Re: Another Macro/Close Up Thread

[L...@adobeforums.com]

I have been playing with different lenses recently to see how they perform with close up or macro. The one lens I had planned to sell turns out to be the one lens that will focus nice and close, the 16-35 f/2.8. Not sure if this lens even pretends to be a macro lens, but I'm giving it a try.

Mushrooms coming Ho! :-)

[L...@adobeforums.com]

Enjoyment :: Observation :: Creativity :: Equipment :: Techniques :: Uses

[L...@adobeforums.com]

What a beautiful bug… assume it's a grasshopper of some sort. He looks rather transparent.

What is the approximate original size of this flower and bug Ho? Also, what was the focal length of the lens?

[Ho]

Well, go ahead... let's see those mushroom shots. :)

[Ho]

Nothing special here, just happened to notice this fellow munching away at what's left of our daylilies. Not a very good macro; I really had to sharpen it pretty harshly to make it look semi-presentable.

<http://img294.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc0027ml9.jpg>

Technique is almost always a tripod or off-camera flash (the flash is best for chasing bugs). I shot this with the D200, but most of my good macro gear is Canon (film).

[Ho]

Linda, the blooms are roughly 3-4 inches in diameter, the bug was about 3/4 of an inch. He was a good subject (unmoving). They tend not to scurry around much when they're dinning. Oh, the lens was a 90mm Tamron Macro.

[L...@adobeforums.com]

The mushrooms will probably have to wait until I have time to create a gallery. I have to get back to some business today and running out of time.

I have been shooting them at different stages for the past week. I will probably collect more and then post them all at once.

[Ci...@adobeforums.com]

Linda, consider the Canon 100mm macro. It will run circles around any other kind of lens you are using.

[L...@adobeforums.com]

Linda, the blooms are roughly 3-4 inches in diameter, the bug was about
3/4 of an inch. He was a good subject (unmoving). They tend not to scurry
around much when they're dinning. Oh, the lens was a 90mm Tamron Macro.

Thanks Ho.

Linda, consider the Canon 100mm macro. It will run circles around any
other kind of lens you are using.

Thanks Cindy. I've heard that. I've had my eye on this lens for a while. I also hear that it makes a great portrait lens.

[Stephen...@adobeforums.com]

I agree with Peter's and Cindy's assessment of the 100. I am also fond of the 180. From a wet meadow this morning. 180 + 12 and 25mm tubes.

<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=18VkfCFfpvj0EYGRiAk27jAUyHMPJ1>

[L...@adobeforums.com]

Hi Stephen, Amazing how our little critters look different from one location to another. I don't believe I've seen a grasshopper that looks quite like yours here in South Florida. How big is this grasshopper in real life?

[Peter...@adobeforums.com]

That 100mm macro is very nice, and it does make a good portrait lens, even wide open. Not too expensive either.

[Stephen...@adobeforums.com]

This litle guy was about 3/4". It's an immature, I believe, as the wings aren't formed yet. Beauty is in the eye of the....I think bugs are lovely. :-)

[Q_P...@adobeforums.com]

I just want to backup Ho's claim about a Tamron 90mm. I have an old one that used the Adapt-All mount. It's nothing short of a great lens. Very sharp. And it was my portrait lens. Sadly, I don't have a Nikon mount for it so it hasn't been used in abut four years.
Q

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

Ho, what are you using on the Nikon? The way you worded it, it sounds like a slam on Nikon gear, which I assume isn't your intention!

[Ci...@adobeforums.com]

I have never seen a grasshopper that looked quite like that either. They are all ugly though.

[Fred_...@adobeforums.com]

For reasons mentioned before I choose to stay with lenses made by the manufacturer of the camera I'm using. While having no doubt that there are some good third-party lenses made, the fact is that as they have to be designed to fit multiple lens mounts, differing distances from the rear element to the sensor and differing auto-focus couplings means that there have to be compromises. The other factor in that they have to be made cheaper (or else what would be the point?) is also a consideration.

To some (and this is particularly the case with online reviewers), photographing straight lines and having a "sharp" result overrides all other considerations. That detail resolution (which is not the same as visual sharpness), tonality and colour fidelity rarely, if ever, get a mention, misses the point altogether as far as I'm concerned.

Anyone who has regularly used Leitz, Zeiss, Schneider or Rodenstock lenses will understand what I mean. Having owned a number of third party lenses in the past, as well as lenses by the four German manufacturers, my impression is that OEM Japanese lenses are not as good as the Germans in those latter qualities, and the after-market lenses are not as good to the same degree as the OEM lenses.

There are bound to be exceptions, but as a rule you get what you pay for, and the difference is more than just an inflated price for the words "Canon", "Nikon", "Pentax", Olympus" etc branded on the barrel.

Of course the OEM lenses I'm referring to here are those manufacturers' pro lines - the prosumer versions are built at a price to compete with the after-market varieties and suffer similar compromises in design (apart from having to adapt to other lens mounts and AF systems).

[Ho]

NO, not at all. I've only got the Nikon kit lens (18-70, very good copy) and the Tamron macro. My next planned acquisition is the Nikon 80-200 2.8 AFS (if I can swing it), although the Sigma 150 2.8 macro is tempting me sorely. :)

I didn't mean to come off as overly critical of Nikon or Canon. It's just that I've seem some really snide remarks about 3rd party lenses in these forums and I don't think all the harsh words were warranted. While the big two do make exceptional glass, they've turned out their share of dogs too. Some of the Canon kit lenses were (are?) especially awful.

I'm a conscientious shopper, and I'll spend my money where I think I get the most for it. For example, I don't ever plan to own a Nikon-branded macro; I don't see that I'm getting enough for my dollars vis-a-vis the Tamrons and Sigmas. But as for the 80-200, only the Nikon will do, at least for me. My real dilemma now is what to do about a wide angle zoom. The new Nikkor 14-24 is, by all measures, an outstanding lens. But unless I can invent a way to make money hand over fist with it, it will stay on the shelf while I audition the Tokina 12-24, the Sigma 10-20 or the new Tamron 11-16. OR, maybe now the price on the Nikon 12-24 will drop enough for me to consider it.

I guess what I'm saying is that I buy the shoe that fits, (mostly) regardless of who made it.

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

Thanks, Ho.

I am getting some nasty feedback from my supplier about Sigma, but I have to say that their lineup is very impressive.

It looks like Tokina has an APO lens as well. That may indicate a wave in the future, as many organizations doing third party stuff use common suppliers for the high end components and materials, unless it is really cut rate.

I have the Tokina 12 to 24, and when you audition the others, pay attention to barrel and pincusion. The Tokina is not the greatest there, but the Nikon wasn't either.

