sec and iso 1600 and think that every photo should be sharp.
If you are in Bars etc., check on close focus distance of lenses. That can be a pain to find out.
You can probably expect it to have crap build quality. It IS ~150 dollars, no? :P
Posted 2 years ago # -
FYI: The old "Holy Trinity" is now referred to as the "Zoom Trinity"
"Holy Trinity" refers to the 24mm f/1.4G, the 35mm f/1.4G, and the 85mm f/1.4G
Posted 2 years ago # -
studio460 said:
Oh, yes . . . Adriana Lima is God. Take any three Brasilian Victoria's Secret models . . . now THAT'S a "Holy Trinity!"I got to meet Ms. Lima at a bar called Nick's on campus. She and her friends happened to be there because of the "pink" contest thing. You think she is attractive in print and on tv...Lets just say i could photograph her all day. Also, she was really friendly.
edit.. oh and i liked playing with the 17-55. I went to the camera shop to try it after this post.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Hmm, I think I'll borrow the 18-55 for a couple days, then test the 17-55, and I'll see what I need more. :P
Posted 2 years ago # -
Michael DeRose said:
I got to meet Ms. Lima at a bar called Nick's on campus. She and her friends happened to be there because of the "pink" contest thing. You think she is attractive in print and on tv...Lets just say i could photograph her all day. Also, she was really friendly.Right on, Michael! A very elite club we're in! I was lucky enough to shoot a behind-the-scenes on a Victoria's Secret commercial. I walked in, and she must've seen the look of awe on my face, and she flashed a big sexy smile. Unfortunately, it was a VERY strict set, and absolutely NO STILL CAMERAS were allowed.
Isn't it weird how ultra-hot women just make you feel all happy and fizzy inside? Adriana is the shizzz.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Segura said:
FYI: The old "Holy Trinity" is now referred to as the "Zoom Trinity""Holy Trinity" refers to the 24mm f/1.4G, the 35mm f/1.4G, and the 85mm f/1.4G
I second that anointment! Plus, the new 24, 35, 85 also make you say "holy sh**" when you see your credit card statement!
soshigee said:
Hmm, I think I'll borrow the 18-55 for a couple days . . .Give it a shot . . . I think you may like it! It's cheaply built, but is sure is handy.
Posted 2 years ago # -
studio460 said:
I second that anointment! Plus, the new 24, 35, 85 also make you say "holy sh**" when you see your credit card statement!Forgot to mention there is a 4th member of the Holy Trinity, and that is the 50mm 1.4G. Baby Jesus?
I guess it would be the Holy Quadrology.Anyway, of the Holy Trinity, the 35mm f/1.4G. Without a doubt. (I own all 7 of these lenses mentioned, and the 35mm is my favorite, hands down).
Posted 2 years ago # -
Segura said:
Forgot to mention there is a 4th member of the Holy Trinity, and that is the 50mm 1.4G. Baby Jesus?
I guess it would be the Holy Quadrology.Anyway, of the Holy Trinity, the 35mm f/1.4G. Without a doubt. (I own all 7 of these lenses mentioned, and the 35mm is my favorite, hands down).
Ah, yes . . . the new AF-S 50. I think the 50 belongs in purgatory, however. I'm clueless as to why Nikon would release a new lens that many are confirming is soft. I really want an AF-S 50, too. Not because it's faster (it's not), mainly because the focus ring doesn't turn while gripping the lens (like my 50 AF-D does), due to its internal focusing mechanism.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Hmm, I mean, maybe later when I've had my fill with holy zooms, I'll sell and move on to the primes, but as for now, 35mm 1.8 prime is enough for me x)
Borrowing the 18-55 to see what I need interms of build quality, IQ, bokeh, speed, etc, etc. :P If I feel like I'm using the wider end more and not that much of the mid range, I'll probably go with 14-24 since I'm not too careful with my equipment. If I don't use that much of the lower end and i feel i need a lil more reach, 24-70. if I just feel right with the lens, but I need better build quality, and feel, I'll just ... either get the 17-55 DX or keep the 18-55 and when it breaks, I'll just get another one hahaha. Idk if the 17-55 DX is that much more superior in IQ over the 18-55...
