Nikon D700 12.1MP FX-Format CMOS Digital SLR Camera with 3.0-Inch LCD (Body Only) Review

This review is from: Nikon D700 12.1MP FX-Format CMOS Digital SLR Camera with 3.0-Inch LCD (Body Only) (Camera) I am making this review of the Nikon D700 from the perspective of someone who also owns a Nikon D300.

Without qualification, the Nikon D300 is a superb camera. So many superlatives have been used with the D300 that I will not repeat them here. All the superlatives used with the D300 applies equally well to the D700. I will add however that as good as the superlatives may have been with the D300, the D700 deserves a bit more.

Let me explain.

The Nikon D700 is equipped with a full frame FX sensor (36.00mm x 23.90mm). This is the same sensor used by the Nikon D3. Nikon D3 12.1MP FX Digital SLR Camera (Body Only) The D300 on the other hand uses the APS-C sensor (23.60mm x 15.80mm). Both the D700 and the D300 have about the same 12 megapixel rating (with the D300 actually slightly higher).

The D700 having a bigger sensor than the D300 but with about the same megapixel rating means that the size/pixel density of the D700 is much lower than the D300. The ratio is 1.4MP/cm2 vs 3.3MP/cm2 for the D700 and the D300 respectively. A lower ratio means lower noise and this ratio favors the D700. For the D700, this translates to lower noise in capturing the same image than when using using the D300.

The D700 lower noise level in turn translates to the D700 being able to operate at a higher ISO level than the D300. The D700 can operate as high as ISO 25,600 while the D300 can go up to ISO 6,400. It is of course quite rare to shoot at such high ISO as it will always be better to shot at a lower ISO rating. But if both the D700 and D300 were shooting at the same ISO, the D700 will have lower noise levels. Simply put, the higher ISO capability of the D700 versus the D300 indicates the higher level of performance of the D700's sensor vs the D300.

My actual use validates this theoretical advantage. I noticed that while the noise level of the D300 is very good at ISO 1600 and even 3200, the D700 consistently showed lower noise level than the D300 shooting at the same ISO setting and light condition. This is most noticeable when shooting at night with many bright lights in the periphery of the main subject.

In terms of color rendition, I have not noticed any significant differences between the D300 and the D700 in the limited time that I have been using the D700. It may be due to the fact that I have conducted my test at dusk and at night.

When using the D700, the full frame sensor means that one will not need to convert the focal length of the lens by a factor of 1.5x. So a 50mm lens will be a 50mm lens for the D700 rather than its 75mm equivalent when used with the D300.

While this may appear to be a disadvantage on the telephoto side, its gain on the wide angle side is considerable and can only be described as an eye opener. The D700 advantage in wide angle application does not just come from its wider perspective. Rather, it is how the D700 maximizes and makes full use of such excellent lens as the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 that makes buying the D700 such an eye opener.

The resulting images taken with the Nikon D700 and the Nikon 14-24mm are clearer, sharper and crisper compared to the D300 even when the focal length in the D700 is zoomed out to its equivalent in the the D300 (21mm in D700 and 14mm in D300). Vignetting is not noticeably worse even when the D700 is used with the 14-24mm glass fully open at its widest focal length (14mm, f/2.8). This is surprising considering that the D700 is now using the full lens instead of just its sweet spot in the center (which would have been to the advantage of the D300 due to its APS-C sensor).

It is not just the wide angle lens that benefited from the D700. Even the slight vignetting I noticed with my 85mm f/1.4 shot with the D300 at f/2.8 is not considerably worse in the D700. I am very surprised at this rather unexpected results as I had expected the opposite. At any rate, vignetting is easily corrected in post-processing.

Still, I should add that for corner to corner sharpness (such as in landscape photography), the D700 with its full-frame sensors will be more demanding on the lens than the D300 with its smaller APS-C sensor.

As to the physical differences between the D700 and the D300, while these two models are roughly equal in size, the D700 is slightly heavier than the D300. This is not an issue for me at all.

What tilts the balance in favor of the D700 is its view finder which is significantly brighter and better than the D300. This difference is very noticeable when switching from the D700 to the D300 and vice versa.

This much improved viewfinder however is a mixed blessing. One disadvantage that the D700 has over the D300 is that the D700 viewfinder captures only 95% of the image while the D300 viewfinder captures 100% of the image shot. So the actual image captured is slightly bigger than what appears in the D700 viewfinder. I understand that this resulted from fitting the bigger sensor from the D3 into the body size of a D300. Given the better image quality of the D700 viewfinder and the better quality of its pictures, I am willing to work with this disadvantage and simply compensate for it during actual use. But I hope that Nikon corrects this though in its next iteration of the D700.

The D700 has an advantage over the D3 as it has an integrated flash which the D3 does not have. The integrated flash is extremely useful when used with the other components of Nikon's Creative Lightning System.

The Nikon MB-D10 Battery Pack Nikon MB-D10 Multi Power Battery Pack for Nikon D300 & D700 Digital SLR Cameras from the D300 fits the D700 perfectly well. This is very convenient as I can opt for a smaller and lighter package when I do not need the MB-D10 for high-speed shooting. This is one advantage that the D700 has over the D3 where the battery pack is integrated with the camera. But a D700 with an MB-D10 is bigger and heavier than a D3. And even when the D700 is equipped with an MB-D10, the D3 is still faster. This makes the D3 a better unit for sports photography.

Since I shoot mostly portrait, special events and landscape and seldom shoot sports, the D700 is perfect for my needs and I can do without the D3. The D700 lower price tag means that I can get the D700 with at least one of Nikon's professional lens.

Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nikkor Wide Angle Zoom Lens
Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II AF-S IF SWM Wide Angle Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras
Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nikkor Wide Angle Zoom Lens
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Lens

Nikon 135mm f/2.0D AF DC-Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras
Nikon 85mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras
Nikon 50mm f/1.4G SIC SW Prime Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

Ideally, the D700 should not be used with the DX lenses. This said, it is possible to use the DX lenses with the D700. The D700 makes the switch to DX lens automatically without need to fiddle with any control. Because the DX lens covers only a section of the D700 sensor, the maximum resolution of using a DX lens on the D700 is only 5.1 megapixel. This smaller coverage is automatically delineated by a box in the D700 viewfinder. In addition to the lower resolution, the extreme two ends of a zoom lens is not usable. Within these limitations, the D700 can use DX lens and produces very good pictures albeit on a smaller resolution / file size.

