File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
I got one of these
anyone jealous ?
>> Lynx !!KY+lVSl0s2m
Fuck you.
>> Anonymous
>>197096

take that as a yes ! !

but a month later after I got it the 24-70 got released :(
witch suppose to leave mine (17-55mm) in the dust :(
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>197093


not really

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelDSLR-A700Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Focal Length (35mm Equiv)25 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:12:13 06:27:43White Point Chromaticity0.3Exposure Time1.6 secF-Numberf/9.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Brightness0.4 EVExposure Bias-0.3 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length17.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width500Image Height472RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>> Anonymous
nope. should i be?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Why would I be jealous of that?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>197199

superior

in fact, it's superior to everything here for crop

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:01:11 16:22:29Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width479Image Height720
>> Anonymous
>>197223

i enjoy using my Zeiss 24-70 on my Minolta 9 and the upcoming A900.
>> Anonymous
>> for crop
>> for crop
>> for crop
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
Nope, been there, done that.
>> Anonymous
>>197250Nope, been there, done that.

but the question is

did you drive nails with it yet
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>197251

hahaha why does everyone keep saying that? No but my one complaint about the lens is that i keep the lens hood at ALL TIMES... daylight or indoors.

It flares like a motherfucker. If there's any sort of light source anywhere near it, you can be guaranteed it'll flare up.

The large arse lens hood does come in handy for that.

Oh i have knocked over a few drinks with it... does that count?
>> Anonymous
>>197093
I am deciding to get this or the tamron version, do you the extra money for the nikon is worth it ?
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>197288

Do you have the extra money? if yes then of course it's worth it, if you wanna save a buck... infact a few hundred then get the tamron.

I picked the nikkor over the tamron because of build quality and i needed to MAXIMISE my photo quality.

The Tamron comes close in all accounts, but it's not the nikkor. However, it is less than half the price. With the money saved you could buy speedlights, extra lenses etc etc
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
>>197288
From friends who've owned both, they prefer the Tamron over the Nikon (all things considered) They think the Tamron is even sharper in the center, (Smaller + lighter too) It just doesn't focus as smooth or as fast as the Nikon.
>> Anonymous
>>197223

I have a 5D. stfu nao.
>> Anonymous
>>197304It just doesn't focus as smooth or as fast as the Nikon.
And it's made of cheap crappy plastic, and it doesn't have weather sealing, and it extends when it zooms, and has two fewer aperture blades, and undamped focusing and zoom rings, and no obscene level of ruggedness.

If you don't care about build quality, get the Tamron. If you need a lens that's going to stand up to years of heavy use, get the Nikon.
>> Anonymous
>>197310
lol he said for crop.

gb2 your EXXXTREME 24-70, and 24-105 that are actually wide angles for you.
we only get a god damn 28mm equiv >_<
>> Anonymous
>>197313
Now why would you even stay with a DX format for years?
>> Anonymous
>>197315
Because 900mm2 silicon chips aren't going to become cheap very soon?
>> Anonymous
>>197315
Because it works and there's no reason to change.
>> Anonymous
>>197316
The D100 was how much 3 years ago?
>> Anonymous
>>197314
24mm is a wide angle on crop.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>197315

What kind of question is that?
>> Anonymous
>>197319
Quite cheap, I guess. It was already superseded by D70/D70s.

And large silicon chips didn't get cheaper in the last 10 years, they just managed to squeeze more and more elements on chips of the same size.
>> Anonymous
>>197331
It's a shame nobody wants to make a 6mp full frame sensor. It'll be inexpensive and have bloody amazing high ISO performance.
>> Anonymous
>>197335
>6mp full frame sensor
>inexpensive

No. A 24x36mm piece of silicon will still be expensive even if it's 2MP. The cost of large chips is an inherent problem in current semiconductor industry because a) silicon wafers themselves are expensive and b) the probability of a chip being defective rises exponentially with size.
>> Anonymous
>>197338
Silicon wafers are cheap. Dirt cheap. And so are the materials that go into them. It's the development and manufacturing process that's expensive and it's rated by how many "cells" there are and how small each one is.

