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
Sound like you may have scored with that portrait then! Sometimes I think photography can be alot about chance; It has often been the case with me, although now im finding that with more experience, my shots are starting to get better and im deleting way less haha. So im stoked; just putting in a it more time makes all the difference to learning and also the quality of your shots.
So I took a few more shots of the elusive Charlie. Overexposed, but I think that the focus is becoming better. I have began focussing in on the eyes which is great advice, makes a huge difference to the overall composition..
FX glass isn't necessarily 'better' than DX - if you buy a good DX lens like the 12-24 or the 17-55, the lens is as every bit as good as an FX equivalent but it's a large investment for a piece of kit that will suddenly become useless should you upgrade to FX. This is the main reason people opt for non-DX glass as a matter of course, just in case.
The vignetting on the 70-200 f/2.8 VR is only subtle on FX - to the uninformed, you wouldn't even know it were there. Shoot wide open at the sky however and it becomes more apparent. As I said before, because the DX image circle is smaller than that of FX, you're effectively cropping all the corner and edge anomalies that would otherwise be visible in the FX frame. This is the reason why FX glass typically performs better on a DX body.
From what I have read, Nikon has started to make higher performance lenses specifically for the increasingly popular DX format market, but like you mentioned there is no point to buying these if your planning on moving to full frame in the future.. so the smart money is on buying FX lenses then.
The 70-200 f/2.8 obviously benefits from an internal 'AF-S' focus motor in addition to VR which is something the 80-200 f/2.8 lacks. The 80-200 f/2.8 is also a much older lens which explains much of the price difference.
The prices you're quoting seem very low - I'd be aiming to inspect all these examples if possible as I have my doubts as to their condition. I may be able to source a 80-200 f/2.8D for you that a mate purchased and now doesn't need. Exterior is pretty banged up but the glass is all flawless (he replaced the front element).
Whilst the AF-D and AF-S 80-200 f/2.8 lenses are excellent in their own right, I find the addition of VR on the 70-200 f/2.8 indispensable. Obviously the 70-200 f/2.8 VR II is a whole new level of awesome but in the mean time, the VR will suffice perfectly.
I think that I may have become confused between the 80-200 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8 actually. I have been primarily looking at the older 80-200 f/2.8 AF, which I can get second hand for about $700.00. I was looking at the newer 70-200 f/2.8 VRI and that was the one that had been to hell and back, hence the stupid low price. I think that the VRII may be overkill for someone of my skill level! so perhaps the older 80-200 may be a better lens to learn on for the time being.
So you consider there are significant performance differences between the VR I and VR II and non-VR models? Friends I have spoken to swear by the 80-200, and Nikon still makes them, so guess they have to be ok.. It seems as though the biggest differences are in the handling of them; with the 80-200 you generally have to use a tripod due to weight and being non-VR, whereas the newer VR models can be used without a tripod.
Thanks again for the advice!
Just my luck. My only day off this week and it rains.
Got out all the fifties this afternoon.
From L to R: Ai 50mm f/2, AF 50mm f/1.8D, AF 50mm f/1.4D, Ai 50mm f/1.2
Fark what a nice collection you have there! That 50mm f/1.2 is pretty nuts! - how does that thing go?
Well on your advice I ended-up buying the 50mm f/1.4D, which is currently on its way to Sydney! Very excited to get my hands on it. As you mentioned a 50mm isn't that wide/wide enough for landscape photography so ive also been looking the 24mm 2.8 and the 20mm 2.8; both seem to be pretty good lenses, but I would like to go wider! - just the expense really..
Cheers,
Ben