The D700/FX (1.0x factor) and the D300/DX (1.5x factor) effectively doubles my lens option. For those planning to own both the D300 and the D700, it would be wise to choose a glass that would be usable with both bodies.

In closing, I consider the D700 a good complement to my D300. Except for my Nikon 18-200mm DX lens (which I bought for my Nikon D200), all my glasses and accessories for the D300 can be used with the D700 at its full resolution. I will use the D700 in those times when I need the best results shooting wide angle and/or at high ISO speed. In those times when I need the extra reach, the D300's 1.5x crop factor makes the best use of my telephoto lenses.

Edit: November 22, 2008

I continue to use both the Nikon D300 and the Nikon D700 and often bring both together whenever I go out to shoot. In those times when I just bring one camera body, I choose the D300 whenever range and higher pixel density is a major concern (bec. of the 1.5x crop factor effect on the field of view due to the smaller APS-C sensor but with resolution still at 12megapixel). The D300 is an excellent camera and its 1.5x factor is very handy when I need to reach out with a 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom or with my 180mm f/2.8 prime without need of using a teleconverter. For almost every other instance, including portrait, landscape and low light photography however, I find myself reaching out for the D700.

After over 3 and a half months of use, I can safely say that the color depth of the D700 is significantly much better than the D300. The range of colors, the color details, the varying shade of colors, and the dynamic range that the D700 is capable of capturing is considerably better and richer than what the D300 is capable of. This advantage is best appreciated when taking portrait and landscape photos. The difference in dynamic range is specially noticeable when shooting at higher ISO settings as noise imposes considerable limits on the dynamic range possible. The D700 is clearly better than the D300 on dynamic range at high ISO settings.

One other difference I should mention between the D300 and the D700 is the difference that the sensor size has on effective depth of field. The bigger the sensor, the shallower the depth of field while the smaller the sensor, the greater the depth of field. Point and shoot cameras with minuscule-sized sensor often have the greatest depth of field.

The D700, having a bigger full-frame sensor, has a shallower depth of field than the D300 (which has the smaller APS-C sensor) at the same aperture setting given the same equivalent lens focal length. The difference in the effective depth of field is about one stop. At the same equivalent focal length, the equivalent depth of field of a D700 at f/2.0 would be a D300 at f/1.4.

The shallower depth of field of the D700 would be an advantage to a user who would like to isolate a subject and blur the background. The deeper depth of field of the D300 would be an advantage to a user who would like to keep several subjects at difference distances in focus. I use the D700 where I need to isolate a subject, blur the background, and get the best bokeh. This effect is most noticeable when shooting at wide open apertures from f/1.4 to f/2.8. This, plus the color advantage of the D700, makes the D700 my preferred body for shooting portraits.

Finally, one difference I notice between the D700 and the D300 is that the D700 has a better damped shutter release button. I find that it is easier to release the shutter in the D700 than in the D300. This makes a big difference when shooting at low shutter speeds.

Update: 02-10-2012

With the D800 finally available, I thought I'd share my analysis on the D700 vs the D800

Factors that works 2 ways: Higher resolution
= greater details
= but requires higher memory card capacity
= but requires higher storage capacity
= but requires more RAM and faster CPU and better graphics card

Improvements in the D800 over the D700 other than sensor resolution

1. 100% Viewfinder
2. Better AF
3. Better metering
4. Better WB
5. HD Video
6. Improved dynamic range
7. Improved color
8. Superior live view functions
9. Bigger 3.2" LCD screen
9. Improved ergonomics and now with more buttons
10. Lighter in weight by 95 grams
11. Higher capacity battery
12. Extra SDHC slot and support
13. USB 3.0

Disadvantage of D800 vs D700 other than sensor resolution

1. 5fps vs 8fps on FX using battery pack
2. Higher resolution requires slightly higher shutter speed to shoot handheld to achieve the same corner/border acuity.
3. Higher resolution requires the best lenses to get good results, specially at side & corners
4. Higher resolution means lens diffraction occurs earlier at f/9 instead of f/13 with D700 (if more DOF needed)
5. Optional MB-D12 battery pack for D800 is priced almost double the optional MB-D10 battery pack for D700

The D800 is not a true D700-replacement in that it does not use the D4 sensor. Except for a slower frame-rate however, the D800 outperforms the D700 in all respects. I have placed an order for a D4 and also added an order for a D800E. I will however still be keeping my D700.

View the original article here

Read More

Nikon 50mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras Review

This review is from: Nikon 50mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras (Camera) I don't even know where to start. This lens produces sharp pictures and great color and contrast. This lens is perfect for low light and/or action/sport photography (as this lens is famous for being one of the fastest lens together with its brother 50mm f/1.8). This lens is also perfect for portrait and other general purposes (macro etc). This is definitely a very versatile lens.

However, I think you should really consider buying the f/1.8 first before thinking to buy this f/1.4 lens (mainly because it is more than twice the price of the f1/8 and most of the time the f/1.8 version is fast enough in my opinion). Some examples where the faster f/1.4 lens might make a difference: low light wedding/concert or indoor sports photography (where the light is often low from the camera perspective) such as hockey, track and field, skating, gymnastic, basketball etc.

As much as I want to encourage everyone to buy this lens right away, let me mention some of the limitation that you would see (which I think will be helpful to go over before deciding to buy this lens):

First, being a prime lens, you will need to move your feet a lot to compose your picture. If you are used to zoom lens, don't underestimate this limitation. It takes me a while to get used to it, and sometime I still find people looking at me wondering why I am moving forward and backwards. the good news is that most of the time, they don't think I'm weird, but they are actually wondering if I'm a professional photographer.

