Cheers mate
30 seconds
I purchased mine new for $1800 so $700 is quite a bargain! Infact, I think the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 can be had around that price.
It is an absolutely exceptional lens - fast, sharp, superb bokeh and exceptional colour rendition and contrast. The VRII offers an improvement on the light fall off issue that the VRI suffered from - an annomoly that you'd only pick up using a Full Frame FX body (since the smaller image circle of the DX 'crops' the outer part of the frame where the fall off/vignette occurs). The Nano-crystal coating is another benefit but is mainly there to control flare - an issue I've never had with the VR. In short, on a DX body, the VR is a great buy!
Cheaper alternatives can be found in the form of the older 80-200 f/2.8 - this lens operates off the camera's in-built focus drive motor so it's a little slower but is just as good (if not better in some optical respects) as the 70-200 f/2.8 VR. The last one I'll point out is the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 - a great lens all round but it lacks the build and the performance @ f/2.8 as the Nikkors. For the price however, you can't go wrong.
I have the the
Ai 50mm f/1.2, the
AF 50mm f/1.4D, the
AF 50mm f/1.8D and the
Ai 50mm f/2 and of the four, the 1.4 is by far my favorite. My housemate has the 55 f/3.5 Macro which he bought for $35 but we won't go there. Haven't used the Sigma personally on Nikon but on Canon, it's fantastic. Likewise, haven't had much to do with the AF-S lens as it won't mount on my film gear (where as the above four will). Just a few notes;
- The Sig and the AF-S version have built-in focus motors and will therefore focus faster and quieter. However, given this is a portrait lens, focus speed probably isn't as important as image quality.
- The Sig and the AF-D I think have the best IQ, that is, bokeh, contrast, colour and the likes. The Sig and the AF-S however, perform better @ 1.4.
- The Sig is a BIG lens - the AF-D fits easily into my kit bag/pocket. The AF-S is a little larger due to the AF motor but still is relatively compact.
- The AF-D won for me in the end purely from a price perspective - I got mine new and shipped for $280 from Digital Rev. The Sigma is pretty awesome but I wasn't overly happy with the build or the size and it's optical benefits over the 1.4D didn't justify the price jump in my mind. That and I couldn't use it with my Nikkormat
For landscape/architecture however, you probably want something wider though. 50mm on a DX isn't overly wide - in fact it's bordering on telephoto!
The Aforementioned Tokina is an outstanding lens - wish it existed when I bought my Sigma 10-20...
Hope that helps man!
Yer $700.00 for the VRI, but in 'usable' condition whatever that means??
Are you using a full frame Nikon? Yer, one of the main disadvantages of owning a Nikon DX body im finding, is that all of Nikons best lenses are made for FX, so as you mentioned there is often some vignetting, although from what I understand there are some FX lenses that work better on a DX body
go figure, but im going to purchase FX lenses from now on as I will probably buy an FX body in the next two years.. (D800 perhaps!!!).
The 80-200 VRII is my dream lens, but I think it may be a little out of my budget at the minute, but as you also mentioned the older model (not VRI) is an absolute weapon!
.
I have seen reasonable examples go for around $600.00, but im unsure as to why the VRI is only about $300.00 more.
Man you got that 50mm AF-D cheap! Have you looked into the G version? Your comments regarding the 50mm 1.4's are pretty much on par with other reviews i have read: Nikon 1.4D better over its whole aperture range, small light and cheap. The Sigma is the total opposite: has a sweet spot, flippin heavy and BIG! The general consensus seems to be that the Sigma is best in class, but the AF-D is overall better in all aspects, so im still unsure haha.
You are right - 50mm is not wide enough, which is why im saving desperately to buy the 14-24mm f/2.8, the undisputed KING of landscape lenses! May have to sell one of my bikes to fund it though!
Thanks again for the helpful comments. On your recommendation I will probably get the AF-D.
No worries mate. Yeah I shoot with a Canon 35mm f/2 so I know what you mean regarding finding the balance between those elements, just takes practice. Its the same for anything though, there is always a trade off where you can generally have 2 of 3 things you might want and you just have to prioritise depending on the type of shot you are trying to get.
Looking through all my photos, most of the time my lens is wide open at f/2 is when its really low light and I'm trying to capture a whole scene that's a couple of metres away, as opposed to a portrait of an individual person. In no way can I take a good portrait, but funnily enough, what I consider to be my best portrait was taken at f/2
You are right - its definitely a compromise! Trying to find the balance is the most difficult thing. However, I have been to a few weddings lately and in low light the 35mm was astonishingly good. I shot in 1.8 mostly without a flash, with a super fast shutter speed and the pics came out better than expected. One thing though was that near all of them were taken about 2-4 meters from the subject.
Both shot with D7000 35mm. This one was at about 2pm from memory, about f/5.
Pic below is on dusk, no flash at f/1.8. No editing, but I have reduced resolution to 120, looks way better in RAW.
NeBoS do you work in a firm? and whats your profession?
I'm currently studying architecture, so I have been doing a bit of investigation/ research into what lense setup I should be looking for. An ultrawide is definately the way to for architectural work due to the importance of context as you would already no. The only issue will be managing distortion with your vertical and horizontal lines, but that can be easily done
If your shooting low light, then the 11-16 tokina will be great, however the sigma is still an option with a tripod, it al depends on your time I guess. Then again, if your highlighting details then a bit of zoom can go along way, as you will most likely want little distortion, again it all depends on what your shooting
Hey mate, im an landscape architect/urban designer/graphic designer, so the kind of pics I take are quite varied; I typically use the 35mm for site shots where speed and detail is key, so I can shoot around 300 shots in about 40 minutes if need be. Then there are those pics I use for a materials/design catalogue where your ultra-wide lens is needed (I usually borrow one, but I need to get my own!). As you said the trick is getting a wide lens that wont distort, which is why im saving for the 14-24mm.
Although im pretty inexperienced in photography, I reckon that anyone in a design role (particularly arch) should invest in a very good camera and good glass.
