where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
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... :)
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.
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
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).
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?
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.
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?
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:
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, 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.
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.
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!
You must log in to post.
