Chuckice and Harry,
What I said was not intended to make Nikon lesser than what it is. In fact it came up as a "back-handed compliment". If you are taking what I said personally, I have nothing to add to it. It was not the intension.
I didn't reply to your post about Nikon, I replied to Chuckice and then I only disagreed with him saying that your post was the most ridiculous one ever made on Dgrin. If any one is taking anything personal its you.
The pictures in the above links are, in my opinion, not the low light situation. They both were in sport arenas, i.e., today's indoor lightings are very close to the daylight.
You're wrong there. If it was close to daylight the shots would have been taken at much lower ISOs. No one shoots at ISO 1600 unless they absolutely have to. If those shots weren't the type you were after then do some searching yourself, its not that difficult.
I had difficult time with the D200 (with 17-55mm f2.8 DX) and it's metering. I have never own a Canon until now, so you can perhaps imagine what kind of expectations I had from Nikon.
I have seen fantastic shoots from the D200 and the 17-55mm F2.8. Both the camera and the lens have received outstanding reviews from very pro reviewer I've seen.
If anyone can not get satisfactory results from them then its not a problem of the equipment but in the skills of its user. I would make the same statement of anyone saying the same about Canon, Pentax, Olympus,etc.
We are currently blessed with a plethora of outstanding choices in cameras and lenses.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
What I needed Versus What I wanted....
For me, there is usually a difference, sometimes a big difference, between what I want and what I need.
I'd like to drive a Porsche 911 for a few years, but I don't. I tend to drive Toyota pickup trucks. The Need is more important than the Want. A practical car (or motorcycle) is a wonderful thing.
In most situations I clearly come down on the side of Need and not Want. I'm also married to a CPA/Financial Analyst that often reminds me of the difference and how it will affect our retirement. :uhoh
Today I said "what the hell".
I needed a D70, D200, 20D or the like. New or used. I WANTED that big hunk of metal called the D2X.
I let the dark side take over. I bought a brand new D2X from my local dealer who made me a sweet deal. It's sitting here in the box as I type this. I am so shocked that I was this emotional about a camera purchase.
My once-in-a-lifetime dream trip to Alaska will be accompanied by my fancy camera that will take me 12.34 years to figure out all of it's features.
In addition, I bought, but would like to solicit your opinions before I open the box, on the Nikon AF-S 24-120 VR lense. It's not that fast, it's not that cheap, but I think the range of the lense will be great for a lot of my day to day shooting.
My question, is this lense good enough that the D2X won't be limited by it. If so, then please make other recommendations. I almost purchased the 28-70 AF-S 2.8 ED-IF, but it was 2x the price (or more) than the 24-120.
I plan on spending the next 2 months learning my camera before heading north.
Congrats on the new camera Tom. I think you will love it as much as I love my D2X. I used the 24-120 for a few years until I got the 28-70. Its not the sharpest pencil in the box but I got some excellent shots with it. It focuses fast and the VR is very effective. Its better at the long end than the wide end. I often used it with my 80-400 for a walk around kit. One body and two rather light lenses, both with VR, gave me a range of 24-400mm.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
First of all: congrats on the new camera. Everything I read about it is nothing short of amazing. And about the 24-120: it all depends on the type of shooting you prefer. I personally like to shoot wideangle, and the 24 end would be a bit long for me on a DX format camera. I mean, it'd give you a 36mm starting point, and that's just not wideangle enoug for me. If you want to use only one lens, you may want to look into the 18-200 VR that was released with the D200. I've seen some okay reviews on it, but perhaps someone with more experience with Nikon gear might chime in.
For me, there is usually a difference, sometimes a big difference, between what I want and what I need.
I'd like to drive a Porsche 911 for a few years, but I don't. I tend to drive Toyota pickup trucks. The Need is more important than the Want. A practical car (or motorcycle) is a wonderful thing.
In most situations I clearly come down on the side of Need and not Want. I'm also married to a CPA/Financial Analyst that often reminds me of the difference and how it will affect our retirement. :uhoh
Today I said "what the hell".
I needed a D70, D200, 20D or the like. New or used. I WANTED that big hunk of metal called the D2X.
