Nikkor Lens

[desertstrike]

Hi desertstrike,

The Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8 is a great lens. I bought this although it doesnt work AF with my D40x..... it's a great portrait lens although with an APSC sensor, I gotta stand a little further away. Darn fast when I put it onto my D70. Bokeh is alright for me but frankly, I aint too well educated on bokeh.

For the longer lens, I have the Nikkor AFS 70-300mm VR. This is one great lens ! I can do a little birding with this coupled together with a 1.4x teleconverter, but will mainly be in MF mode frankly losing 1 stop aperture. Otherwise, when I just want a reach in general, this is great. The VR makes it possible to have it handheld in day time conditions. Don't use too much of this lens at night, so I can't really comment.... I'd recommend this over the non-VR or 3rd party version. It's not that expensive at $800 ? I got it in HK for like just over $600 brand new.... if you have folks gg HK, perhaps you can try, but I read from CS forum hereabouts that the prices seems to have gone up to about SG levels since I bot it.....

You have an interesting post and I was reading the threads and was wondering whether you are in the same position as me. I shoot mainly scenery, building, archi, nature, streets, lesser portraits etc..... and just to share my setup with you..... I have the following :-

1. Nik 18-135mm to cover the main working range....
2. Nik 70-300mm VR to cover long zoom affordably... ahhaa....
3. Nik 50mm f/1.8 to cover portrait and have a bright fixed mid distance prime affordably ! ;P
4. Sigma 150mm Macro to cover close ups and macros
5. Tok 11-16mm Ultra Wide Angle to cover well, UWA... haha....

The entire set of lenses cost me about $2600.... if you are interested, I can PM u the details of where I got them, but some are not repeatable..... ha.....

Anyways, just sharing my thoughts and hope it's helpful to you !

Cheerios !

very comprehensive! thanks man!
sure,please PM me the details! thanks in advance!
actually i also considering the 35mm as memtion by Simon_84, cos i am afraid that the 50mm might need to stand quite far before the dslr can focus...

actullay initially i know that F1.8/F1.4 gives nice bokeh, so good for potrait... then as i read on... i find that it is also a fast lens, means it is good for sports? and since it is good for sports, means that even without VR, there are wun be much motion blur?

anyway, please PM me the details, thanks!

 

[desertstrike]

also comparing the 70-300 VR vs nikkor 80-200 f2.8 one touch version cost abt $700-800 as suggested by nakedtoes...
so how do i decide whether i wan the extra 100mm focal length or the f2.8 aperature version... since both about the same cost...

need to confirm...
70-300
good for distance...
bokeh? (since long focal length can give nice bokeh also?)

80-200
faster lens? (better for sports?)
easier to get nicer bokeh?

am i correct?

 

[vincecarlo]

was planning to get the following lens...
would like to ask for opinion
using D90...

1. F1.8 50mm
AF-S 50mm f/1.4G
AF 50mm f/1.8D $150-$170
AF 50mm f/1.4D
AF 85mm f/1.8D $620

2. 70-300mm
AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED $820
AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED

how would your choose?
basically, i want a good zoom lens and another lens for bokeh
or 3rd party would be more value for money?
but i dun know much about 3rd party lens
any suggestion?
thanks

focal length depends what you intend to shoot

I had a D80 and below are shots with 85mm f1.8, right click for EXIF. Note, pix taken with no strobe and pix untouched.

More Pix here, combination of D80 with 85mm & Fuji S6500fd prosumer
Tokyo AutoSalon'08


Lens with you can't go wrong :

• 50 f1.8
• 50 f1.4
• 85 f1.8
• 17-35 f2.8
• 35-70 f2.8
• 24-70 f2.8
• 80-200 f2.8

I'm a sucker for fast lens

 

[desertstrike]

fast lens are good, but are really expensive

 

[jnet6]

fast lens are good, but are really expensive

Good things doesn't come cheap...
Just that how much are you willing to spend on your photography.

 

[desertstrike]

true.............

anyone can confirmed my queries on post 41 and 42? thanks

 

[jnet6]

for post 42.

2.8 lens will have better bokeh then variable aperture(in this case is 70-300 4.5~5.6)

But if you are able to use the lens(70-300) properly you can get decent bokeh.

 

[jnet6]

For post 41... i'm not a sports shooter

from my view fast lens is aperture can open up to allow more light comes in so that i'm able to increase shutter speed to "freeze" the motion.
Normally people shoot sports are using range from 70~500mm lens(depending on situation). so you will need the variable zoom and big aperture.
As i've mention before VR is good for long range at lower shutter speed.

Do read up more able basics of photography and the questions will be answers mostly.

 

[desertstrike]

for post 42.

2.8 lens will have better bokeh then variable aperture(in this case is 70-300 4.5~5.6)

But if you are able to use the lens(70-300) properly you can get decent bokeh.

yup, ur reply reconfirmed my thinking... just that how much more difficult is it to achieve the bokeh with the zoom effect of 70-300 than the f2.8 lens... do u think the shop would be willing to let me try out at their counter?