[Ho]

I agree... mostly. And your point regarding the German optics is well taken. If I could afford to always buy the Nikon/Canon pro brand, I would. As it is, I only choose from the camera manufacturer's lens inventory the things that I can't replicate in the 3rd party arena.

And that means it's not always about price.

I mentioned the Nikon 80-200 2.8 as an example. Another is the Canon 80-200 f4 L that I bought last year for my T90, and this was after trying really hard to like a highly regarded 3rd party 70-210 that just didn't cut the mustard. One thing I never bought for the Canon, however, was a Canon macro lens. Early on, I bought the cult-classic Kiron 105 (also marketed as the Vivitar Series 1) macro and never found myself in want or need of anything else. I'd consider one for the D200, but those who have them know that they fit current cameras and thus have an inflated opinion of their worth. Besides, I *really* want that Sigma 150... :)

I wish you could see this slide.
<'http://img340.imageshack.us/my.php?image=velviacopyxp0.jpg'>

<http://www.cdegroot.com/cgi-bin/photowiki/Kiron_105/2.8_Macro>

[Ho]

Yeah, the 17-35 is also on my lust list...

I agree with your assessment of the Nikon 12-24. It will have to drop to a price point very close to the Tokina before I consider it. I really hadn't given the longevity of the 14-24 any thought, seeing as how I'll never own it, I don't spend much time thinking about it. I guess Rockwell could be right. Even a blind squirrel...

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

You simply cannot paint third party optics with such a wide paintbrush. Of the mentioned German optics, only the Leica lenses are not third party. The Schneider, Zeiss, especially have to fit a wide range of cameras, and do it damn well! That various mounts and element to mounting surface vary is no inhibitor to good lens designers. Not at all. No compromise on that score.

Driving mechanisms are a concern, however.

It's my opinion that canon and Nikon charge what the traffic will bear. A client is more impressed with Nikon rather than Tokina on a lens mount and they know it, charge accordingly. The fact that so many users of the name brands are returning them for "calibration" speaks legions to me about the cynicism of Canon and Nikon.

But it is also true of the German lenses, except, AFAIK, Leica.

Buyer beware covers all the suppliers, as far as I am concerned.

As an example of the multi suppliers meeting specs, at Tektronix, we had scope cameras to record the trace. The magnification was 1:1. The aperture was quite large at 1;1. There was no focus; the lens is mounted in the camera and the camera mounted to the scope. We had suppliers from US, Japanese and German sources qualified, and used the US sources mostly.

Mounting, spacing and the like was never an issue. It was a simple math problem for the suppliers to deal with.

It's fair to point out that a scope camera lens hardly pushed the optical qualities of a lens. We made Polaroids for visual inspection and that was it. In fact, using them for ordinary photography was disappointing, except at 1:1. On a 4x5 camera, they worked quite well at 1:1.

[Andrew_...@adobeforums.com]

It's my opinion that canon and Nikon charge what the traffic will bear

Tough s*** but, in my experience, you get what you pay for (or buy the best and cry only once) has proven to be true every time I flirted with cheaper alternatives. This goes equally for third party and consumer grade OEM lenses.

I will not touch anything other than top shelf Nikkors.

There might very well be good third party substitutes for less money these days so what? If your income and reputation depends on a piece of glass in front of the camera... savings are meaningless and possible/probable aggravations are not worth even going there.

[Fred_...@adobeforums.com]

I wish you could see this slide.

That's always been the problem with online visuals - comparing stuff that I've posted at 800px with a 4' canvas Ultrachrome print from a 345MB file just doesn't cut it... :-)

[Fred_...@adobeforums.com]

Ho, I don't often agree with Ken Rockwell's insights, but I think he is on the money in predicting a limited future for the 14-24. It may well be an ultra-sharp lens, but the compromises in losing the ability to put a polariser (or any filter) on the lens in order to gain that 14mm wide-angle accompanied by the limits that the standard edge distortion (stretched out circles, instantly obese people) that always accompanies such ultra-wide rectilinear lenses could become tedious after a while.

Having to change lenses at 24mm on full-frame is also a limitation, though not so bad on DX, of course. Only a couple of decades ago 24mm was still considered an ultra-wide on 35mm, so when I made my choice to replace the 12-24 that I had been using on the D2x with a wide zoom for the D3 I went with the more expensive 17-35 f/2.8 as being the more versatile lens, even if the aforementioned Mr Rockwell lauds the 14-24's exceptional sharpness as being unapproachable. As I said above, there's more to a lens than sharpness or pincushion/barrel distortion.

The 12-24 Nikkor is a good lens, but I think a lot of the claims on it were made on the online reviews. Having used it for nearly three years I rate it as good but not excellent. Its full-frame equivalent in the 17-35 is miles ahead in visual and overall performance, and I guess the price differential between the two means something here as well. As such I'd be inclined to believe feedback that the Tokina 12-24 is an equal to Nikon's version.

As an f/4 lens, the Nikkor could not have been truly regarded as one of Nikon's "pro" lenses which are usually characterised by a constant maximum aperture of f/2.8 or better from 300mm downwards. It has turned out to be, as those more astute than myself observed at the time, a stop-gap wide for Dx while Nikon worked in secret and in denial on a full-frame sensor camera.

(Edit:
Cross-post - I was responding to your mention of the 14-24 and 12-24 lenses in the earlier post)

[Ho]

The "so what" is that I'm open to considering them and you're not.

The only reason I brought up 3rd party glass to begin with is that Linda mentioned the possibility of selling one lens to buy another. I don't know if the price of the macros I suggested is within her reach, but I wanted to know that there are viable options for excellent macro lenses outside the Canon camp.

I don't have an issue with professional photographers who need (or desire) to put nothing but the best equipment in their bags. I too have the desire, but not the need&#8212;and certainly not the money&#8212;to do so.

So. :)

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

Seems that you get what you pay for from canon and Nikon...if you are willing (and know about it, as I have only learned in these pages) to send it in for calibration. IOW, assembly and calibration is done at less than complete, with respect to the actual (and not theoretical) capabilities of the optics. Maybe there is a "good enough" spec on which they operate, if so, then the optics should be graded and sold accordingly.

For instance, CPU's are graded and priced according to the specific spec (usually speed) desired. There is no assembly line for a 4GHZ processor separate from a 3.5GHz one. In fact, you may well buy a 3.5 and get 4 without problems, but then you may not. This is where I sense that lenses from canon seem to be: No upper spec available as a choice, you may get it or you may not, and if you know about it, you can avail yourself of the ability to have it "Upgraded".

Painting with a broad brush is not reasonable here because many here do not need a Nikon $$$ lens when a third party is equivalent, maybe better than the current name brand. But, lacking skills or time or knowledge to assess the situation, they are steered away from the third party by such ill considered comments.