I think I'ma start discussing bokeh....
Posted 2 years ago # -
-
but technically, the thread was already made on a subject. and discussing bokeh on those lens specifically wouldn't be an offense tho would it? It would be like discussing Victoria's Secret models. :|
Posted 2 years ago # -
Segura said:
FYI: The old "Holy Trinity" is now referred to as the "Zoom Trinity""Holy Trinity" refers to the 24mm f/1.4G, the 35mm f/1.4G, and the 85mm f/1.4G
I was thinking more along the lines of HZT and HPT.
Took about 500 shots with the 35 today. As the author of the book I'm reading says "ooooh, baaaay baaaay".
Posted 2 years ago # -
-
soshigee said:
. . . or keep the 18-55 and when it breaks, I'll just get another one hahaha.They're definitely keepers IMO. Not worth selling at all. I was thinking of actually getting a second one myself, for when my primary one breaks (it's already "kind of" broken, but still shoots fine for some reason). Like I said, it's a $99 (refurbished) 18mm DX wide-angle with VR. I only ever shoot with it from 18mm to about 24mm. So, I use it like a poor man's "18-24mm short-zoom," but with the bonus of VR.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Hmm. Borrowing them, then looking at what I need and getting one of the holies is my best option i think :P
Posted 2 years ago # -
I agree with some of the comments here that the 18-55mm kit lens is not nearly as good (i.e., presumably most people mean sharp) as it is sometimes claimed to be. Perhaps I have a bad copy of this lens, but in order to get what I consider to be decent shots with it on my D7000, I have to crank the in-camera sharpening setting on the neutral Picture Control I prefer all the way up to a value of 6. Even then the images are only about half as sharp as those I routinely get with Canon's similarly cheap 18-55 mm kit lens on my old 450D XSi, where I need to do much less in-camera sharpening. I'd like to sell my 18-55 mm lens, but what I can get for it seems such a pittance I don't know that it's worth my time to shop it around. In the meantime, I've bought a 16-85mm lens for my D7000, which has proven to be at least the equal of the 18-55 mm in terms of sharpness, as I had guessed from looking at the MTF curves and as I've confirmed with a number of test shots to compare the two lenses in detail under various shooting conditions. The first lens I bought with my D7000 was the 50mm f/1.8D FX lens, which also gets high marks from many Nikon users, but IMHO that lens is a pretty junky one, too, and a waste of money. (The copy I bought was made in China; the earlier copies that people rave about perhaps was made in Japan and thus of much better quality, which could account for the difference in opinion.)
Posted 2 years ago # -
Baba Ganoush said:
I agree with some of the comments here that the 18-55mm kit lens is not nearly as good (i.e., presumably most people mean sharp) as it is sometimes claimed to be. Perhaps I have a bad copy of this lens, but in order to get what I consider to be decent shots with it on my D7000, I have to crank the in-camera sharpening setting on the neutral Picture Control I prefer all the way up to a value of 6. Even then the images are only about half as sharp as those I routinely get with Canon's similarly cheap 18-55 mm kit lens on my old 450D XSi, where I need to do much less in-camera sharpening. I'd like to sell my 18-55 mm lens, but what I can get for it seems such a pittance I don't know that it's worth my time to shop it around. In the meantime, I've bought a 16-85mm lens for my D7000, which has proven to be at least the equal of the 18-55 mm in terms of sharpness, as I had guessed from looking at the MTF curves and as I've confirmed with a number of test shots to compare the two lenses in detail under various shooting conditions. The first lens I bought with my D7000 was the 50mm f/1.8D FX lens, which also gets high marks from many Nikon users, but IMHO that lens is a pretty junky one, too, and a waste of money. (The copy I bought was made in China; the earlier copies that people rave about perhaps was made in Japan and thus of much better quality, which could account for the difference in opinion.)Baba: Your findings are so out of whack with what others here say that I wonder if your PC screen is not good enough?
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