Secondly, the focal range of 50mm, which is considered the normal lens and great for portrait lens. but on many DSLRs which is not full frame (unless you have a full frame Nikon DSLR like the D700 or D3, then 50mm is 50mm), this lens become a 75mm equivalent which is in the border of a short tele lens. I actually like the 75mm equivalent though I often have to move backwards when taking picture of a group of people.

Sharpness increases as you stop down to f/2. I actually prefer to use the widest most of the time and the results are still nice. Personally (when shooting low light action/sport), I'd rather use f/1.4 aperture settings than stopped down (e.g to f/2.8) and compensate with higher ISO setting which often gives me grainy picture. But if your object is not moving (static) then it is better to stop down to f/2 or more.

If you are wondering whether you should get a fast lens or a lens with VR (Vibration Reduction), here's my take: In overall, VR does help a lot (as it will reduce camera shake) and will produce better/sharper picture than equivalent lens without VR (especially if the object is static). If the object is moving (sports/action) then VR feature alone might not help (depending on how fast the object is moving and how much light is available), and a fast lens often end up being a far better solution, even without VR feature as it will allow much faster shutter speed to freeze motion. Using tripod (and a remote) will substitute for the need of VR feature. In general I would recommend getting a fast lens with VR feature (and usually it is expensive) such as the 70-200 f/2.8 VR, but if one can only get for one or the other, then find out what do you want to use the lens for and then use the guideline mentioned here.

If you are wondering whether you will get the benefit of buying f/1.4 lens over a f/1.8 lens, just remember that the f/1.4 lens is about 60% faster than f/1.8 at its widest aperture setting. With this information, you can decide if the additional speed will justify the additional cost. The bokeh is nicer as well in f/1.4 lens but I think speed is usually the main factor in deciding whether to get the more expensive f/1.4 lens.

Here are the summary of pros and cons for this Nikon 50mm f/1.4D AF lens:

Pros:
1. Very fast (f/1.4)
2. Very sharp pictures (especially when stopped down to f/2 or more. very sharp at f/2.8)
3. Great for sport/action photography
4. Great for indoor and low light situation
5. Great for portrait
6. Bokeh is almost as good as many expensive Nikon tele-lens
7. Fast autofocus
8. Perfect for wedding photography (or no-flash event). However, or try the 17-35mm f/2.8 or 28-70mm f/2.8 lens)
9. 75mm equivalent which can be considered a short tele lens (I actually like the fact that it's 75mm equivalent vs 50mm in DSLR. if you need more zoom, you can get the Nikon 85mm f/1.8, or the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR). If you have full frame DSLR(like the D3 or D700), then this #9 pros is not applicable.
10. Sharper than its 50mm f/1.8 sibling (at equivalent aperture)

Cons:
1. Being prime lens, you need to move your feet a lot to adjust/compose
2. Some distortion at widest aperture
3. Plasticy build (though it has metal moount and internal part seems to be from metal)
4. Autofocus is not the most silent but very reasonable
5. 75mm equivalent with 1.5x multiplier on non full frame DSLR (many people find this is an odd range for normal lens. I actually like it). If you have full frame DSLR(like the D3 or D700), then this #5 cons is not applicable.
6. Autofocus does not work with D40, D40x and D60. The newer 50mm f/1.4G AF-S lens will autofocus with those cameras.

Bottom line: This lens is so versatile that I think everyone should own (either the 50mm f/1.4 or the 50mm f/1.8) in addition to all the lenses that they already have. Being a very fast lens, it enables me to take pictures in low light (sport/action photography) that I otherwise wouldn't be able to do.

Again, I would recommend everyone to get this lens (or the 50mm f/1.8). In some ways I can say that this lens will make you a better photographer.

Happy Photographing!

Sidarta Tanu

View the original article here

Read More

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras Review

This review is from: Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras (Camera) I went into a local camera store to look at the Nikon 12-24mm wide angle zoom to eventually augment the Nikon 50mm 1.8 and 18-200mm VR I currently use on my D200. After seeing the Sigma 10-20mm, taking test shots with it and the Nikon, and then printing the shots in the store, I walked out with the Sigma lens.

I had planned to buy the 12-24mm Nikon next Spring when my budget would allow the expenditure. I have had success with Nikon optics in the past - starting with my first Nikon FM back in the seventies. The Sigma's good construction, nice finish, smooth+fast+quiet focusing and 10mm focal length convinced me to try my first non-Nikon lens in 30 years. A big factor: The Sigma lens is less than half the price of the Nikon lens here is Canada. It fit my budget, so I took the plunge.

The Sigma fits into my "sharp enough" category. In real world shooting, its sharpness is on par with my 18-200mm Nikon. Both lens are less sharp than my $100 50mm 1.8 when "test" images are blown up to 16"x20" size. I never notice any lack of sharpness in "real" pictures. I care more about color saturation, contrast and color balance anyway. In this area, the Sigma does well. Saturation and contrast are equal to both my other Nikon lens - particularly at f8 and smaller aperatures. Wide open, I find some weakening in contrast. The Sigma has a warmer color termperature than my other lens. One click toward blue in Photoshop would fix this minor variance in color. But I use my 10-20mm almost exclusively for landscapes. The warmer color is generally a good thing.

I have noticed some vignetting @ 10mm f4. Zooming to 12mm or stopping down to f5.6 elminates any artifacts in pictures I have taken thus far. I have found it's more important to avoid "thick framed" filters - and stacking filters is a no no with this lens. They cause more darkening than a wide open f-stop. BTW: I added a 72 to 77mm step-up ring to my 18-200m VR Nikon to allow me to share filters between my zoom lens.

I do miss having a manual/autofocus switch on the Sigma lens. I have accidently nudged the manual focus ring a couple of times. With that said, the incredible depth of field of this lens (or any lens at this focal length) means small focusing errors can be tolerated :)

I recommend this lens - even to people like me, who never had a non-nikon lens before.

View the original article here

Read More

Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras Review

In a world of zooms, many people would find plopping down $500 for a 50mm prime -- from a third party manufacturer, no less -- to be a bit absurd.

