D90 User Group (thread II)

[jeezuinn]

i also think a uwa would be good. As i didn't want to miss out the start of the bridge. To me, it's like a start of a journey. Haha. Thinking too much liao

tokina 11-16 : Dd

 

[Smiles88]

Good morning everyone, you guys are really early. Bro you took the picture this morning? I love the colors too.

Thanks, but I took it quite a while ago. At least a month ago. Oh forgot... Good Morning Sir!

trying to steer the topic back to PHOTOGRAPHY at the very least...

is anyone keen on the 55-300 DX lens...?
The range sounds quite promising leh... If not much difference in optical quality compared to 55-200, then I think 55-200 value will drop quite significantly.
Sigh... bo pian can't sell mine.
55-200 and D90 a bit weird balance. the lens not heavy enough... back heavy!

... 55-200 not heavy enough? you aiming for 70-200?
But the 55-300, will it really be of use to us?:think:

 

[skylover]

hey you guys are fast! and do you stalked in the forum or what?

anyway thanks alot for the clarifying, after i posted out, i decide that it is juz a feeling on a negative day thus do not want to hurt the forum or what thus delete the post. end up so many of you saw it.

apologies on that.

Thanks alot ya!

No problem. All of us need some kinda of break from work every now and then. So a few of us will be quite active here. ^^

trying to steer the topic back to PHOTOGRAPHY at the very least...

is anyone keen on the 55-300 DX lens...?
The range sounds quite promising leh... If not much difference in optical quality compared to 55-200, then I think 55-200 value will drop quite significantly.
Sigh... bo pian can't sell mine.
55-200 and D90 a bit weird balance. the lens not heavy enough... back heavy!

55-200 and 55-300? Both do not make much of a difference especially if you go shoot wild life. I realized the big difference between 200mm, 300mm, 500mm and 800mm. 200-300mm differences is not that great. But 500 n 800 the difference is super great. :sweat:

Hmm.. I saw an Ang Mo using a longer and bigger canon ball last Sat. It was wahoo..

 

[sonngx]

are there many chances to use telephoto lens in singapore? (I don't shoot birds)

 

[pasay]

trying to steer the topic back to PHOTOGRAPHY at the very least...

is anyone keen on the 55-300 DX lens...?
The range sounds quite promising leh... If not much difference in optical quality compared to 55-200, then I think 55-200 value will drop quite significantly.
Sigh... bo pian can't sell mine.
55-200 and D90 a bit weird balance. the lens not heavy enough... back heavy!

I'm using the 70-300, which is a bit more balanced than the 55-200. Difference on the wide end of these 2 lenses doesnt seem significant, even for a CF like the D90. Coz the kit lens already covers the 18-105 range. Although the 55-300 might have been targeted to compliment the 18-55 kit

 

[quizesilver]

No problem. All of us need some kinda of break from work every now and then. So a few of us will be quite active here. ^^


55-200 and 55-300? Both do not make much of a difference especially if you go shoot wild life. I realized the big difference between 200mm, 300mm, 500mm and 800mm. 200-300mm differences is not that great. But 500 n 800 the difference is super great. :sweat:

Hmm.. I saw an Ang Mo using a longer and bigger canon ball last Sat. It was wahoo..

something like dat?

 

[Smiles88]

something like dat?

2 sets of gear on a single tripod?? woooo.....

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

... 55-200 not heavy enough? you aiming for 70-200?
But the 55-300, will it really be of use to us?:think:

hahahaha 70-200/2.8 will definitely be front heavy!
I've gotten used to the balance of Tokina 12-24 and an non-gripped D90. The 85/1.8 is about the same weight, so about the same balance. 35/1.8 and 50/1.8 feel a bit too light.

I'm not a telephoto person, so I think the extra range 200-300 not really useful for me. Sold off my 70-300G actually, but that was mainly coz I didn't like the CA (purple fringing).

SOMETIMES though, telephoto is good to have (eg. moon....)

 

[skylover]

something like dat?

hmm.. I think urs still not big enough.. I saw the Ang Mo 1... about 1 meter in length. If i'm not wrong.. its a few lens connected together i think..

 

[quizesilver]

2 sets of gear on a single tripod?? woooo.....

zoom in

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

2 sets of gear on a single tripod?? woooo.....

yeah hor...? Didn't realize it's 1 tripod... :bigeyes:

 

[pasay]

zoom in

Is it just me, or does the smaller cam look like its floating in mid-air?:bigeyes:

 

[Ghaz1]

trying to steer the topic back to PHOTOGRAPHY at the very least...

is anyone keen on the 55-300 DX lens...?
The range sounds quite promising leh... If not much difference in optical quality compared to 55-200, then I think 55-200 value will drop quite significantly.
Sigh... bo pian can't sell mine.
55-200 and D90 a bit weird balance. the lens not heavy enough... back heavy!

I find my 55-200 gives very dull contrast and i've seen other shots with that lens with similar dullness. I think it's a dud from Nikon, so i'm interested to see how the 55-300 performs, otherwise i'll go for one of the third parties offerings. Heard Sigma is pretty good. But then again, what am i saying. I've not taken my UWA lens off my D90 for longer than an hour since i got it. Don't need a tele at the moment. :think:

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

Is it just me, or does the smaller cam look like its floating in mid-air?:bigeyes:

small your head la... They are the same camera body... or at least the same range (D_ series)...
[the tell-tale sign is the viewfinder hump... notice the curvature... there is no pop-up flash]

I wish there was a better angle to see this mounting setup... I'm intrigued. It looks like the smaller lens is clamped on the side by that wimberley setup...

 

[Smiles88]

I find my 55-200 gives very dull contrast and i've seen other shots with that lens with similar dullness. I think it's a dud from Nikon, so i'm interested to see how the 55-300 performs, otherwise i'll go for one of the third parties offerings. Heard Sigma is pretty good. But then again, what am i saying. I've not taken my UWA lens off my D90 for longer than an hour since i got it. Don't need a tele at the moment. :think:

Haha! I know why. You're too busy chasing the sun, so you need your UWA on frequently

 

[Smiles88]

small your head la... They are the same camera body... or at least the same range (D_ series)...
[the tell-tale sign is the viewfinder hump... notice the curvature... there is no pop-up flash]

I wish there was a better angle to see this mounting setup... I'm intrigued. It looks like the smaller lens is clamped on the side by that wimberley setup...

Ya man. Both looks like the higher range of Nikon bodies.

 

[akerue]

Bro you sure you're jealous? Later you post your shots I hide my head in the ground. Haha

dont like that lah, how to post any shot when i got no time to even shoot,

but i agree with ZCA ya next purchase has to be a UWA, a toki 12-24 with a couple of nd and gnd,

 

[akerue]

hahahaha 70-200/2.8 will definitely be front heavy!
I've gotten used to the balance of Tokina 12-24 and an non-gripped D90. The 85/1.8 is about the same weight, so about the same balance. 35/1.8 and 50/1.8 feel a bit too light.

I'm not a telephoto person, so I think the extra range 200-300 not really useful for me. Sold off my 70-300G actually, but that was mainly coz I didn't like the CA (purple fringing).

SOMETIMES though, telephoto is good to have (eg. moon....)

well bro its always good to have, either u try the new 55-300 by nikon or the tamron new 70-300 usd vc...

like me i cannot live without my 50 1.8, i used it more than any other lens.

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

zoom in

why would someone use a gimbal-head in the Esplanade area?
With telephoto lens.... hmmmm maybe plane spotting for NDP? When was the photo taken?

 

[iandao]

gd morning bros~!~