No doubt in my mind, or actions about what to do under commercial circumstances. I buy the best. But otherwise, and in a pinch commercially, I intend to keep informed about my options and act accordingly. If I occasionally need a lens I don't have, rather than buying inferior, I choose to rent. But even there there are caveats.

Fred, I am well aware of the differences between mounting and optical differences in the same optic for different cameras. For instance, did you know that the 80mm Planar for the Rollei SL66 is physically different from the same one for the Hasselblad? The Rollei has one less element, because for closeups, one reverses the lens on it's mount, something not possible for Hasselblad.

Raising users awareness here is important. Trashing third party as a matter of principle is not informative, IMHO. It becomes just another platform war.

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

It would probably depend on the Warranty that Canon offer on their lenses.

One year? Five years, maybe?

Nikon include the ability to calibrate individual lenses in the camera software — but suggest that you shouldn't need to fiddle with it — so I haven't.

Actually, I have not seen any reason to do so.

[Fred_...@adobeforums.com]

Sorry, Larry, in light of much personal experience with third-party optics, I can, and I will, paint with that broad brush.

I don't photograph black lines on white paper, nor do I photograph brick walls. I photograph in real-life, 3 dimensional, variable light situations, and too right you can pick the difference between top OEM glass and their prosumer glass and the third-party glass manufacturers when used in a broad range of situations.

My clients don't read the name on the lens barrel either - they generally are nowhere near me in time or space when I take the photographs. I could be using an inverted milk bottle for all they know. To postulate that this is a reason that those of us who choose to extend our wallets to buy the best OEM glass is plain wrong and sells many of us well short in the brains/knowledge/experience department.

Re calibration: I've said it before, repeatedly, that I have never had a Nikkor lens do anything but focus dead on target on any of the six Nikon cameras I have owned. No matter which combination of lens/body I have used. The lens calibration problem is just another Internet myth to me. Of course a lens needs calibration if you drop it on concrete, but forget/omit to mention the dropping bit and suddenly a dreadful problem is born. I'm not saying everything leaves the pro OEM factory perfect, but the design is sound if the manufacturing is up to spec. The problem with third-party is that the design is open to compromise by fitment and price, which no amount of "calibration" will remedy.

After several slow-to-learn experiences with mid-market Nikkors as well as the aforementioned third-party lenses (several Sigmas and Tamrons, in my case), I will now never buy anything other than from the OEM top shelf - their prosumer lenses, as I said before, are not in the same league of their top glass. I'd hazard that it is the same story for Canon, but I'll leave that comment for Canon users, never having owned a Canon camera myself. OTOH, if for some future reason I do switch to Canon, you can bet your bippy that I've learnt by now that only L lenses would get into my bag.

RE German lenses: My stipulation before was meant for actual German lenses, not German licensed optics made in some third-party factory in Korea, Thailand, China, Canada or wherever. The stuff that came out of the Zeiss factory in Germany for Hasselblads was designed for Hasselblad. The Rollei equivalents do not share the same lens barrel, focusing helicoids and often element arrangement with merely a different bayonet screwed on as is the case with the third party lenses I was referring to. They are built entirely for the camera for which they are intended.

The large format mounting of Rodenstock and Schneider lenses does not apply in this camera type comparison - the lens board is infinitely moveable so the design of the lens is not compromised by the lens point of attachment, a solid bayonet mount on an SLR is not the same thing.

Canon has a thinner body mount of different diameter to Nikon. A lens designed for both cameras via adapter cannot make full advantage of each individual camera's physical attributes. At the tolerances in play with small format lenses, any drift from the ideal will be noticed somewhere.

Really, I'm also beyond fed-up with people who write anything they feel like on their online "reviews" and that this garbage is picked up as fact by the leagues of those who should know better. It should be abundantly clear by now that most of these keyboard-jockey reviewers have very little knowledge, training or experience in photography, and do it mainly for the money that your click on their website generates from their sponsors' ads. Never was this better brought home than the recent spate of "tests" and "reviews" that accompanied the release of the D3 and D300 Nikons. The crap that was written often defied belief.

You do get what you pay for, pure and simple. If third party was so good, Nikon, Canon etc would never sell another pro lens. I'd like to think that most pros have a better grip on reality than to base their purchases on what their clients might see stamped on the lens barrel. And I have never - ever - based my pricing on what brand of camera lens I use.

[L...@adobeforums.com]

Seems that you get what you pay for from canon and Nikon...if you are
willing (and know about it, as I have only learned in these pages) to
send it in for calibration.

I wonder how long this offer is good for from date of purchase without cost. I've never taken advantage of the calibration offer from Canon.

[Nick_...@adobeforums.com]

I've not messed with AF fine tuning on my D300 either, Ann. Aside from not seeing any problems, I'm a little put off by what Nikon says in the manual.

"AF tuning is not recommended in most situations. Use only when required."

And...

"The camera may not be able to focus at minimum range or at infinity when AF tuning is applied."

Sounds like trouble to me.

[Wade_Zi...@adobeforums.com]

You do expect that from the technology do you not! besides in close up work I am not sure you want such a feature.

Like anything nothing is prefect and looking for prefection is a really usefless endeavor, nothing wrong with making things better and better but expecting the technology to be the end all is like anything else in life... it is not going to happen.

For instance one of digitals orighinal promises was "no dust to worry about"...until the dslr came about thatr was pąrobably true.

I believe, though I am new to auto focus that focussing on infinity and very close up work has always been a problem with auto focus. Correct me if I am wrong!

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

Using, and locking-onto, that range-finder Spot in the D3 works a treat though — both with Manual and Auto Focussing.

:)

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

That's what I thought too.

:)

[L...@adobeforums.com]

I just happened to still have on my hard drive a close up I shot from 2006. This one was shot with the 20D using the 24-105 lens, if you can believe it. It's certainly not a perfect photo, but it's one of my favorite macros. I just love the bugs. They were pretty small if I remember right.

<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1paAGvNjTFvdxNmeEjUadFsY7fojT5>

[L...@adobeforums.com]

In addition, which AF point you choose to focus with can make a difference.
The center point is always the most accurate, and because AF is carried
out at maximum aperture and looks for maximum contrast in the AF zone,
if you happen to be using one of the outermost AF points with a lens like
the 24L, which is only sharp in the middle wide open, the inherent softness
in that extreme AF zone can lead to inaccuracies as well.

This is good to know.

I guess I should send the newer 16-24 in for calibration. Just one more thing to add to my plate though, having to make arrangements, which will no doubt end up taking an hour or more, pack it up and ship it. So many little foxes... I prefer the ones on my property.