However, if you are a "prime person" -- and you know who you are -- you'll love the performance of this lens: super sharp photos, incredibly creamy background bokeh, nice contrast and flare resistance, and operation in low-light without needing super-high ISO or a blast of flash.

Pros:
+ @1.4 it's quite usably sharp
+ @1.8 and beyond, it's very sharp
+ the bokeh (rendition of out-of-focus areas) is really amazingly smooth. More so behind the DOF than in front, though
+ colors, contrast, etc, all excellent
+ great build quality, solid feel, free case and lens hood

Cons:
- weight
- price
- big filters (77mm)

Canon already has three 50mm lenses: the 1.8, 1.4, and 1.2L, so you might wonder why Sigma felt the need to jump into this market. The Canon's are all pretty good, with the 50/1.8 being an great value at $80, the 50/1.4 being a reliable workhorse (though prone to a dreamy look wide open), and the 1.2L, being, well, $1500. This lens is priced between the 1.4 and 1.2L, and judging from photos I've seen, it probably performs in that range as well. So it is filling an niche in the wide gulf between the 1.4 and 1.2L.

On my camera, a 400D, a 50mm is like a short tele, and I use it mostly for relatively close up photos of people. I like that when if upgrade to FF, I'll be able to continue to use this lens (and I'll sell my Sigma 30/1.4) whose place it would take.

The lens has not been out very long, and, to my knowledge, no formal reviews have been published (8/2008), but the general "buzz" is that people are seeing AF problems at distances beyond a few meters subject distance.

I personally have not done exhaustive analysis, but I feel my copy performs quite well. Then again, I don't use this lens for far-off subjects very much, and almost never wide open in that case. So there may indeed be problems with this regime, but I don't feel it affects my photography much. That said, it could be that I'm just not as exacting as some, or my camera's AF is sloppy enough to hide lens variation to begin with. However, I do pixel peep a lot and I get about the same hit/miss rate as I do with other lenses I own.

So far, I'm a happy customer.

View the original article here

Read More

Tamron AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD IF Macro Lens with Built in Motor for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras Review

This review is from: Tamron AF 70-200mm f/2.8 Di LD IF Macro Lens with Built in Motor for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras (Electronics) I was doing my research prior to buying this lens for couple of weeks. I read everything I could find on the internet about this lens as well as it's competitors.

First, let me provide you with quick summary of my findings:

1. Major competitors for this lens are:

a. Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 OS. This lens is very sharp according to all reviews I read. It has fast and precise auto focus, high quality image stabilization. This is clearly the best lens out there. The negative side is cost (3 times as much as Tamron!) and watch out for defective lens (quality control issues). Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II AF-S NIKKOR Lens For Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

b. Sigma 70-200mm f2.8. This version doesn't have image stabilizer. Compare to Tamron it has faster focus but lower quality glass. Image resolution is significantly lower and shows worse results with teleconverters then you get with Tamron. There are some complains about focus motor goes bad and coating of the lens is easy to scratch. I also want to mention that tests showed slight color cast with Sigma lens. There is a new version available for pre-order that has image stabilization. Nobody tested this new version yet, also cost went up 2 times! Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 DG HSM II Macro Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

c. Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 - No Image Stabilization. This lens received good feedback from user community and from pros. Resolution is good but not as sharp as Tamron. Cost is about 50% more. There are number of complains about quality of manual/auto focus switch that breaks by it-self. Cost of repair is about $300 to $400 (don't remember exact number). Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

2. Now lets talk about Tamron 70-200mm for Nikon. I got this lens 2 days ago and shot lots of subjects and test charts to calibrate focus and evaluate performance.

a. Focus speed - This is THE MOST common complain about this lens. The focus motor on this lens is faster then screwdriver used on 50mm 1.8 prime, but not even close to Nikkor 16-85mm VR. It's not fast but acceptable in most situations. I usually track my subject for a little while before pulling trigger, so speed should not be a problem. Sometimes this lens takes a while to focus (like 2 seconds). It happens when room has low lights or subject doesn't have contrast edge. Tip: release shutter and press again and it will focus way quicker second time. Focusing performance is fine with flashlight focus assist lamp. I feel that focus is not great, but acceptable sacrifice for high quality glass and lower cost.

b. Resolution - I was concerned with results from dpreview that showed major degradation in sharpness at 135mm f2.8. I'm happy to report that it's not a case with my sample. Resolution is very good from 70-170mm and goes somewhat softer by 200mm at f2.8 aperture. Stopping down to f3.2 from f2.8 increases resolution significantly for entire zoom range. Note: 3.2 vs. 2.8 is only 1/3 EV stop. The sweet aperture spot for my sample is f3.5 to f8. I got very decent results from f3.2 to f16. In general, sharpness in sweet spot is the same as my prime 50mm f1.8 lens at f4.0 aperture (the sharpest aperture for this lens).

c. Contrast - somewhat low at f2.8 but is fine by f3.2 aperture setting.

d. Manual Focus - I liked clutch type focus ring. If you pull focus ring toward camera body it goes to manual focus, push it outside and auto focus is engaged. It's fast and easy. Try it couple of times and it feels natural to use. However, it's not easy to focus at 200mm 2.8. Depth of field is extremely shallow and any minor errors are very easy to see.

e. Macro performance - Tamron is the only lens out of all listed that offers you reasonable macro performance. Sigma and Nikon can't focus as close as Tamron can.

f. Calibration results - lens had front focus which I was able to correct using Nikon D300 lens adjustment settings.

Couple of words about Image stabilization. Image Stabilization allows you to use slower shutter speed by an average of 3 EV stops. Let's say you can make sharp picture without image stabilization at 1/200s with 200mm zoom.Image stabilization would allow you to make similar sharp image at 1/25s 200mm. Image stabilization works great with static objects, but doesn't help with moving objects. You need shutter speed faster then 1/200s to avoid blurry pictures.

Conclusion: I feel that this lens is a good choice for people who want high quality pictures and don't want to spend $2,000. Professionals may want to go all the way up to Nikon 70-200mm. Tamron has awesome optics, good quality construction, acceptable autofocus and reasonable price.

