Lens Discussion...
 

So I haven't seen a thread in here yet with the sole purpose of discussing glass.

Feel free to make this a place to discuss different lenses and post example photos!





With that being said, does anyone have the Nikon 300mm f4? I am thinking about picking one up...

I want a 200 1.8
That's all :)

They have one used at Le Camera in Princeton. Juss sayin.

I just picked up a Vivitar Series 1 85mm f1.4 (also goes by Polar, Samyang, Rokinon, etc) that I was going to post a new thread about but I'll just throw my thoughts in here when I dump the memory card. From what I can tell so far this is the most impressive $350 lens around.

Go for the 200/2
:)


Can't decide between the 50/1.2 or 45TS-E for next lens
Probably rent the 45 and see how I like it

I want the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 L

but the ARC intercooler costs just as much. I guess the lens will have to wait.

I love my 70-200 f/2.8L.

I want too many damn things lol. I want to start getting into using my sb-600 off camera. I am going to buy some cheap ebay triggers to start off with. And there is a few lenses that i am really want right now.

Nikon 35mm f1.8- I am still waiting for B&H or Adorama to get it in stock
Sigma 10-20mm
Sigma 18-50mm f2.8
Sigma 150mm Macro lens

I <3 my Canon 50 1.4.... otherwise I only have my kit lens. *cries in the corner*

I want a new body over the past couple of shows I shot with a Tokina 12-24 and it wasnt bad at all. I just hate having to be on top of people or cars when I shoot. My next lens purchase will probably be the Tamron 17-50

why not the canon 17-40F4L? it's a fantastic lens, very sharp, but a little slow. and you can find one used for like $700 which is cheap for L glass.

I'd like to get a 24TS-E or some fast wide primes

I have the 17-40 f/4L and while it's a great lens, I do plan on going to the 16-35 f/2.8L at some point.

off hand why?

If I would guess, because its wider, faster, and sharper? lol

i just want a 30mm 1.4.

I can't complain about the sharpness of my 17-40, and 1mm wider isn't a whole big a deal to me, but the 2.8 is really the attraction.

well thats why i asked, it is slightly wider, but it definitely isn't sharper, it is not as clear around the edges of the frame and produces more CA then the 17-40, it is a 2.8, but i'm not sure how useful that would be on that wide of a lens. All that for $1300 just seems like an awfully expensive purchase only to gain a few steps, and loose clarity over the $700 17-40L or even the dis-continued 17-35 2.8L ?

I don't think it'd replace the 17-40, because your correct about there not really needing the 2.8 especially with landscape photography which is where I use this mainly. Not to mention I have a 77mm B+W Kaesemann CP filter that I use on both my 70-200 and 17-40 that wouldn't fit on the 16-35.

But I do truly love that 17-40. It is by far the lens I use the most but then again I do a lot of landscape. Time for a sample shot:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3509/...9eb8b06658.jpg

I'd be really interested to see what you'd do with the 45... would give a certain look to some of your work. Lots of the fashion/portrait shooters do great stuff with the 50 though.

What camera body are you using? Anything but the D40/50/60 and D2/3 series can command the SB600 off of the camera. But yeah, the ebay radio triggers are really cheap and decent.

I want a Sigma 12-24 too...that lens is SICK on FX!

I had the 300/4 non-AF-S version. It was a nice lens for the money. A little slow to focus, but nice and sharp, even wide open. The AF-S version focuses much faster, so I would recommend that. I sold my 300/4 to get my 300/2.8, one of Nikon's best IMO.