I let the dark side take over. I bought a brand new D2X from my local dealer who made me a sweet deal. It's sitting here in the box as I type this. I am so shocked that I was this emotional about a camera purchase.
My once-in-a-lifetime dream trip to Alaska will be accompanied by my fancy camera that will take me 12.34 years to figure out all of it's features.
In addition, I bought, but would like to solicit your opinions before I open the box, on the Nikon AF-S 24-120 VR lense. It's not that fast, it's not that cheap, but I think the range of the lense will be great for a lot of my day to day shooting.
My question, is this lense good enough that the D2X won't be limited by it. If so, then please make other recommendations. I almost purchased the 28-70 AF-S 2.8 ED-IF, but it was 2x the price (or more) than the 24-120.
I plan on spending the next 2 months learning my camera before heading north.
Tom
Tom...I used the 24-120 for about a year and all I can say is "eh, it was ok". Not enough wide on the wide end...too slow on the long end. I definitely prefer faster glass and was trying to just get away with one lens for lazy simple around the town P&S like behavior. I just found the aperture far too limiting. For a walk around and non-sports I think you'll be pleased. Image quality was good but not spectacular. Do you have an idea of what/how you like to shoot? That may help determine whether you'll be pushing the 24-120. Actually, you'll know soon enough and fortunately you've left yourself enough time to decide.
BTW...my friend just bought an 18-200 to replace his 28-200...fwiw, he said that the extra 10mm was not worth it (to him), VR was great but not worth the added size/weight (to him) and that the image quality on the 28-200 was better than the 18-200. I've never seen any of the difference pix but I have seen his 28-200 and the pix were very nice especially considering the thing is so small/light especially compared to the 18-200.
Hmmmm. Well, that is several folks who say the 24-120 VR is just "so so". I don't want a so-so lens. I check the reviews here http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=28 and they too don't rate the lense that high. In fact, it got an overall 8.1.
Perhaps I can return it tomorrow and just get the 28-70 2.8 AF-S lense. Big bucks, but I know that I will like it. It has a 9.6 rating.
Are there other sites that rate lenses? If so, I've like to find them.
That would then allow me to get something like the 80-200 2.8 as my 2nd lense, OR, try one of the really wide angle 12-24 DX lenses.
To answer one of the previous posters, I tend to shoot more of close ups of people, building, scenery, and such. I do a decent amount of landscapes as well. My all-time favorites are photographing cool old building, taverns, mines, and "western" stuff. I also like very close ups of interesting people, kids, and such. For some very strange reason (don't laugh), I am also fascinated with shooting weird trees, street scenes, and reflections.
If I ever had the patience, I'd love to shoot more wildlife, especially birds.
My wife and I are both bird watchers and can often be found out with our binos (Minox for her, Leica for me) around our necks.
Hmmmm. Well, that is several folks who say the 24-120 VR is just "so so". I don't want a so-so lens. I check the reviews here http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=28 and they too don't rate the lense that high. In fact, it got an overall 8.1.
Perhaps I can return it tomorrow and just get the 28-70 2.8 AF-S lense. Big bucks, but I know that I will like it. It has a 9.6 rating.
Are there other sites that rate lenses? If so, I've like to find them.
That would then allow me to get something like the 80-200 2.8 as my 2nd lense, OR, try one of the really wide angle 12-24 DX lenses.
To answer one of the previous posters, I tend to shoot more of close ups of people, building, scenery, and such. I do a decent amount of landscapes as well. My all-time favorites are photographing cool old building, taverns, mines, and "western" stuff. I also like very close ups of interesting people, kids, and such. For some very strange reason (don't laugh), I am also fascinated with shooting weird trees, street scenes, and reflections.
If I ever had the patience, I'd love to shoot more wildlife, especially birds.
My wife and I are both bird watchers and can often be found out with our binos (Minox for her, Leica for me) around our necks.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Hmmmm. Well, that is several folks who say the 24-120 VR is just "so so". I don't want a so-so lens. I check the reviews here http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=28 and they too don't rate the lense that high. In fact, it got an overall 8.1.