View the original article here

Read More

Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras Review

This review is from: Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras (Camera) I don't even know where to start. This lens produces sharp pictures and great color and contrast. And for its price (which seems to climb recently), it is worth more than 5 stars rating. I initially get this lens for low light action and sport photography (as this lens is famous for being one of the fastest lens together with its brother 50mm f/1.4), but I also found out that this lens is also perfect for portrait and other general purposes (macro etc). This is definitely a very versatile lens.

As much as I want to encourage everyone to buy this lens right away, let me mention some of the limitation that you would see (which I think will be helpful to go over before deciding to buy this lens):

First, being a prime lens, you will need to move your feet a lot to compose your picture. If you are used to zoom lens, don't underestimate this limitation. It takes me a while to get used to it, and sometime I still find people looking at me wondering why I am moving forward and backwards. the good news is that most of the time, they don't think I'm weird, but they are actually wondering if I'm a professional photographer.

Secondly, the focal range of 50mm, which is considered the normal lens and great for portrait lens. but on many DSLRs which is not full frame (unless you have a full frame Nikon DSLR like the D700 or D3, then 50mm is 50mm), this lens become a 75mm equivalent which is in the border of a short tele lens. I actually like the 75mm equivalent though I often have to move backwards when taking picture of a group of people.

Third, in some situation the autofocus might not able to focus (which is common for many other lens too). It is hard for the autofocus to lock when aiming at a wall that is one color (usually black or white), or on a clear sky (day or night). This kind of makes sense to me actually. IN these situations the AF assist light doesn't help either so you can opt for manual focus or set the focus to infinity when you can't find focus lock on scenic/landscape or sky photography. So far I don't have many problems with the autofocus.

Sharpness increases as you stop down to f/2.2 or f/2.5. I actually use f/1.8 most of the time and the results are still nice. Personally, I'd rather use f/1.8 aperture settings than stopped down (e.g to f/2.8) and compensate with higher ISO setting which often gives me grainy picture. But if your object is not moving (static) then it is better to stop down to f/2.8 or more.

If you are wondering whether you should get a fast lens or a lens with VR (Vibration Reduction), here's my take: In overall, VR does help a lot (as it will reduce camera shake) and will produce better/sharper picture than equivalent lens without VR (especially if the object is static). If the object is moving (sports/action) then VR feature alone might not help (depending on how fast the object is moving and how much light is available), and a fast lens often end up being a far better solution, even without VR feature as it will allow much faster shutter speed to freeze motion. Using tripod (and a remote) will substitute for the need of VR feature. In general I would recommend getting a fast lens with VR feature (and usually it is expensive) such as the 70-200 f/2.8 VR, but if one can only get for one or the other, then find out what do you want to use the lens for and then use the guideline mentioned here.

If you are wondering whether you will get the benefit of buying f/1.4 lens over a f/1.8 lens, just remember that the f/1.4 lens is about 60% faster than f/1.8 at its widest aperture setting. With this information, you can decide if the additional speed will justify the additional cost. The bokeh is nicer as well in f/1.4 lens but I think speed is usually the main factor in deciding whether to get the more expensive f/1.4 lens.

Here are the summary of pros and cons for this Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF lens:

Pros:
1. Very fast (f/1.8)
2. Very sharp pictures (especially when stopped down to f/2.2, f/2.5 or more.)
3. Great for sport/action photography
4. Great for indoor and low light situation
5. Great for portrait
6. Bokeh is almost as good as many expensive Nikon tele-lens
7. Fast autofocus
8. Good for wedding photography (or no-flash event). However, if this is your main objective then you might want to get the 50mm f/1.4 version or 28-70mm f/2.8 lens)
9. 75mm equivalent which can be considered a short tele lens (I actually like the fact that it's 75mm equivalent vs 50mm in DSLR. if you need more zoom, you can get the Nikon 85mm f/1.8, or the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR). If you have full frame DSLR(like the D3 or D700), then this #9 pros is not applicable.
10. Inexpensive

Cons:
1. Being prime lens, you need to move your feet a lot to adjust/compose
2. Autofocus issue on some situations (read detail above)
3. Plasticy build
4. Autofocus is not the most silent but very reasonable
5. 75mm equivalent with 1.5x multiplier on non full frame DSLR (many people find this is an odd range for normal lens. I actually like it). If you have full frame DSLR(like the D3 or D700), then this #5 cons is not applicable.
6. Autofocus does not work with D40, D40x, D60, D3000, D3100, D5000 and D5100. The newer 50mm f/1.8G AF-S, 50mm f/1.4G AF-S lens or 35mm f/1.8G AF-S lens will autofocus with those cameras.

Bottom line: This lens is so versatile (and inexpensive) that I think everyone should own in addition to all the lenses that they already have. Being a very fast lens, it enables me to take pictures in low light (sport/action photography) that I otherwise wouldn't be able to do.
After knowing its limitation, I would predict that 99% of you that decides to buy this lens will find this lens very useful. And if you decide that you don't like it (which I think not more than 1%), I'm sure there will be a lot of people who wouldn't mind buying it from you (with some discount of course).

Again, I would recommend everyone to get this lens. In some ways I can say that this lens makes me a better photographer.

Happy Photographing!

Sidarta Tanu

View the original article here

Read More

Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 SP XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon Digital SLR Cameras Review

This review is from: Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 SP XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon Digital SLR Cameras (Camera) I have never bought a non-Canon lens because I just love the look, feel, and optical quality of the Canon line particularly the L series lenses. But I kept reading glowing reviews about this lens. On multiple websites. So, I went out and took a look.

First impression: the build quality is not as good as a Canon L series lens. Duh! It costs about 1/4 as much for goodness sake. This is a plastic lens - not metal. But I must admit that the build quality was pretty darn good. Better, I think, than the Sigma lenses I've seen. Fit and finish was very nice and tight. I'd give the build quality a 4/5. Not bad. I figured I could live with it.