 

[desertstrike]

For post 41... i'm not a sports shooter

from my view fast lens is aperture can open up to allow more light comes in so that i'm able to increase shutter speed to "freeze" the motion.
Normally people shoot sports are using range from 70~500mm lens(depending on situation). so you will need the variable zoom and big aperture.
As i've mention before VR is good for long range at lower shutter speed.

Do read up more able basics of photography and the questions will be answers mostly.

yah, i have read, just wanna reconfirmed whether i digest the info correctly, haha

 

[zac08]

yup, ur reply reconfirmed my thinking... just that how much more difficult is it to achieve the bokeh with the zoom effect of 70-300 than the f2.8 lens... do u think the shop would be willing to let me try out at their counter?

Having a wide f2.8 lens is no use for bokeh unless you get the subject really close to you and the BG far...

Thus with a telephoto lens, you'd need an good ratio of the subject to camera distance and the subject to BG distance. Always keep the subject closer to you. I've achived decent bokeh even with a 70-300 Nikon G lens but the subject was close about 3 metres away and the BG was trees, so it was still pretty decent.

You'd need to try out over some time to get the hang of it.

 

[jnet6]

Having a wide f2.8 lens is no use for bokeh unless you get the subject really close to you and the BG far...

Thus with a telephoto lens, you'd need an good ratio of the subject to camera distance and the subject to BG distance. Always keep the subject closer to you. I've achived decent bokeh even with a 70-300 Nikon G lens but the subject was close about 3 metres away and the BG was trees, so it was still pretty decent.

You'd need to try out over some time to get the hang of it.

ya, correct bro... i'm not very good with technical details on the distance.

 

[sf_kang]

Hi dessertstrike, here are some thoughts I offer regarding your question on lens choice (I have been shooting Nikons for over 30 years and owned and 'disowned' many many lenses)

1) First question is to ask what you intend to use the lenses for and under what circumstance you will be using the lenses.
2) When you ask about the 50mm prime lens, I assume you want good image quality, good bokeh, and you will have time to pose your subject or move your camera to get the right composition (since this is not a zoom), maybe under low-light conditions? If my assumptions are correct, then I'd suggest the AF 50mm/1.4D. This lens IMO offers very good value for the picture quality it produces. I don't need the AFS as the 50mm D lens already focuses quite fast due to the 1.4 aperture. 50mm on a DX body would be about 75mm on FX (which is a decent focal length for portraiture). Shoot wide open on a DX body and this will give really nice portraits will nice bokeh. In fact, for 50mm work, I shoot with manual focus CarlZeiss 50mm/2.0 on my D3 body.
3) Re your question about the 70-300 zoom, I assume you will use this for travel or when you don't have time to change lenses, and you are prepared to sacrifice some picture quality but MUST get the picture. Choice now depends on your budget and whether you are willing to lug around a weighty lens. The 70-300 with variable aperture is convenient, lighter in weight and more affordable. The 80-200/2.8 or 70-200/2.8 VR are more pricey, heavier but offer FAR BETTER picture quality (I have owned and shot with both there 2.8 zooms).
4) One more point to consider: IF you plan eventually to go onto FX, then I'll definitely invest in lenses that work with FX.
Hope this helps.
Do contact me if you wish to discuss more offline.
Fred

 

[vincecarlo]

Good things doesn't come cheap...
Just that how much are you willing to spend on your photography.

true true
I'll rather have a few gd lens that I use often than a whole bunch of cheap lens that doesn't do the job right

 

[jnet6]

Hi dessertstrike, here are some thoughts I offer regarding your question on lens choice (I have been shooting Nikons for over 30 years and owned and 'disowned' many many lenses)

1) First question is to ask what you intend to use the lenses for and under what circumstance you will be using the lenses.
2) When you ask about the 50mm prime lens, I assume you want good image quality, good bokeh, and you will have time to pose your subject or move your camera to get the right composition (since this is not a zoom), maybe under low-light conditions? If my assumptions are correct, then I'd suggest the AF 50mm/1.4D. This lens IMO offers very good value for the picture quality it produces. I don't need the AFS as the 50mm D lens already focuses quite fast due to the 1.4 aperture. 50mm on a DX body would be about 75mm on FX (which is a decent focal length for portraiture). Shoot wide open on a DX body and this will give really nice portraits will nice bokeh. In fact, for 50mm work, I shoot with manual focus CarlZeiss 50mm/2.0 on my D3 body.
3) Re your question about the 70-300 zoom, I assume you will use this for travel or when you don't have time to change lenses, and you are prepared to sacrifice some picture quality but MUST get the picture. Choice now depends on your budget and whether you are willing to lug around a weighty lens. The 70-300 with variable aperture is convenient, lighter in weight and more affordable. The 80-200/2.8 or 70-200/2.8 VR are more pricey, heavier but offer FAR BETTER picture quality (I have owned and shot with both there 2.8 zooms).
4) One more point to consider: IF you plan eventually to go onto FX, then I'll definitely invest in lenses that work with FX.
Hope this helps.
Do contact me if you wish to discuss more offline.
Fred

sf_fang bro...
I also mention/ask him from the start of his post at page 1...

So desertstrike, you see most of your answers posted here is still back to the round one.

 

[jnet6]

true true
I'll rather have a few gd lens that I use often than a whole bunch of cheap lens that doesn't do the job right

next is how much can you compromise.