Perhaps I can return it tomorrow and just get the 28-70 2.8 AF-S lense. Big bucks, but I know that I will like it. It has a 9.6 rating.
Are there other sites that rate lenses? If so, I've like to find them.
That would then allow me to get something like the 80-200 2.8 as my 2nd lense, OR, try one of the really wide angle 12-24 DX lenses.
To answer one of the previous posters, I tend to shoot more of close ups of people, building, scenery, and such. I do a decent amount of landscapes as well. My all-time favorites are photographing cool old building, taverns, mines, and "western" stuff. I also like very close ups of interesting people, kids, and such. For some very strange reason (don't laugh), I am also fascinated with shooting weird trees, street scenes, and reflections.
If I ever had the patience, I'd love to shoot more wildlife, especially birds.
My wife and I are both bird watchers and can often be found out with our binos (Minox for her, Leica for me) around our necks.
T.
Tom...based on that description I think you might be ALOT happier with the 17-55. Panos/closeups/etc. the wide range on the 17-55 will be alot more flexible than the 28-70. Both are spectacular...just remember that 1.5x crop factor and the 28-70 becomes a 42-105...nice range but possibly too much for wide street scenes, people, etc. The debate on the 17-55 vs 28-70 is never ending...optically it's a toss up (at least to me) just depends which range suits you better. I'd HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY recommend either lens over the 24-105 as a former owner...does that stress it enough.
Hmmmm. Well, that is several folks who say the 24-120 VR is just "so so". I don't want a so-so lens. I check the reviews here http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=28 and they too don't rate the lense that high. In fact, it got an overall 8.1.
Perhaps I can return it tomorrow and just get the 28-70 2.8 AF-S lense. Big bucks, but I know that I will like it. It has a 9.6 rating.
Are there other sites that rate lenses? If so, I've like to find them.
That would then allow me to get something like the 80-200 2.8 as my 2nd lense, OR, try one of the really wide angle 12-24 DX lenses.
To answer one of the previous posters, I tend to shoot more of close ups of people, building, scenery, and such. I do a decent amount of landscapes as well. My all-time favorites are photographing cool old building, taverns, mines, and "western" stuff. I also like very close ups of interesting people, kids, and such. For some very strange reason (don't laugh), I am also fascinated with shooting weird trees, street scenes, and reflections.
If I ever had the patience, I'd love to shoot more wildlife, especially birds.
My wife and I are both bird watchers and can often be found out with our binos (Minox for her, Leica for me) around our necks.
T.
I dropped out of this thread for a while and it looks like it got nasty. I won't bother reading it.
First, CONGRATS on buying a sweet camera.
Second, it's time to get great glass for the cam. You do a $5000 camera no service by buying a $500 5x zoom lens for it. So yea, kick that 24-120 back to the dealer. I have one, and would recommend it to someone with a D50 or D70 like mine. On a D200 or D2x, the camera will show the lens's flaws. And I own one.
You're on the right track with the 12-24, 28-70 or 17-55. Any constant aperture Nikon zoom is a "pro" lens, but these are great (beware sample variation on the 12-24 though).
Also check out the 70-200 VR.
And I second the link chuckice put in: Bjorn is a very good lens reviewer.
Comments
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
For me, there is usually a difference, sometimes a big difference, between what I want and what I need.
I'd like to drive a Porsche 911 for a few years, but I don't. I tend to drive Toyota pickup trucks. The Need is more important than the Want. A practical car (or motorcycle) is a wonderful thing.
In most situations I clearly come down on the side of Need and not Want. I'm also married to a CPA/Financial Analyst that often reminds me of the difference and how it will affect our retirement. :uhoh
Today I said "what the hell".
I needed a D70, D200, 20D or the like. New or used. I WANTED that big hunk of metal called the D2X.
I let the dark side take over. I bought a brand new D2X from my local dealer who made me a sweet deal. It's sitting here in the box as I type this. I am so shocked that I was this emotional about a camera purchase.
My once-in-a-lifetime dream trip to Alaska will be accompanied by my fancy camera that will take me 12.34 years to figure out all of it's features.
