Stocking up

[Plamadude30k]

Okay, here’s some examples:

Tamron:

ISO: 2500, Exposure: 1/125 sec, Aperture: 3.2, Focal Length: 90mm

ISO: 2500, Exposure: 1/125 sec, Aperture: 2.8, Focal Length: 90mm

ISO: 100, Exposure: 1/160 sec, Aperture: 2.8, Focal Length: 90mm

And the Nikkor 18-105:

ISO: 800, Exposure: 1/50 sec, Aperture: 5.6, Focal Length: 92mm

ISO: 100, Exposure: 1/800 sec, Aperture: 5.6, Focal Length: 92mm

ISO: 4000, Exposure: 1/13 sec, Aperture: 13.0, Focal Length: 98mm

I don’t think CA, distortion, or optical flaws are a major problem in either lens. I do like the bokeh from the Tamron better, but I will admit it is a bit more difficult to focus (both manual and auto, where it’s sometimes slow). So there’s that.

[Farktographer]

A definite difference, thanks for posting these. The Tamron does seem to be make the subject stand out more with the bokeh, and the lower aperture would be great for low light. Another downside to living in the UK is that all camera gear is more expensive – the Tamron is $100 more new, $200 more used comparing the amazon .com vs. .co.uk sites.

What’s your glass collection looking like now? I remember a discussion after your graduation, but don’t know if you’ve picked up anything since that you like?

[Plamadude30k]

My glass collection; an overview:
Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 (kit lens, damn good for what it is)
Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6 VR (refurbished–GREAT price, works and looks like new).
Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D (crap optics, super cheap used if you keep a look out, good for low light)
Vivitar 28mm f/2.5 (manual focus, actually made by Tokina, cheapest lens I own. One of my favorites too)
Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro (I use this for both macro and portraits. Nice lens, far cheaper than the similar Nikkor)

The LAST lens for my kit (meaning that I feel it’s now complete, and I won’t get more glass for quite a while) is the one I just got for my birthday (plus christmas too), and I haven’t received yet:
Rokkor 14mm f/2.8. Reports of the quality vary WILDLY from “Amazing, as good as the Nikkor 14-24mm” to “Middling at best, soft, bad distortion.” I expect the second to be true, but at the price, It’ll have to be really bad for me to be disappointed. I can let you know if you’re interested, but it looks unlikely to arrive before my next Mauna Kea trip, so it’ll be a couple weeks.

Okay, so recommendations? Ebay, used camera stores, and the B&H used section above all else. I afforded this on a grad student’s salary (well, plus parental and relative donations at christmas/birthday time). REAL recommendations: if you can find the Vivitar 28mm f/2.5, get it. There’s slightly different versions made by different companies for Vivitar, too. Mine is apparently a middle-quality run, the really top-notch ones are supposedly amazing. They come in pretty much every mount out there, and I think mine can actually switch. I’m also quite enamored of my 90mm Tamron Macro, which is good in a lot of situations, and the 70-300, which has very good optics from what I can tell. I find my kit lens quite useful for all sorts of situations, and about 1/3 of my photos these days are taken with it. The only lens I don’t love is my 50mm f/1.8D, which has really disappointing optics. Works fine for everything but stars, which is a big reason I wanted such a fast lens. Bah.

[Farktographer]

I shot this one with the 50mm. What issues are you having with stars? I used more ISO than I should have for this shot, so the noise is a bit high. I think I’d rather have a 35mm though to get more of the sky in most applications – I had to walk back pretty far to get the tree in the image.

Floating Dot of Water by Farktographer1, on Flickr

[caradoc]

Handheld with a Tamron 90mm:

[nobigdeal]

My glass collection; an overview:
Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 (kit lens, damn good for what it is)

I sold my 18-105. Hated it. Way too slow focus motor. The IQ was good but I couldn’t get over that lumbering focus motor. My lightning fast Sigma 17-50 has me spoiled I guess.

[Farktographer]

My glass collection; an overview:
Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 (kit lens, damn good for what it is)

I sold my 18-105. Hated it. Way too slow focus motor. The IQ was good but I couldn’t get over that lumbering focus motor. My lightning fast Sigma 17-50 has me spoiled I guess.

…huh. I’ve never had an issue with my focus motor. It’s pretty quick.