Next, I put the lens on my camera. I'd read reviews complaining about the speed of the focusing. It may not be quite as quick as my 200 f2.8 L series lens but it was pretty darn good and for my purposes, plenty fast. A 4.5/5

I'd read reviews complaining about the noise and the fact that the AF was not USM. I thought the AF worked very quietly. Not at all distracting and barely discernable. Noise - not an issue.

Then, I took pictures with the lens and I was absolutely floored! How in the world did Tamron manage to produce a lens that performed so well optically for such a reasonable price?! Beautiful contrast, excellent resolution, gorgeous colors, and extremely sharp, particularly above f2.8. But, f2.8 is very good as well.

Obviously the first comparison that comes to mind is between this lens and the Canon 24-70 f2.8 L. I would say, I kid you not, that this lens is in every respect optically the equal of the Canon or better than the Canon. I could not believe it.

I tested this lens directly against a brand new copy of the Canon 24-70 f2.8L. Method: I tested both lenses on a tripod @ F 2.8 and 8.0 @ 28mm 50mm and 70mm. Target limestone wall 9.5 feet parallel to the sensor plane. Remote release employed. No mirror lockup. Center and all four corners were evaluated to my naked eye on a monitor using 100% crops. Both lenses were new copies received within the last 7 days.

The limestone wall lent itself perfectly to evaluating sharpness and subtle contrast and color rendition. There was enormous detail present in the wall with subtle colorations present.

Findings:

28MM F8: Tamron definitely sharper in the center and corners

28MM F2.8: Tamron definitely sharper in the center and corners

50MM F8: Tamron slightly sharper in the center and very slightly sharper in corners

50MM F2.8: Tamron slightly sharper in center and equal in corners.

70MM F2.8: Canon sharper in center and at corners. Incidentally noted was inability of Tamron to focus as sharply as I was able to achieve with manual focusing.

70MM F8: Tamron sharper in center with Canon slightly sharper in corners.

Some have said that there is less flare with the Canon, but if you use the lens hood that should not be a problem. I didn't notice excessive flare in my copy.

Admittedly there is significant copy to copy variation in both the Canon and the Tamron, but my findings convinced me that at 1/4 the price, and with the Tamron weighing 1 pound less than the Canon that the Tamron was the lens for me. Optically 5/5!!

I cannot recommend this lens highly enough. It is the first non-Canon lens I have owned and I am thrilled.

View the original article here

Read More

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras Review

This review is from: Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras (Camera) I was determined to love this lens based on the specs and price point alone. Canon really needed to come out with this lens at this price because Nikon offers a very decent Vibration Reduction lens at roughly the same range for the same price, leaving me to make apologies for Canon and their neglect to all my Nikon friends.

The IS can be switched off to save battery life but I haven't noticed a difference in battery performance with it. The IS is only activiated when you press the shutter halfway for auto focus. Although it FEELS like there is a small lag for the IS to start, I don't think I've had any photos messed up because of it.

You can HEAR the IS. A little bizarre after using point and shoots that have IS that is silent, but it doesn't seem to affect performance

Pro: Great price for an image stabilized zoom lens. I paid 299 and am very pleased even though Amazon is selling it for 280 a week later. ALso arrive 2 months sooner than Amazon initially promised. This lens has NEVER been 400 dollars. Its MSRP from Canon prior to release was 299.00. Shame Amazon!

Pro: Images are very sharp.

Pro: Image stabilization does a VERY nice job. Four stops as advertised by Canon? I'm not so sure. GREATLY enhancing the composition experience at 250mm? Absolutely.

Pro: Much smaller and lighter than the 70-300 of any manufacturer and much sharper than my Sigma 70-300.

Con: Cheapish feel. But just use it, quit feeling it already. Plastic mount. But if you NEED a metal mount, may I suggest you are being a little rough with your camera. *UPDATE* The plastic flanges on back were able to hold the camera securely to the lens, but NOT hold the rear cap securely to the lens. I've tried many different rear lens caps that fit snugly on other lenses. So I think this is beyond cheap feel and has to be called CHEAP BUILD.

Con: This lens is a little (ok, maybe not so little) slow to focus in dim light, sometimes it misses altogether when I think other lenses of mine would have had no difficulty.

Con: I never gave Inner Focusing much thought on my other lenses until I used this. The front of this lens rotates AND moves in and out a LOT while focusing, so much so that you MAY even want to recompose your shot. The length of this lens changes almost an inch across the focus range. I just checked my Sigma 70-300 and found that it does also, but I've never seen it make as much difference in the viewfinder as I have with this Canon. Your perception may vary.

This lens and the soon to be arriving 18-55 IS as the XSi kit lens will allow me to carry one less lens to achieve an 18-250 IS range. For a little more money than the cost of both lenses you can get the Tamrom 18-250 but not have Image Stabilization. And now Sigma has an 18-200 WITH Optical Stablization for about what these 2 lenses cost retail, but in testing the 2 Canons produced better images.

Conclusion: A great EF-S lens for Canon users. (even if Nikon had to force Canon to make it for us.)

View the original article here

Read More

Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR Nikkor Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras Review

This review is from: Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR Nikkor Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras (Camera) Never has my opinion of a lens changed so dramatically or so quickly as in the case of this 70-300mm VR from Nikon. My first copy, owned about a year ago, was utterly mediocre in nearly every way. It was fuzzy at 300mm, no better than reasonably sharp under 200mm, gave nice colors and decent focus performance but was no fun to use thanks to its sticky zoom ring and "hidden" focus ring.

I reviewed that lens, giving it three stars, warning that it was likely a below-average copy but that buyers should be aware that variations exist and to be sure to test a lens like this before purchase.

With that bit of history, the performance of my second copy of this lens, purchased a few weeks ago now, has stunned me. It has prompted me to sell my 80-400mm VR zoom (also an excellent lens, but less sharp, heavier and much more expensive) and has matched in most ways the performance of various pro Nikon zooms I've owned. Even at 300mm, where it is weakest, it equals at f/5.6 the sharpness of the Nikon 300mm f/4 AF at f/4, while improving on that lens' color rendition and thus exceeding it in terms of overall image quality at all apertures.