[Donald...@adobeforums.com]

I would tend to agree, but i have a friend who owns the 70-200 nikkor, a sigma 70-200 top end and one other,and he likes the nikkor the least. the build of the newer sigmas feels solid,but i myself would be hard pressed to switch,unless i had little to spend. nikon does make good optics,but they have their shortcomings, like horrendous flare,when the sun is even remotely near the frame,and thats with a hood, and my hand or hat shielding half the time.

[Ci...@adobeforums.com]

I wonder how long this offer is good for from date of purchase without
cost. I've never taken advantage of the calibration offer from Canon.

Linda, it is good for one year from date of purchase.

[Peter...@adobeforums.com]

Fred,

That's pretty much the universal opinion of that lens - that there's something uberspecial about it, the Zeiss 21mm Distagon. I think it helps having the right subject matter and lighting. I have other lenses that are close. The Leica 28 2.8 R (current version) and probably unmatched by any lens I've used to date - the Canon 200mm 1.8.

There are subtle differences in how the Nikkors, Zuikos, Zeiss and Leica glass render color, but it's not really that hard to make them all match in post. What's more difficult is the sense of greater microcontrast that the Zeiss and the 200 1.8 have that show both in real life images and also in MTF charts. The Zeiss 21 has some of the highest microcontrast of any lens I've seen but that also sacrifices the quality of out of focusness, whereas the 200 has perhaps the best "bokeh" of any lens I've ever used, while still retaining that ultra crisp ultra contrasty look.

You are completely correct when you describe all these as tools. For me that's exactly how I look at them and treat them. Actually I treat them as the finest tools I own because of what they allow me to do.

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

And back to the broad brush - I have yet to see anyone prove through actual photographs that any third-party lens (Sigma, Tamron, etc) is better than the equivalent top-shelf OEM lens. Fact is that is pure fantasy, and to lead people to believe otherwise is plain wrong.

Whoa, big fella! Where do you see me saying that? it's ridiculous on it's face. They have to be better to qualify? No way. If by due dilligence, they do outclass Nikons or Canons, more power to them. I do insist on excellence, in any case.

So far as color differences, Rodenstock, Schneider, Zeiss etc will offer their version of color rendition too. Subtle, but I know old time photographers that prefer certain brands just because of that factor.

[Fred_...@adobeforums.com]

What is this hang-up on lens "calibration"? Again - I have bought numerous Nikon lenses and used them on numerous bodies and have never had to do anything like have them "calibrated". They always focus correctly throughout the focusing range. Even the two pro-sumer Nikkors I have owned.

This has nothing to do with reading reviews here or anywhere else - it is actual working experience with the lenses themselves.

Buy top-shelf, and as Nikon themselves point out, you won't have to adjust, either. As I've suggested in the past, Nikon probably added this "feature" to the new range to extend the life of old and worn lenses, or to help people using third-party or prosumer lenses to fine-tune them, or maybe it's just because Canon introduced the feature and it's a case of keeping up with them.

Larry, I am fully aware of the differences of Zeiss for Rollei and for Hasselblad - which is why I brought that up. Zeiss Germany are not a third-party lens manufacturer (adapting Kyocera-made Contax lenses with a Zeiss label on them for Nikon, Pentax and Leica does not make Zeiss a third-party lens producer either, IMO). They design lenses for the specific camera brand, not adapt existing lenses to fit via adapter.

And back to the broad brush - I have yet to see anyone prove through actual photographs that any third-party lens (Sigma, Tamron, etc) is better than the equivalent top-shelf OEM lens. Fact is that is pure fantasy, and to lead people to believe otherwise is plain wrong.

OEM top-shelf is designed and built without compromise regardless of cost. Third party is built very much compromised and with acute attention to cost. To think that a $700 third-party lens will be better than a $2,000 OEM optic is dreaming.

I'm not trashing third-party either, rather sending a warning not to expect lead to work like gold as some would have us believe. For sure there are very good third party lenses, but for example to speculate that say a Macro Tamron 90mm f/2.8 is somehow going to be better overall than the equivalent Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 (as I have seen done in another place) is misleading and to protest that in the light of personal experience with third-party lenses and the OEM version is not engaging in a platform war but merely pointing out that the choice to spend the extra money is a sound one if one can afford or justify it.

I never said to anyone that they shouldn't consider third -party, just the truth that top-shelf OEM will always be better overall.

Tamron, Sigma etc are NOT Nikkor gold ring or Canon L lenses. Never have been, never will be, pure and simple.

[Fred_...@adobeforums.com]

Donald, do you use UV filters?

[L...@adobeforums.com]

Thank you Cindy.

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

Juicy. Both bugs and berries.

But if those are Fire Ants, YOU will be the one that they find juicy if you sit on them!

[Fred_...@adobeforums.com]

do not need a Nikon $$$ lens when a third party is equivalent, maybe better
than the current name brand

It read that way, Larry, but I can see how you might have meant "better for them" now.

I wasn't meaning to be only addressing your comments, anyway, rather the growing idea on the Net that somehow people who use OEM top shelf are tossers who only do so for the snob value. I know many pro photographers, and most of them do not buy OEM for the pose value. Most regard their equipment purely as tools and buy the best to enable them to perform at their best. To that end, their bags usually contain only top-shelf OEM.

Which is why I cannot fathom the dummy spits that happen when someone has the temerity to suggest that a piece of Nikon gear performs better than the equivalent Canon gear or vice versa. They're only tools, and I try to use the best tool for the job whenever practical and affordable. I really couldn't care less what name is stamped/painted on the metal if it fulfils that criteria.

In fact, if the Canon 1Ds Mk11 hadn't been so bloody expensive at the time, I would certainly have bought that instead of the D2x. I saw it as the better tool, but to buy one and replace all my lenses was beyond justification at the time.

When I referred to colour fidelity, I was not so much meaning colour balance differences between lenses, but the depth and tonal gradation of colour that the lenses were able to transmit. Peter posted a stunning example of this a while back with a picture taken using a Zeiss W/A on the 1Ds (I presume). The colour fidelity and tonality, even at low res 8-bit on a monitor, was eye-catching. I've never had a Nikkor produce anything like that. I can't begin to think of the potential of that lens had it actually been designed specifically for the 1Ds rather than adapted to it from its original Contax film camera intended use, or maybe Peter just got lucky with the match-up.

[L...@adobeforums.com]

Philip,

The "White Death" image is very cool. I am not familiar with the white spider with the red marks but I assume it's a force that the bee has to reckon with.

This is a fascinating shot.

Linda

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

I certainly agree that lenses are tools. What tool for the job is key.

My dad also informed me about the value and care of tools, Fred.

