|
needtolearnhowtoclimb
Feb 27, 2004, 5:35 PM
Post #1 of 11
(2701 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2002
Posts: 216
|
I am looking around about getting a new lens for my f-100. I was thinking a wide angle, or somethinglike that. Any suggestions would be help, like what you guys use and what not. thanks. peace.
|
|
|
|
|
popol
Feb 27, 2004, 7:43 PM
Post #2 of 11
(2701 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 9, 2003
Posts: 390
|
I'm using a 28-300mm zoomlense. Considering to buy an extra 20mm wide angle lense to make it complete.
|
|
|
|
|
hangdoggypound
Feb 27, 2004, 8:05 PM
Post #3 of 11
(2701 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 23, 2002
Posts: 169
|
In reply to: I am looking around about getting a new lens for my f-100. I was thinking a wide angle, or somethinglike that. Any suggestions would be help, like what you guys use and what not. thanks. peace.
Also, I prefer to stick with prime lenses (no adjustable focal length) for the sake of better sharpness.
Anyway, I hope it helps.
|
|
|
|
|
biff
Feb 27, 2004, 8:45 PM
Post #4 of 11
(2701 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2001
Posts: 851
|
I have a 28-300 Sigma
a 50 mm F1.8
and a recent addition of a 12-24mm Sigma.
that last lens cost me CDN$1200 .. I am shooting an indoor Bouldering comp tonight .. I'll post a link my photos tomorrow in this tread.
I have had the 12-24 for almost 2 weeks now. and really like it. It captures really wide shots (obviously) and it is very well made (for US$900 what do you expect?)
I really like my 28-300, when backpacking, and prety much everything else (except for low light/indoor situations) it is great, I don't have to change lenses while hanging from a cliff, or when hiking.
The 50mm and 12-24 I usually only use when I have a spesific shot , or a situation that I really want something extra wide.
If you have something to cover your range from 28-200 or so .. I would highly recomend the 12-24 if you have that kind of cash.
|
|
|
|
|
treebeard
Feb 27, 2004, 9:32 PM
Post #5 of 11
(2701 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2004
Posts: 108
|
I own a 28-80mm and a 70-300mm (with macro feature). I use the 28-80mm for most situations. I'm also thinking of buying a fisheye soon. I was looking on bhphoto.com the other day and noticed the had an 8mm fisheye. Wow.
|
|
|
|
|
dsafanda
Feb 27, 2004, 9:43 PM
Post #6 of 11
(2701 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2002
Posts: 1025
|
For wide angle I love my Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D zoom.
For telepho I use a Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8D zoom.
Both lenses are fantastic.
I have a 50mm to cover that middle range but it almost never sees action.
|
|
|
|
|
shorty
Feb 27, 2004, 11:32 PM
Post #7 of 11
(2701 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2003
Posts: 1266
|
With my old cameras I stuck with prime lenses, mainly due to concerns over quality. However, when I sprung for my F-100 a few years ago, I took the time to evaluate Nikon's zoom lenses and I was impressed with the results.
I'm a gear pig, so I had to budget ahead to survive the investment in these lenses. I have three Nikon AF-S zooms: 17-35mm f/2.8, 28-80mm f/2.8, and 80-200mm f/2.8. I purchased them through New York camera houses, making sure that I got USA models (not gray market) with full Nikon warranty. Still not cheap, but better than retail.
All three lenses have produced stunning photos (if the idiot behind the camera was doing his job). Most of my good pictures are landscapes, usually shot with Kodak E-100 series slides, and generally shot with a tripod. I've had enlargements made up to 24" x 36" with great results.
For what my opinion's worth, you've got a good camera -- make certain your lenses are good.
And I really like my Nikon 17-35mm. It has produced some amazing shots, does not seem to produce any fish-eye effect, and has good contrast and brightness corner to corner.
|
|
|
|
|
biff
Feb 28, 2004, 10:15 PM
Post #8 of 11
(2701 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2001
Posts: 851
|
I got a 12-24mm lens a couple weeks ago:
here is a gallery
The photos above the DJ are from the 12-24, below are from my 50mm.
As you will see, the lighting conditions were terrible, but I still managed to get some decent shots (at least I thought so) ... let me know what you think
http://www.enel.ucalgary.ca/.../climbing/2004_feb27
|
|
|
|
|
hawk
Feb 28, 2004, 11:10 PM
Post #9 of 11
(2701 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 22, 2003
Posts: 3
|
Since you are using the f-100 I would check out the new Nikon 24-120 VR (vibration reduction) lense. I picked one up three weeks ago and think it's great. VR operation offers the equivalent of using a shutter speed 3 stops faster at 120mm. For example, if you normally get sharp handheld results at 1/125th seconds, you'll now be able to shoot at speeds as slow as 1/15th seconds without compromising sharpness. This function is extremely useful in action photography.
|
|
|
|
|
rongoodman
Feb 28, 2004, 11:55 PM
Post #10 of 11
(2701 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 17, 2003
Posts: 82
|
It would help to know what you have now. For a prime, I like the 24mm. I've been using the 24-85 AFS lately--it's quiet, fast, and not too bulky. Compared the the more expensive zooms, like the 17-35 f/2.8, it wouldn't be such a catastrophe if something happened to it. If I take an SLR on my trip to the Ruth Glacier in May, I'll take that and the 180. The Stylus Epic will go for sure too.
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Feb 29, 2004, 2:48 AM
Post #11 of 11
(2701 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
In reply to: For wide angle I love my Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D zoom. For telepho I use a Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8D zoom. Both lenses are fantastic. I have a 50mm to cover that middle range but it almost never sees action.
You're shooting with a D100 right?
I wanted to wait for the 17-55 but it doesn't look like Nikon will ever get around to making it. I was planning to eBay my 18-35, 85/1.4, and F100 to pay for it, since I never shoot film anymore. (which sucks, because frankly the images from the f100 are better metered)
The 10.5mm fisheye might satisfy my need for a WIDE angle but it's $700 and rather specialized. (== 16mm fisheye film perspective)
Note for whoever posted about the 8mm fisheyes:
The problem with the 8mm fisheyes is that they give you a little round shot in the middle of the frame. See for example this photo if you are not already aware of what you're getting into :-). On the other hand with the 10.5mm and a D100 you can pull stunts like you see in this gallery. Plus the free Panorama Tools package will extract a 14mm-equivalent image from the fisheye images you take.
Umm, yeah, so I think I'm just going to buy one and get it over with. I'll keep the 18-35, sell the 85/1.4 to pay for the fisheye, and get a 50/1.4 to take over for what I used to use the 85mm lens to shoot on film.
Man I gotta bring my camera out more often. Also need to post those pics of whatsherface on Figures on a Landscape. And Patagonia. And Cayman Brac. And Josh... this is pathetic... thank god for iPhoto and its multiple libraries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