How's that for an encore?

I've had no choice but to radically alter my review. (Reader comments below as of today (1/28/10), apply to the first (three star) version of the review, and the caution that one must be aware of sample variability is as important as ever). I've decided to re-write my review based solely on the performance of my second sample, under the assumption that the second sample is representative and the first not.

The lens still has some "handling" issues that stem from its nature as a consumer-oriented lens, and it is still a "slow" lens, with a maximum aperture of f/4.5 - f/5.6 - although f/5.6 at 300mm still implies a light-transmissive opening of about 54mm, nearly as large as that of an 85mm f/1.4 (61mm). There is simply no way the lens could be faster without also making it larger, heavier and much more expensive - and such lenses already exist.

Build quality is good consumer-grade, meaning metal where necessary, plastic elsewhere, likely little or no weather-sealing and not designed to endure rough handling. That's fine - another design choice that has benefits for size, weight and cost. Not quite so fine is the still-sticky zoom ring, which takes just enough effort to turn that near 300mm your subject will tend to jump around, maybe right out of the frame, as the hand holding the lens works in opposition to the hand holding the camera. Even worse in my opinion is the lack of a smooth, front-mounted focus ring, which I find fairly important in a long zoom. Notice that all the professional lenses have the focus ring in front of the zoom ring and usually larger than the zoom ring, so that small tweaks to focus are done easily and naturally with the photographer's hands in the shooting position. The small, hidden focus ring on the 70-300 is unlikely to be used except when setting up shots of still subjects on a tripod, and that's a shame because the lens is actually even better suited to other uses.

Those deficiencies are tolerable, though, because the 70-300 VR just about re-writes the book on image quality for consumer zooms in its range. It's not just a matter of acuity, although acuity is excellent: like many of Nikon's best lenses, the 70-300VR's images exceed the level of quality implied by formal tests of it. These formal tests, and most reviews, independently consider the various easily-measurable aspects of lens performance - acuity, aberrations of various types, perhaps (though usually cursorily) color rendition; and then attempt to grade the lens based on some rational summation of its good and bad qualities. What is usually missed is that the perception of sharpness and of image quality relies on a much less linear and not easily definable combination of a lens' optical qualities. The real performance of a lens can be more than the simple sum of its parts, or it can be less - and the perception of quality and sharpness in different lenses' images can vary quite a bit between lenses that have similar measurable capabilities.

Whatever the explanation, the 70-300 VR is a genuinely excellent lens in terms of image quality. Even in comparison to some of the best and most expensive professional lenses I've used, the 70-300 VR more than holds its own. Between 70mm and 200mm, I don't believe I have ever used a significantly sharper lens. Some might have an edge at one setting or another, but overall, within that range, I would put the 70-300VR up against any Nikon or third-party f/2.8 professional zoom and challenge anybody to see a difference in the resulting image. If there is one, my guess is that it would probably be in the 70-300's favor, because although most of these lenses are similar in terms of acuity once f/4.5 is reached, they vary in their rendition of color, and in that area the 70-300 excels.

To be sure, the 70-300 is not likely to produce a BETTER image at f/5.6, say, than one of Nikon's top pro zooms at the same aperture: those lenses are excellent, as well. But neither will the more expensive lens produce a better image, at least not without opening it up and taking advantage of its expensive larger aperture, which the 70-300 lacks. That is one trick that the 70-300 VR can not match, and probably the only reason for most people to consider paying up for the more expensive alternatives.

Towards 300mm the performance of the 70-300 VR drops off slightly - but only slightly. It's still worthy of superlatives, because it manages to almost match the performance of Nikon's 300mm primes in terms of pure acuity while retaining the outstanding color rendition and small-scale contrast that gives its images the snap and pop that distinguishes them from those of lesser lenses. Not only do I not hesitate to use this lens at 300mm, I do it at every opportunity. I know the images I get will look just as good, in any non-trivial way, as those at shorter focal lengths or made with any other lens I've had the opportunity to use. That's a giant leap away from what I said about the first sample of this lens I owned, by the way: watch those sample variations!

I now give this lens a five star rating. Despite its minor issues with feel and handling, it offers such exceedingly good performance, and is so impressively superior to any of its competition within its price and focal length range, that I can not give it any less. It becomes for me, along with the 16-85mm VR, the 85mm f/1.4 and a couple of others, one of the few standout lenses that I will always be happy to have on my camera, confident that any just about any photograph taken with them will have first-rate, no-excuses image quality that for practical purposes could not have been exceeded. Remember, though, that my initial review of this lens gave it three stars. That is a BIG difference between samples: take care to ensure that you get a good one. If you do, it won't disappoint.

Notes:

VR - This lens has Nikon's VR vibration reduction system. It is very good. Although not the upgraded VR implementation later introduced as VRII, this lens' VR does seem to offer subjectively improved VR performance than some early iterations of the VR technology, such as that found on the 70-200mm VRI and 80-400mm VR lenses; and it also seems to me to be a step more advanced than the VR found on some of the lower-cost lenses, notably the 55-200mm and 18-105mm VR lenses. As to VR itself, any variety, the secret is long-since out: it's a revelation. Don't even consider buying a lens in this range without VR unless you have a specialized use in mind that doesn't require it. That might include tripod-only use or sports photography. VR makes a lens like this easily hand-holdable in normal lighting conditions, and hand-holdable in low light with some care. That by itself is a revolutionary improvement in the accessibility of telephoto photography to photographers at every level, and also to the quality of the resulting images. Anybody who grew up using non-VR telephoto lenses knows you're almost always on the margins of camera shake when using them, often having to chuck three out of every four photos to get one good one. VR cures that completely.

Focusing - Fast and accurate. Nikon's top-level pro AF-S lenses have exceedingly quick, snappy focusing, and the 70-300 doesn't quite match them, but it is generally only one full step behind - a fraction longer to lock on; still quick. It is much quicker than the other consumer-grade AF-S lenses and also faster than the older screw-drive pro lenses, even on a pro body (with a couple of exceptions, perhaps). Out beyond 200mm it does drop off, as less light is reaching the focus sensors and the acuity has dropped a bit. For tracking motion out beyond 200mm, it will not come close to matching the pro lenses. In these cases I find the quickest way to lock focus is to back off the zoom, lock on, and then re-zoom. Cumbersome, unfortunately.