Now, I read all the verbiage about results and the the way some lenses perform that put others out of the league so to speak. I would like to see side by sides of the same subject, lighting, essentially identical shots posted to see for myself. A single image proclaiming greatness of a specific, general class lens doesn't cut it for me.

When I purchased the Tokina 12-24, I did a side by side in store on a tripod of it vs the Nikon. Blowing them up and also general comparisons at full screen for color and contrast showed decisively that, except for a somewhat better build in the Nikon, not impacting the optical performance, the extra $400 for the Nikon bought me nothing but bragging rights (yes Andrew, I have been in client meetings where members of the firm did comment on what I was shooting with, by name, and wondered if the OM-1 was up to the task).

I don't expect, as a generality, that third party lenses will outperform the house brand. At the same time, I am open to the possibility that a third party optic will exceed that of the house brand. After all, the physics of light is the same for all, as well as access to the glass compounds. Inventive engineers do not only work for the biggies either. new compounds come along, and manufacturers attempt to corner that material or even pay to have it developed which gives them an upstage on all comers for a while. So the quality levels move around from brand to brand over time, as it should, IMO.

The second part of the comment I made that Andrew excerpted is a case in point about how the experience of others influences point of views of the readers. If professionals find the need to routinely return new optics because they are out of spec, or performing less than expectations, or worse, returning them because past experience in such returns have merited such actions in general, then yes, the performance of the firm indicated is itself questionable. I've had too much experience with top of the line instrumentation to know that well.

Gotta run. Good comments everyone. I appreciate all your pov's! :-)

[Fred_...@adobeforums.com]

Whenever I trade my equipment the dealers usually comment that I must be getting rid of it because I don't use it much. Fact is I use it all continuously, but at the same time (rare accidents aside) I look after it meticulously.

My mechanic father instilled me with the proverb "Look after your tools, and they'll look after you". To that end I recently sold my 16-year-old 24mm Nikkor which has seen extensive service for 80% of the current new price (and so quite a bit more than I originally paid for it) - in its original box with its original packing and instructions. The lens was unmarked and as new, even though it never had a UV filter on it.

It only takes a few seconds to replace front and back caps at each lens change and put the lens in its proper spot in the bag, but the amount of times I've seen the contents of pros' bags with the lenses thrown in haphazardly without any caps at all beggars belief.

As for the Canon 200 f/1.8 - that is a lens I wish Nikon could/would replicate. I've seen numerous results from it from different photographers and the drawing and bokeh of that optic is to die for. Why Canon discontinued it is way beyond my understanding. The Nikkor f/2 isn't even close in performance.

[Philip_...@adobeforums.com]

My fav (equipment wise) would have to be canon 135mm F/2 with an extension tube.

<http://badchess.deviantart.com/art/Final-Approach-36846039>

<http://badchess.deviantart.com/art/White-Death-CU-35523695>

[Peter...@adobeforums.com]

"As for the Canon 200 f/1.8 - that is a lens I wish Nikon could/would replicate. I've seen numerous results from it from different photographers and the drawing and bokeh of that optic is to die for. Why Canon discontinued it is way beyond my understanding. The Nikkor f/2 isn't even close in performance. "

One reason that has been put forward for the demise of the 200 1.8 is that it used leaded glass in at least one element, which ran afoul of industrial pollution standards in Japan. It sounds plausible, but it's also a very specialized lens that is expensive. People who care about such things have figured out that there were somewhere around 6000 made in all. I have seen some images with the Nikkor f/2 and agree that it doesn't seem to be in the same league.

Canon has just introduced a new image stabilized 200mm f/2, which is smaller, lighter, handholdable and just as sharp as the 1.8. I compared both lenses a few weeks back and couldn't see any significant optical difference between the two. It was the transmission factor that kept me hanging on to the 1.8. The old lens was about 1/3 stop brighter at the same exposure. I expect that when Canon's high ISO performance catches up to Nikon, that third of a stop won't matter any more.

[Philip_...@adobeforums.com]

Common name is Crab Spider. They come in lots of colors (depending on the color of the flowers where they lurk) but usually have the cool racing stripes.

Makes me want to go wander the garden and see what I can find.

[Andrew_...@adobeforums.com]

Howard,

The "so what" is that I'm open to considering them and you're not.

I didn't mean to imply that you or anybody else shouldn't consider alternatives. I have, got burned and don't want to do it again. That doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong. It's just my opinion, based on my experience and my needs.

I was responding to Larry's comment/opinion:

t's my opinion that canon and Nikon charge what the traffic will bear.
A client is more impressed with Nikon rather than Tokina on a lens mount
and they know it, charge accordingly. The fact that so many users of the
name brands are returning them for "calibration" speaks legions to me
about the cynicism of Canon and Nikon

BTW, I've never had to take my new lenses back to Nikon for calibration.

[Peter...@adobeforums.com]

From what I've seen in the realm of Auto Focus is that as the resolution has gone up, and in conjunction with very fast lenses with minimal depth of field, very small abberations in AF accuracy seem to be magnified. It may well be that currently Nikon has tighter manufacturing tolerances than Canon and there aren't as many out of calibration units out there, but they certainly do exist. It may also be, that, do to some spectacularly unlucky convergence of galactical forces, I just happen to get all the "bad" Canon lenses.

What I can say is that I never used to worry about the AF, but when I've gone back and checked a couple of lenses that I was sure were working perfectly on my 1DsMK2, they were actually off just a bit - either front or rear focusing, and that tuning the Micro Adjust feature on the 1DsdMK3 actually made those lenses feel like completely different pieces of glass.

The Micro Adjust feature built into the camera only addresses overall focus. The lenses themselves are able to be adjusted independently for near, middle and far focus accuracy. That's what I've recently had adjusted on both the 24L and the 200 1.8.

[Fred_...@adobeforums.com]

It was just a question on your flare issue, Donald - I was pretty certain you wouldn't use UV's but as a source of flare they are legendary. My 80-200 is also prone to flare (showing its age, I guess), but it is still one of my favourite lenses as in all other departments it simply shines. As I am aware of the flare I look for it use my hand to shield, which is never really a problem as it is easy to keep your hand out of frame with the long focal lengths.

OTOH, the 17-35 is all but flare-free. I took this reference shot in a dark, wet stand of leatherwood trees on Sunday looking directly into the sun (which was only behind very light overcast - you can see blue sky at the sides). A lesser optic would have been flaring all over the place, destroying those crisp, deep shadows. Exposure was 1/4 @ f/11, 400 ISO, so you can gather how over-exposed the sky was:

<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1T2ZfX2sgtZ0oweqYxzRrzq7U47pdo0>

@ 100%

<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1cvHPFDR5ch6DhT1ubGsaxr0NWhOar1>

[Donald...@adobeforums.com]

Fred, i do not use uv filters anymore. too many elements in my fast zooms and i do not need to add any more glass up front.

