where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
poster said:
I love my Sigma 50 1.4. Tough I must admit it's too heavy for my likening. It's heavier and bigger than Nikon 85mm 1.4, go figure it's a lot of glass.
Being in camera retail, I would only buy a Sigma that you have actual tried out, they can be great, but some times they are not
Pete
my fav lenses i have every used is the 18-135mm (the newest one, i think they made one before this one) i would like to see it with VR.
Welcome photoboy2005! I've never used that lens—what do you think of it? Is the 18-200 or 18-105 a better choice?
I think alpha is right. You ought to try the 18-105. My dad lent it to me for a couple of weeks and I was impressed with that lens. It's the best kit lens I've ever used.
alphanikonrex said:
Welcome photoboy2005! I've never used that lens—what do you think of it? Is the 18-200 or 18-105 a better choice?
The newer 18-200 is the best choose as far as an AP lens goes (all purpose), because it covers a wide range, and it has the newest VR, its internal focus and has a zoom lock (the reason for this was to take care of the 'creep' problem the 18-200 before had. but it didnt take care of the problem, because it only locks at 18 mm, which is not where the problem was, it was at the top end of the zoom, if you where shooting up, and didnt have your lenses on the barrel of the lens it would slowly zoom out. In my opinion the 18-105 is ... well stupid. because why get that lens if you could get an 18-200, idk if they where trying to make a starter lens other than the 18-55, but they failed because thats why they had in the 18-135.
I see what you mean...
I agree, 18-200 is hands-down best choice.
alphanikonrex said:
Neither do I. My next lens probably won't have it either—I have my eye on the 80-200 ƒ/2.8. Maybe the next one?I have a monopod, so I've done fine without VR for all these years.
yeah me too, I dont really care about the VR part, i just want the 105mm macro 2.8 part... and that glass :)
photoboy2005 said:
yeah me too, I dont really care about the VR part, i just want the 105mm macro 2.8 part... and that glass :)
Actually, from what I hear by adding VR to lenses you sacrifice some image quality. I don't like that at all. Especially with lenses like the Micro-Nikkor 105mm—VR doesn't work in macro shooting situations, so why give up image quality for it!
I think Nikon sacrificed image quality to get 11x zoom on the 18-200. I've tried both (admittedly, not the new version of the 18-200), and the 18-105 is much sharper wide open. Also, it costs 1/3 the price. I'd rather have good image quality and 5x zoom.
You're very right, jonny. It's just that the entire purpose of the 18-200 is that it's all-purpose. If I were looking for a sharp lens I would look at the more pro-oriented ones.
Whatever. I'm not in the market for this sort of lens anyway...
alphanikonrex said:
Actually, from what I hear by adding VR to lenses you sacrifice some image quality. I don't like that at all. Especially with lenses like the Micro-Nikkor 105mm—VR doesn't work in macro shooting situations, so why give up image quality for it!
you make a good point there. and i was think about getting the 85mm 3.5 macro, the new one, but i think i might just wait for a new prime to come out and just get the macro tubes
photoboy2005 said:
you make a good point there. and i was think about getting the 85mm 3.5 macro, the new one, but i think i might just wait for a new prime to come out and just get the macro tubes
Don't let me stop you from getting the 105. It's still a great lens. I just wish they hadn't tossed in VR.
I was really surprised they released an 85 DX prime. I thought for sure they'd update the 85 1.8 or 1.4 to AF-S VR. NR nailed that one, actually, though I admit I was a doubting Thomas.
jonnyapple said:
I was really surprised they released an 85 DX prime. I thought for sure they'd update the 85 1.8 or 1.4 to AF-S VR. NR nailed that one, actually, though I admit I was a doubting Thomas.
That was the last thing I was expecting! But then again, I wasn't expecting anything else in particular...I just wanted to see the new D3S!
this topic went from "Pick ONE lens that Nikon should make or update" to lens discussion lol
Well, we all have a habit of getting off-topic :^)
jonnyapple said:
I was really surprised they released an 85 DX prime. I thought for sure they'd update the 85 1.8 or 1.4 to AF-S VR. NR nailed that one, actually, though I admit I was a doubting Thomas.
What a waste of money to make that DX lens and not update the FX 85 1.8 or 1.4
Pete
You know the reason I started this was that at times Nikon really make a great lens that makes sense and execute it real well, Like the new dx 35mm 1.8, the new 70-200 2.8 and the 14-24 2.8. Then they make poor designs like the 10-24 DX it would have been smarter to have upgraded the 12-24 f4 to a 10-20 f4 with Nano coating.
Anyway the thought came from reading the review on the new Canon 100mm macro lens, which by the way is one sweet lens
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_100_2p8_is_usm_c16/
So this a lens I would like to see, or I will get one from Tokina. A 90 - 105 mm area macro lens without stabilizer, it only makes it cost more and is not needed
Pete
alphanikonrex said:
Actually, from what I hear by adding VR to lenses you sacrifice some image quality. I don't like that at all. Especially with lenses like the Micro-Nikkor 105mm—VR doesn't work in macro shooting situations, so why give up image quality for it!
where did You get this info alpha? it would mean that all of the top Nikkor lenses lost it's quality due to VR - that's bullshit for me
You must log in to post.