In addition, I bought, but would like to solicit your opinions before I open the box, on the Nikon AF-S 24-120 VR lense. It's not that fast, it's not that cheap, but I think the range of the lense will be great for a lot of my day to day shooting.
My question, is this lense good enough that the D2X won't be limited by it. If so, then please make other recommendations. I almost purchased the 28-70 AF-S 2.8 ED-IF, but it was 2x the price (or more) than the 24-120.
I plan on spending the next 2 months learning my camera before heading north.
Tom
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Tom...I used the 24-120 for about a year and all I can say is "eh, it was ok". Not enough wide on the wide end...too slow on the long end. I definitely prefer faster glass and was trying to just get away with one lens for lazy simple around the town P&S like behavior. I just found the aperture far too limiting. For a walk around and non-sports I think you'll be pleased. Image quality was good but not spectacular. Do you have an idea of what/how you like to shoot? That may help determine whether you'll be pushing the 24-120. Actually, you'll know soon enough and fortunately you've left yourself enough time to decide.
BTW...my friend just bought an 18-200 to replace his 28-200...fwiw, he said that the extra 10mm was not worth it (to him), VR was great but not worth the added size/weight (to him) and that the image quality on the 28-200 was better than the 18-200. I've never seen any of the difference pix but I have seen his 28-200 and the pix were very nice especially considering the thing is so small/light especially compared to the 18-200.
http://www.SnortingBullPhoto.com
http://www.sportsshooter.com/cherskowitz
"There's no reason to hurry on this climb...as long as you keep the tempo at the right speed the riders will fall back."
good piccies too
Perhaps I can return it tomorrow and just get the 28-70 2.8 AF-S lense. Big bucks, but I know that I will like it. It has a 9.6 rating.
Are there other sites that rate lenses? If so, I've like to find them.
That would then allow me to get something like the 80-200 2.8 as my 2nd lense, OR, try one of the really wide angle 12-24 DX lenses.
To answer one of the previous posters, I tend to shoot more of close ups of people, building, scenery, and such. I do a decent amount of landscapes as well. My all-time favorites are photographing cool old building, taverns, mines, and "western" stuff. I also like very close ups of interesting people, kids, and such. For some very strange reason (don't laugh), I am also fascinated with shooting weird trees, street scenes, and reflections.
If I ever had the patience, I'd love to shoot more wildlife, especially birds.
My wife and I are both bird watchers and can often be found out with our binos (Minox for her, Leica for me) around our necks.
T.
For Nikon lens info check out this link
http://home.zonnet.nl/famwakker/nikonlinkslenseswelcome01.htm
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Tom...based on that description I think you might be ALOT happier with the 17-55. Panos/closeups/etc. the wide range on the 17-55 will be alot more flexible than the 28-70. Both are spectacular...just remember that 1.5x crop factor and the 28-70 becomes a 42-105...nice range but possibly too much for wide street scenes, people, etc. The debate on the 17-55 vs 28-70 is never ending...optically it's a toss up (at least to me) just depends which range suits you better. I'd HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY recommend either lens over the 24-105 as a former owner...does that stress it enough.
For nikkor lens reviews I'd also check here...the home of the Nikon master.
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html#top1
http://www.SnortingBullPhoto.com
http://www.sportsshooter.com/cherskowitz
"There's no reason to hurry on this climb...as long as you keep the tempo at the right speed the riders will fall back."
First, CONGRATS on buying a sweet camera.
Second, it's time to get great glass for the cam. You do a $5000 camera no service by buying a $500 5x zoom lens for it. So yea, kick that 24-120 back to the dealer. I have one, and would recommend it to someone with a D50 or D70 like mine. On a D200 or D2x, the camera will show the lens's flaws. And I own one.
You're on the right track with the 12-24, 28-70 or 17-55. Any constant aperture Nikon zoom is a "pro" lens, but these are great (beware sample variation on the 12-24 though).
Also check out the 70-200 VR.
And I second the link chuckice put in: Bjorn is a very good lens reviewer.
http://cusac.smugmug.com
I told you it was a loaded question!