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

Oh, I see what you mean by flare here. Microflare. I was thinking of overall flare where shadows actually get lifted in value. When lenses first were coated, photographers bitched that the photos didn't have the detail in the shadows the non coated versions did! IOW, the coated lenses increased dynamic range.

I noted some comments from lens manufacturers that the coatings needed today are to do with the fact that sensors are much more reflective than film, so maybe sensors and the IR layer are also being treated for reflectivity.

I suspect that coating technology is getting a boost in interest by the optics folks.

This whole business of clearing rare forests for woodchips is the lowest of the low! Keep up the pressure!

[Fred_...@adobeforums.com]

I don't have any "lesser" optics anymore, Larry.

Shading the lens was not an option here anyway - that's the sun behind the trees in the 100% section.

What I do know from past experience in similar situations is that the 12-24 on the D2x would have flared the shadows more than this, but that could have been a combination of the camera and lens and not just the lens itself.

To be honest I'm not one for running side-by-side tests, anyway. This is trackless forest and I'm carrying everything on my back whilst having to negotiate fallen logs, slippery rocks and dense bush, so carrying an extra lens just to compare isn't in my scheme of things. I'm not looking to buy any more lenses, so what would be the point? I have a bag of the best now.

I'm happy that this lens is absolutely the best optic that I could have bought for my uses, and no MTF chart, brick wall photograph or picture of multi-coloured objects on someone's mantel posted on the Net as a "test" will persuade me otherwise (I know because I actually use the thing).

Nor will any claims made on "kit" lenses - I owned one of Nikon's better kit lenses for a while recently, and when it broke I chose not to replace it - that's how good I thought it was overall. Slow, flimsy, plastic, wobbly, slack.......

Even if the improvements over their cheaper counterparts might appear small in some areas, as I've qualified before the overall performance of these expensive lenses makes the cost worthwhile, if only for the occasional situation like this. The lighting all looks sublime and soft here, but the dynamic range in that shot is absolutely huge, and the absence of flare enabled me to hold enough detail in these dark-barked trees for positive identification of them and their position in the overall stand - which was the objective of the shot. (This is within a logging coup that is slated for destruction, and leatherwood pollen makes one of the finest and certainly unique-tasting honeys on the planet. It is also becoming a rare tree because of continued logging for woodchips).

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

Next time you do this Fred, would you show the lesser optic as well? I used the 17 to 35 during the 4th of July, interchanged with the "kit" lens. I am not aware of any superiority with respect to flare, but the next lens I rent will be compared. I didn't run heavy checks on the lens, as I knew I would be an unlikely buyer.

The 17 to 35 was a great lens, but frankly the amount of money I would have to invest to cover from 12 to 200mm or so in such small increments boggles the mind.

Years ago, I auditioned the new 80mm Planar for the Hasselblad, along with a new body, the Planar being toted as far less flare. It was only evident in shooting into the sun, where the ghost image of the iris opening was far less than the older Planar. When it was a question of shielding the lens physically the differences fell away to the vanishing point. As much as I would always shade the lens, no matter what the folks tell me how good it is (who would want to risk a shot just to prove their point?),I saw no reason to upgrade. The ghost image still was not acceptable.

I did upgrade the body, however. I was worth it to get the interchangeable screen.

[Donald...@adobeforums.com]

Now i understand.

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

I've had some fun with that Distagon in the past. Just be sure to avoid doing that for a client unless they hang pretty loose!

Flare from the fact that the lens is a spherical light source seldom destroys detail in the shadows. Rather, it supports them, in the way some early photographers used pre-flash and post flash to bias F+F and get more detail in the shadows. A good dose of general flare (not the ghost or iris image type) can do the same.

It would tend to gray down color, I would expect.

I tried pre-flashing film once. OUCH! I went too far and it wasn't uniform. What a mess!

The problem with that, and I presume flare from uncoated lenses, is that, yes, you get the exposure past threshold, but you also flatten the shadows so thay become dull and lifeless.

[Fred_...@adobeforums.com]

I have had lenses in the past that flared out overall and reduced contrast as a result, as well as having some interesting ghosts appear strung out through the image (original Zeiss Distagon f/4 silver barrel to name one outstanding example), but the new Nikkors really have this nailed almost as well as my all-time favourite Rodenstock 65mm f/5.6 wide-angle for the 4x5 did. In the shot I posted, most lenses I have used would have spread much further into the shadows and destroyed the leaf colour and detail than this one did, and the complete absence of any ghosts is to be marvelled at.

And they say that the 14-24 is better!

As far as forests go, we're on a downer here at the moment - for some unfathomable reason forestry burn-offs have been completely excluded from our new federal government's carbon trading scheme, even though nearly 10% of this state's annual atmospheric carbon release is pumped out by those burns. There is absolutely no pressure on them to change their practices as a result, so the clear-felling and residue burns will continue unabated. The last few days have been a bit depressing as a result.

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

Some of the feature disabling may be deliberate on the part of Nikon or others as a way to drive their lens sales. It happens in other industries. Final Cut Pro is not available for PC.

It's pretty obvious about build quality as well.

There are excellent reasons to go either way, but you have to do the homework.

On the other side of replacement, lenses do improve so wanting to replace because of upgrades is less of a burden. Especially at the 2:1 price ratio!

Then there's the question of kit lenses. Is a Nikon kit lens better than a Sigma that completes with the high end Nikon glass?

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

All I can say is that I am delighted with all three of my new Nikkors — and that includes the new 70-300 mm VR lens.

You may scoff at the 70-300 as a mere "Prosumer" lens but I am getting wonderful results from it — AND it is much less heavy on my neck (1.6 lbs. as opposed to 3.4 lbs.!!) when worn all day than the equivalent Pro lens!

If I was a sports or social events photographer (which I am not) I would need the faster lens but the quality of the images that I am getting from the 70-300 is just fine.

And so is my neck!

[Allen...@adobeforums.com]

After several slow-to-learn experiences with mid-market Nikkors as well
as the aforementioned third-party lenses (several Sigmas and Tamrons,
in my case), I will now never buy anything other than from the OEM top
shelf

Ditto.

Another issue IMO significant is the ability of third party lenses to fully enable all features of a modern camera system like the D3 and SB-900 strobe system. E.g. my Nikkor D series lenses from the 1980s are 100% compatible with all modern functions. Few if any third party lenses purchased at the same time would enable full utilization of a D3/D700 and the latest flash units.

Also I doubt if third party would have survived the 25 years of hard sun/sand/salt/snow/sub-zero usage as well as the Nikkors have. I strongly opine that in all things photography you do get what you pay for. In my personal experience every mid-level lens that I ever purchased was sooner or later replaced with top end glass, ergo today I only buy top quality to avoid wasting money buying twice.