[lokisbong]

I shot this one with the 50mm. What issues are you having with stars? I used more ISO than I should have for this shot, so the noise is a bit high. I think I’d rather have a 35mm though to get more of the sky in most applications – I had to walk back pretty far to get the tree in the image.

Floating Dot of Water by Farktographer1, on Flickr

I have a Canon 50mm f1.8 and my only problem is night sky shots are not wide enough. I usually end up getting out the 18-55mm f3.5 kit lens.

[orionid]

Taken with the 50mm, f/2 I think in this one:

Soft Dance by Farktographer1, on Flickr

….

/edit to say: Damn, now that I look at that second photo, I really sucked at taking portraits 6 months ago. Should have had a fill-flash, adjusted white balance, focused closer on the subject…. Then again, at that time I had only had my camera for 6 months, so…learning curve? 🙄

I’ll give you fill flash, but I kinda like the WB on this one. It’s got that “warm summer evening” feel to it.

[nobigdeal]

There was nothing wrong with it. I just found it to be too slow to focus compared to my other lenses. Even my Nikkor 10.5 fisheye now has the SWM focus motor. So whenever I use a lens with standard focusing I find it to be maddeningly slow.

[orionid]

I’ll let Kestrana tell you how our 18-105 is, she uses it all the time, I hardly ever do.

70-300 4-5.6 VR ? Mine’s crap-ish. It looks great on the D50 at 6.3MP, but is soft on the D90 at 9 and change. It is within allowable manufacturing deviations, so I’m pretty much stuck with it. I’ve seen other people use that lens on a higher MP camera and still be tack-sharp. Win some, lose some. I pretty much only use it when I want something long and less annoying than putting a Kenko doubler on the kit 55-200mm 3.5-5.6. Using the doubler and kit tele is usually sharper than the 70-300 but a little flatter.

Also have the 50mm f/1.8E (E=Economy, <D). Paid $35 on ebay for that lens attached to a working EM 35mm. Loved it. Tack sharp and fast. Took it camping, it got wet. Aperture blades rusted. I took it apart, cleaned and lubed the blades, but they still stuck. So I removed them all together. It still works great, but it's got a permanent paper-thin DoF and bokeh that's almost Petzval in quality (if you like that sort of thing).

CATCH! by Orionid, on Flickr

No 90/85 yet, and I was turned off Tamron based on using my dad’s 28-300. But then again, that’s a lot of lens in one tube, so it may just be that particular setup. It’s loud, heavy, slow as dogshiat, and clunky.

[Farktographer]

There was nothing wrong with it. I just found it to be too slow to focus compared to my other lenses. Even my Nikkor 10.5 fisheye now has the SWM focus motor. So whenever I use a lens with standard focusing I find it to be maddeningly slow.

I guess it’s a case of you can’t miss what you don’t have. My only experiences are the kit lens, and my 50mm, but that one is a ’68 build so it’s manual focus only. I played with a new 12-24 Nikkor for about an hour, and I remember it focusing fast, but I assumed part of that was due to the smaller range it had to play with.

[Farktographer]

Lok – I agree, I love wide-angle for star shots. I was hoping I could get enough light using the f/1.4 to capture a good star shot without much trailing though. It’s still useable in some instances, but I’ll be trying out my new 10mm on starlight next time I go hiking.

orionid – Seriously, how long did it take until you were this comfortable with camera gear? I couldn’t imagine taking my stuff apart yet – I’d be scared to crap that I’d lose pieces and break it. Then again, for $35…. Point is, I wouldn’t even know where to *start* for that sort of thing! I’m always jealous of your projects, haha.

[lokisbong]

10mm would be almost half the sky I bet. lol The main thing that bummed me out was I tried to get all of the constellation Orion with no trails and it’s not gonna happen with the 50mm.
As to Orionids tinkering I would do that to a simple lens from the thrift store if I could find Canon ef or efs lens’ on the cheap.

[nobigdeal]

10mm would be almost half the sky I bet. lol The main thing that bummed me out was I tried to get all of the constellation Orion with no trails and it’s not gonna happen with the 50mm.
As to Orionids tinkering I would do that to a simple lens from the thrift store if I could find Canon ef or efs lens’ on the cheap.

10.5 is all the sky and some ground! Check upper left corner!

[Author]

Posts