Bokeh - Quite good with this lens, a surprising deviation from most of Nikon's consumer lenses. It is better to my eyes than that of any of the lenses mentioned below except the 70-200 VR and possibly the 300mm lenses. Bokeh is important in a lens like this: at 300mm, even with an f/5.6 max aperture, it's easy to generate a great deal of background blur. That produced by the 70-300 VR is smooth, not likely to be distracting and adds to my confidence in recommending it vs. more expensive, professional zooms.

Vs. 80-400mm VR - The 80-400 VR is a great lens, but it is a full technological generation behind the 70-300 VR. It is a pro-level lens in terms of feel and build quality, and it is nicer to use. It produces beautiful, sharp, contrasty images that are in general difficult to tell apart from those of the 70-300 VR. When you look closely, the 70-300 is the sharper of the two, by a fair margin. It is also lighter and easier to carry, and much less expensive, and it offers decidedly better AF performance thanks to its very good AF-S focusing system. To my eyes, the 80-400 VR matches the 70-300 VR's excellent, snappy, contrasty color rendition, or at least the difference is too close to call.

Vs. f/2.8 70-200/80-200 Zooms - The 70-300 VR has better VR than the original 70-200 VR, and if it doesn't quite match it for pure optical acuity when formally tested, it certainly seemed to match it in my use. The 70-200 VR is a VERY good lens, at least for DX, but unless you need the f/2.8 maximum aperture and are willing to carry it around (not a small issue), the 70-300 VR is in my opinion its equal, even looking closely. Older lenses like the 80-200 AF-S and 80-200 AF-D are excellent lenses as well, but they lack VR, are not sharper than the 70-300, and they are still heavier and more expensive. The catch is that these lenses are the only way to get the fast f/2.8 aperture that really is critical for many types of photography. That, and their superior build quality, is in my opinion their only advantage.

Vs 70-300 AF-D and 70-300G - The AF-D lens is a good lens, half the price of this VR version, but I don't think it's quite half the lens: the VR is substantially better in every important way. The AF-G version is one of the few Nikon lenses that is actually fairly poor in terms of optical performance. If cost or size is an issue I would forgo both of these for the 55-200 VR, which is a very good lens: smaller, sharper, and it has VR.

Vs. 55-200 VR - I love the 55-200 VR, and for many photographers it will be a better choice than the 70-300 VR. The 70-300 is definitely the better lens: better focusing, better VR, sharper (though the 55-200 is sharp, as well) and with visibly better, contrastier colors. But the 55-200 is much smaller, much less expensive, and surprisingly close in performance. Unless the difference in price is of little importance to you; or if you prefer smaller, unobtrusive lenses that still manage do their job exceedingly well, consider the 55-200 VR instead. The 55-200 has poor bokeh, which might rule it out for some, and it is a DX-only lens, which rules it out for film and FX users.

Vs 300mm f/2.8 AF-S II - I'm joking, right? Well, nobody is going to consider these lenses as alternatives to one another. You spend several thousand dollars on a 300/2.8 lens because you need the f/2.8 max aperture, and the 70-300 doesn't have that. Just as a matter of pure interest, though, at f/5.6 or f/8 I could not tell the difference between these two lenses in terms of sharpness, and I found the 300/2.8 couldn't match the 70-300 VR for color rendition. I spent a fair amount of time comparing the 70-300 VR, the 300mm f/4 and the 300mm f/2.8, and at f/5.6 the 70-300 was my pick. (I've since gotten rid of the f/2.8, though not due to the comparison with the 70-300 VR).

View the original article here

Read More

The F%^&ing <b>Nikon D800</b> vs. Canon 5D mkIII Shootout - YouTube

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
This is a shootout of the new Nikon D800 and Canon 5D mkIII DSLRs, with a focus on the video quality in particular. More more detailed info, you can read my write-up of the tests at http://www.crisislab.com/.

The final shot was done with the Nikon D800.

View the original article here

Read More

<b>Nikon D800</b> vs. Canon 5 D Mark II: the shoots better video?

Canon and Nikon have both new professional DLSR cameras portfolios of photographers and videographers of the world fighting for that. We recently reviewed the Canon 5 D Mark III and beating up a review of the Nikon D800. In the meantime, we put together a comparison of the video capabilities of these two enemies.

The Canon wins hands down in this category 5 D Mark III. Less noise or more colors. No competition.

Full screen video has the Nikon D800 significantly better overall sharpness and details. Update: Yes, we know that the sharpness partly depends on the used lens. We chose the most comparable lenses we had available.

Moiré pattern the dreaded distortion that occurs when filming was detailed pattern - significantly the D800 notebook not improved in the 5 d Mark III, while really in this matter. The moiré effect visible in the masonry in the D800 image is very striking.

Rolling shutter has improved performance from the last generation on both cameras, but not particularly well addressed. If we pick bad degrees are, wins the D800 out here.

Sure, both have their strengths and weaknesses. Personal preference is playing a large part in your own financial statements and pretty much confirm our results go in, what we expected. If you lit in particular within environments to shoot and distribute over the Web, perhaps the 5 D Mark III is for you. Perhaps, if you shoot in Studio conditions and want to show your movie on the big screen, the D800 of superior details is important.

The fact is, both cameras produce excellent results, and in the right hands, can produce video deserves the highest praise.

Test remarks
1. We have comparable lenses for each camera. On the D800, we used a Nikon Nikkor 24-70 mm, F/2.8. On the 5 d Mark III, we used a Canon EF 24-105 mm F/4 l.
2. These tests are certainly not the end all be all comparisons. Certainly, there are variables that can be changed lens, Aperture, moving, light, etc..
3. Because you were curious, both cameras were set to auto white balance for all tests.

Related stories

View the original article here

Read More