[Fred_...@adobeforums.com]

It's not scoffing, Ann - the point was that the gold ring Nikkors are worth the extra for their better construction, handling, dust/weather sealing, design and overall performance, not the least of which being that they are faster than their mid-shelf colleagues, and are always constant aperture lenses. That usually means upwards of a two stop advantage at the long end.

This also means that the two-three stops slower shutter speed you gain in VR with the slower telephotos is largely negated in the non VR gold ring lenses, and the top VR tele lenses such as the 70-200 gain a huge advantage in that they are able to be consistently used wide-open or one stop down without undue falloff problems as well as gaining the two to three stops in slower usable shutter speeds for hand-holding.

I went in to bat for the wisdom in top-shelf purchasing because such lenses were being derided as unnecessary expenditure merely for the pose value of having such lenses, disregarding entirely their very real benefits. As has been attested by others here with long experience with top-shelf and lesser Nikkors, it is false economy to purchase mid-range when the best overall performance possible is desired.

Of course it certainly is no crime to buy one of the lesser Nikkors or a third party lens if that is seen to do the job at the time or if finances render top-shelf out of reach. This is a personal choice or circumstance, though, and not a reflection on the actual design, performance or value of a lens. The cheaper lenses are nearly always very "sharp", but they usually fall down in many other areas compared with the top-range glass.

In company with those here who have travelled the same path, I found that invariably for professional use buying a cheaper lens results in a period of increasingly disenchanted use followed by a loss in money when trading it in on the top-range lens with regrets for not buying that lens in the first place. Once using the expensive lens for a while the more enduring yet ultimately unfixable nag surfaces as to whether all the shots taken with the initial mid-range lens would have been better had the replacement been bought initially.

I know that nag is present to a degree with my D2x, but at least I can console myself that the D3 was not available so I did have the best that Nikon could offer at the time.

So for a reason that some of us contribute to these forums, sounding a heads-up on top-shelf vs prosumer or third-party is better than dealing with a "why didn't somebody tell me?" complaint afterwards.

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

i..."such lenses were being derided as unnecessary expenditure merely for the pose value of having such lenses, disregarding entirely their very real benefits."

Horsepucky! Disregarding entirely?

I don't know what axe you have to grind, but dissing the dissenters with such tripe is way beneath you.

I had much more to say, but this will suffice to make my point.

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

And, a Brownie in the hands of the gifted will outperform a Leica in mediocre hands every time.

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

Fred:

Perhaps I just got lucky and got an exceptional copy but I do suggest that you actually TRY the new 70-300 VR lens if you haven't already had a chance to do so because I think that you will be surprised by the results.

And it IS a "300" at the long end and not just a "200" like its MUCH more expensive and extremely HEAVY cousin.

Hand-holding a 300mm lens at 1/13 sec seems beyond belief — but with the VR on that lens I have done just that!

Will I decide to upgrade it later?

Frankly, from what I have experienced so far, I actually doubt it.

(I do also have the 24 -70mm f/2.8 and I am not seeing much difference between them while the 24-70 needs the extra speed because it is not a VR lens.

[Allen...@adobeforums.com]

And, a Brownie in the hands of the gifted will outperform a Leica in mediocre
hands every time.

That kind of statement - although true for some types of imagery - means nothing in a hardware discussion. The question adresses the performance of varying hardware in the hands of a single competent photog.

[Lawrenc...@adobeforums.com]

It's anecdotal Allen, as is the majority of hardware opinion offered here.

I test hardware. I have for years. Believe me, these are no tests on which I would hang my reputation. They are pointers, and that's all they are.

[L...@adobeforums.com]

Cindy and Peter,

Earlier in this thread you both recommended the 100mm Macro.

Is this the one? <Phttp://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/194451-USA/Canon_4657A006_100mm_f_2_8_USM_Macro.html>

Would you say this is as good as it gets for Canon users and Macro? Or relatively speaking at least?

[Ci...@adobeforums.com]

Thats the one. Not sure if that is as good as it gets. There is a 180mm macro for $1249. <http://www.canogacamera.com/detail.aspx?ID=4522>

[L...@adobeforums.com]

Thanks Cindy. I've looked at that one too. I wonder how much of a difference between the two for the price.

[Ci...@adobeforums.com]

I can tell you the 100mm is excellent.

[L...@adobeforums.com]

Thanks Cindy

[Allen...@adobeforums.com]

Linda-

Note that on your Canon DSLR with 1.6 FF the 100mm is like 160mm, not bad for macro and tight portraiture. The 180mm would be like 288mm, IMO not very versatile.

I use Nikon's 105mm and 60mm macros.

[L...@adobeforums.com]

Note that on your Canon DSLR with 1.6 FF the 100mm is like 160mm, not
bad for macro and tight portraiture. The 180mm would be like 288mm, IMO
not very versatile.

Good point Allen... particular about the "not very versatile" comment on the 180 lens.

I use both the 20D and the 5D. I usually keep a long lens on one and a wide angle on the other for quick shots of nature.

I thought I was about done purchasing lenses until all the interesting mushroom varieties showed up with all the rains. I am happy with some of the shots I've already taken, but would like to get even closer and more creative.

[Stephen...@adobeforums.com]

Not sure how you decide which is which, Linda. But I keep my 300 on my 40D which I imagine you would also. My 180 is on the 5D which means it still works like a 180. The added length is an advantage if you want to go after a butterfly or a dragonfly with your 20D. For me, aside from whether you want to spend the additional dollars, it would also be what you want to accomplish macro-wise. Either one will serve you quite well.
The 180 still allows for getting reasonably close as in this:
<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1aijHCHaJ0yVXX1sql9dWKZAAxeTVf1>

It also allows for separation of subject from the background given enough distance behind, which the 100 will do also but requiring more distance.
<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1IqTjAa1xdLugR1AR4DRYdaOL4i8O0>

[L...@adobeforums.com]

Hi Stephen,

Not sure how you decide which is which, Linda.

I keep a battery pack on the 5D so that helps. I have definitely gotten the two confused before though.

But I keep my 300 on my 40D which I imagine you would also. My 180 is
on the 5D which means it still works like a 180. The added length is an
advantage if you want to go after a butterfly or a dragonfly with your
20D.

I've always wondered about this. I can't help but think the crop factor is a trade off. Not sure you really gain anything with the smaller sensor by the time you factor in resolution. It seems to be an advantage, but if you were to take the full sized sensor and crop it to match the 1.6 sensor, would there be a visible advantage?

