Quantcast

I got to play with fancy glass last night

blue

boob hater
Jan 24, 2004
10,165
0
california
One of these...


(2.8 70-200mm)

It really is all about the glass. A friend came over with his new D300 and that borrowed piece. His body was nicer than my D40 no doubt, but the images, aside from MP count, were not that different taken with the same glass. Sadly, in a 15x20 living room filled with furniture, it is tough to get a decent portrait shot with such a looong length.

So I just ordered a 1.8 50mm for $40 off Fleabay. :busted:
 

blue

boob hater
Jan 24, 2004
10,165
0
california
I would have put that toward health insurance.
Someone called Maria's name
I swear it was my father's voice
Saying, "If you stay you'll all be slain
You must leave now - you have no choice
Take the servants and ride west
Keep the child close to your chest
When the American troops withdraw
Let Zapata take the rest"
 

blue

boob hater
Jan 24, 2004
10,165
0
california
I'm a Canon guy, but I know the value of good glass. Really good lenses are fun to play with, aren't they?
I wish I had two grand to drop on fancy stuff. :(

BTW, D300 lowlight performance still sucks compared to the nice Canon bodies. And my D40 suffers at ISO 800:

 

H8R

Cranky Pants
Nov 10, 2004
13,971
20
Ah, crap.
Just fvcking w/ you.

The E Series was Nikon's "budget line" of lenses. Not the best, but not bad at all.

The holy grail is the 50mm manual focus Nikkors made in the mid eighties. These are supposedly the sharpest of any series.


More:
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/50mmnikkor/index5.htm


Serial number list for every lens Nikon ever made: (good for figuring out exactly what you have, there were 3 different E Series models)
http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html
 

blue

boob hater
Jan 24, 2004
10,165
0
california
interesting to hear about the poor light performance on the D300. something's got to make up for the 51 AF points, tracking, etc. :disgust:
Yeah. I was wholly unimpressed, after all the hullabaloo was made about it prior to its release...above ISO 1000 it was pretty bad.

And yes, I know. Manual focus yays!

At some point I may see if I can swap my body and kit lens for just a D50 or something body with an AF motor inside...
 

H8R

Cranky Pants
Nov 10, 2004
13,971
20
At some point I may see if I can swap my body and kit lens for just a D50 or something body with an AF motor inside...
You're gonna love using the 50mm on the D40, trust me. Once you get the hang of it it takes awesome shots.


If you are going to look at a D50, take a look at the D70s. (not a D70). Even better if you can find one with the not-so-kit-lens-like 18-70mm kit lens that came with them. I picked up mine for $450 on CL.
 

stosh

Darth Bailer
Jul 20, 2001
21,989
154
NY
My D40 arrived on Friday.

It really is an amazing camera. I can't wait to start really playing with it.
 

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
21,664
413
NC
Actually, it looks like the most recent post on Flickr is more recent than the most recent post on Ridefoto :rofl:

RM Flickr said:
narlus_spectre says:

anyone shooting???

let's see some pics.

or at least rant about some useless topic.
Posted at 7:54PM, 12 December 2007 EST
Ridefoto said:
spastic semicolon

Re: Nikon N2020
« Reply #1 on: November 14, 2007, 06:47:28 PM »
find a copy of the book by Bryan Peterson, _Understanding Exposure_.
Funny that they're both by the same person :D
 

H8R

Cranky Pants
Nov 10, 2004
13,971
20
Before the Nikon low light bashing starts up again, it ain't all bad:

 

stosh

Darth Bailer
Jul 20, 2001
21,989
154
NY
not the flickr ridemonkey group? :busted:

stosh, that was a quick decision! good luck w/ yr new tool.


btw, _understanding exposure_ by Bryan Peterson is an excellent book if you are new to photography...helped me out quite a bit.
I had mostly decided already.

It was kind of a no brain'er. In my price range it was either the D40 or the Rebel. I have some old Nikon lenses so....
 

H8R

Cranky Pants
Nov 10, 2004
13,971
20
$1600 or so...
If you're using this for sports shooting, I think that might cost more than the fine for trespassing on a stadium field during a game. I'd be cheaper just to run onto the field w/ a kit lens.

:lighten:
 

blue

boob hater
Jan 24, 2004
10,165
0
california
If you're using this for sports shooting, I think that might cost more than the fine for trespassing on a stadium field during a game. I'd be cheaper just to run onto the field w/ a kit lens.

:lighten:
When I was shooting with it, I remarked that the lens would be "good for bum hunting".

Good times.
 

r464

Turbo Monkey
Oct 17, 2006
2,608
0
Earth
The 70-200/2.8VR paired with the 17-55/2.8 is a fantastic combination.

I am selling off an 18-70 lens, which is a great value that produces some great results as well.

My current travel bag contains these lenses:
70-200/2.8VR
17-55/2.8
10.5/2.8
105/2.8 Micro
50/1.8

Flashes:
SB-600
SB-800
 

H8R

Cranky Pants
Nov 10, 2004
13,971
20
The 70-200/2.8VR paired with the 17-55/2.8 is a fantastic combination.

I am selling off an 18-70 lens, which is a great value that produces some great results as well.
Blue, take note. That lens ROCKS on a D40. The AF is fast and quiet.

How much are you asking for it?
 

H8R

Cranky Pants
Nov 10, 2004
13,971
20
Me and Mrs. H8R are armed to the teeth for when baby arrives in April -




Plus we have a point 'n shoot. And a Polaroid. And a Minolta film SLR. And a Nickelodeon 4X film camera.

That poor kid.