For me, aside from whether you want to spend the additional dollars, it
would also be what you want to accomplish macro-wise. Either one will

serve you quite well. The 180 still allows for getting reasonably physically
close as in this:

That mushroom is probably the most unique species I've ever seen. How large would you guess it is physically?

Love the flower. How large is this one? Also, how close can you get using the 180 as compared to the 100?

[L...@adobeforums.com]

One more question: I hear that the 180 is quite heavy and requires a tripod. Do you find this to be the case?

Also... I wonder if Canon has intentions of introducing a new version of these with IS.

[Fred_...@adobeforums.com]

Over six foot up in a hollow in a tree trunk in a dark celery-top pine tree glade on an overcast day (Tuesday) with light rain falling I saw this tiny little winter toadstool glowing with what little cloud-filtered light had reached it. It was too high up for me to use my tripod, so:

Nikon D3, Micro Nikkor 105mm lens, hand held with VR turned on, ISO 2500, 1/40th sec @ f/8, magnification ratio 1:1.

<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1HT3KXXdkgCcSKtZ8shO0n88drH94>

If this doesn't help illustrate just how far digital cameras and equipment have leapt recently, nothing will. Personally I can't imagine that I would attempted it until recently, let alone believed it to be possible at all. Those camera settings would have been pure fantasy-land back then. It looks just fine sized at 23" x 34.5" to further add to the point.

The VR worked fine in macro mode with all the shots that I hand-held at around 1:1, btw.

[L...@adobeforums.com]

Wow Fred! This mushroom is amazing. Certainly unlike any I've ever seen. Love the way the light illumines it as if it were almost transparent. Nice job on capturing this shot.

Do you remember the estimated size of this mushroom?

[Fred_...@adobeforums.com]

It's tiny, Linda. Easily worked out because it is 1:1, so resizing the picture to the sensor size of 36x24mm on screen approximates the object's true size, or 3/8" across its cap.

I only saw it because I was initially attracted to its "parents" a bit further around the trunk, which were still tiny at about double the size.

[Ann_She...@adobeforums.com]

Nikon's High ISO and VR capabilities have changed the Photographic Landscape — literally — as is so beautifully demonstrated in Fred's shot.

:)

[L...@adobeforums.com]

3/8" across its cap

How cool is that!

I am learning to look much more closely at things. I noticed yesterday that we have some very tiny mushrooms on our driveway that I plan to go down and shoot. I will have to get very close to the ground.

Nikon's High ISO and VR capabilities have changed the Photographic Landscape
— literally — as is so beautifully demonstrated in Fred's shot.

Truly does an amazing job.

[Donald...@adobeforums.com]

Fred, would you pay 900 dollars for a d2x that is probably in mint condition, after seeing what the d3 sensor can do? i have a friend contemplating this and he thinks the d300 will be better quality. any thoughts? i know you dont have a d300,but it seems to have better noise reduction from what i read.b&h offered the guy 900 and said they resell at 1900.

[Nick_...@adobeforums.com]

Donald, I have both the D2x and D300. While I haven't done "scientific" noise tests, side by side, here are my thoughts after using the D300 in a variety of situations.

At their native ISOs, I feel that the D2x exhibits less noise than the D300. As you go up the scale - at ISO 400, the D300 wins by a bit. At ISO 800, the D300 wins by more. Beyond that, both cameras are too noisy for my work.

As pointed out several times previously, the D3 is in its own category, noise-wise. I'm still struggling with the decision about the D700.

[Donald...@adobeforums.com]

Thanks nick. i am planning on the d700 for an upgrade, and moving up from the d200,i am sure i will be quite pleased.

[Allen...@adobeforums.com]

...would you pay 900 dollars for a d2x that is probably in mint condition

The D2x is an excellent camera, well worth twice that. IMO at $900 quite a bargain. Personally at market value of ~US$1900 I prefer the D2x to the D300, but that is because I am very sensitive to "pro" build and features. After using the D2x for years when I tested the D300 it felt like a toy (even though it decidedly is not a toy). I do realize that some folks - particularly those who like small form factor and do not value pro build - will prefer the D300.

[Fred_...@adobeforums.com]

Donald, if your friend shoots high ISO a lot (or is likely to), then the D300 is probably a better choice than a used D2x. If high ISO is not a concern, the extra robustness and pro features of the D2x might be the better choice at that low price in the interim.

Ultimately, though, it seems to me that the better overall performance of the FX sensor means that a D700 is probably a better choice than either if the budget won't run to a D3. The extra money is definitely worth the larger sensor size, particularly if getting rid of DX lenses to facilitate the changeover is not a consideration. (It cost me the changeover on the 12-24mm for a new 17-35mm and on the 10.5mm fisheye on an as-new 16mm, but I haven't regretted the financial sting for one second given the final result).

The high ISO thing with the D3 is really quite something - to actually deliberately dial up ISO 2500 or 3200 for a macro shot without thinking of it as a bail-out emergency setting but rather as a fully functional additional choice in the exposure equation is still something that I'm having to get used to.

(Edit: Cross-posted with Allen).

[Allen...@adobeforums.com]

...it seems to me that the better overall performance of the FX sensor

means that a D700 is probably a better choice than either if the budget
won't run to a D3.

Agreed.

[Donald...@adobeforums.com]

Thanks for all your input on that question

[Ho]

An old shot with a little help from a new plugin, Topaz Adjust

<http://www.topazlabs.com/topazlabs/03products/topaz_adjust/>

A knockoff of Lucis Art, can be useful if used with a little restraint.

[Donald...@adobeforums.com]

Nice shot

[Ho]

Thanks... it's from my film archives. :)

[Ho]

Here's another blast from the past, a hornworm (the ugly bast@rds destroyed my tomato crop in 05). The white things are parasitic wasp larvae which feast on the worm while they develop. They eventually kill the worm, but not soon enough.

<http://img522.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hornworms035yg7.jpg>

[Donald...@adobeforums.com]

The warm one looks right to me.

[Ho]

Both were shot in the late afternoon sun; the flash cancelled out the happy hour effect in the second one. I guess if I were publishing a series I might try to make them match.

[Donald...@adobeforums.com]

Not sure exactly. i am funny about waiting to see if any problems are reported, and i think that comes from buying the D200 and then seeing all the banding problems. i am going to a butterfly house in 2 weeks that has cool butterflies and i wish i had it for that. I know the sensor is same as d3, so it should be the same in that respect, but dropping 3 grand makes me nervous.

[Ho]

Yeah, 3Gs is way out of my range. I can understand your being nervous.

Just read in the latest Rangefinder or After Capture about SilkyPix Developer Studio. I downloaded the trial and I think I like it:

<http://img520.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc0038qb6.jpg>

It renders the colors very similarly to Capture NX, which, for all its flaws, renders NEF files better than anything else I've ever used.