Intel Core 2 Duo = 45nm process, the cheapest one costs around $60 and the chip weighs less than a quarter.
Intel Pentium (the first one) = 800nm, can be used as a paperweight and nowadays, costs less than one.

Same principle goes into anything that deals with putting stuff on chips including sensors.

That said, they can easily discard a small portion (a calculated/estimated percentage) of defective chips once the mass production gets rolling. It's almost the same as in the pharmaceutical industry as well, it's the first pill that costs millions of dollars, so they produce millions of pills that cost a dollar each to offset the cost.
>> Anonymous
OP here
hey let's go back to my lens ..

was is stupid not to wait and get 24-70 f2.8 NIKON
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>197350

no it was not stupid. Unless you had a film nikon or the D3.

When i switch to FX i will have the 24-70, but right now the 17-55 serves me wonderfully on DX.

When you sell the 17-55mm second hand, it will still be worth a good deal of money. Fret not.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>197374
kowai!
>> Anonymous
>>197313
>>197304
>>197296
I have enough money for this, but I think I will buy the nikon 16-85 vr first and maybe the 17-55 later. Although this may be a bit dumb but I really need the vr for low light situations and the 17-55 for a fast lens. But do you think the 2.8 f stop will make up for camera shake, in other words, which is better, the vr or the 2.8 aperture setting.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>197376
VR only stops you from moving, low aperture stops everything else from moving.
>> Anonymous
>>197378
damn... that means I have to buy both lenses... I'll just buy the 17-85 first and see if it's good enough, if it isn't, I guess I have to save $1200.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>197395

you're better off with the 18-70mm.

The problem is that no matter which lens you get for night time or low light you are going to have to bump up the ISO...
>> Anonymous
>>197396
Agreed. I have the 18-70, its a decent lens. Metal mount, decent optics at around f4+
>> Anonymous
>>197093
No because I have one too. Overworked, but still works wonders.
>> Anonymous
>>197098

i resent shitty spellers with cash to spend on a lens like this
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
amateurs worry about their camera body
pros worry about their lenses
photographers worry about light
>> Anonymous
>>197414
this man speaks the truth.
>> Anonymous
>>197416
too bad he stole that line from someone
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>197421
We can forgive him, he posts his photos unlike you.
>> Anonymous
>>197422

>>197407is mine
>> Anonymous
>>197421

Too bad that's the fake DC.
>> Anonymous
>>197422

Hey Martin, why don't you post some of your own photos instead of being a self-righteous faggot.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>197425
Lurk harder you idiot and post something decent for once.
>> Anonymous
>>197429
>I am all talk and no action. My photos suck.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>197424
Nice try.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>197437
¬¬
>Why are you here? you serve no purpose to p.
>> Anonymous
>>197444
>Still not posting photos.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>197445
You tell me how to take a photo, and i'll do it;
>> Anonymous
>>197446
Take photos of little girls in a playground while naked.
>> Anonymous
>>197396
>>197408
I know that I have to push up the iso at times, but when my d80 gets above 1000, it isn't really usable anymore. I need a bigger aperture or a vr to keep camera shake low and/or to be fast.
>> Anonymous
it's always fun to see digital fags complain about "noise"
>> Anonymous
>>198022

Yeh, grain looks so much prettier. An image can be grainy and blurry as fuck, and it can still be powerful...a noisy image just looks like trash.
To me, it's kind of like the difference between a newspaper halftone print and a shitty inkjet print. The newspaper print, though the same resolution, is much more ordered and clean, almost artistic in its own way.
>> Anonymous
>>198024
Agreed. Plus it's tied to the actual function of the system, rather than a -failure- of the system to provide better quality.
>> Anonymous
>>197093
OP : no i got the 24-70, 85 prime and 70-200 VR

im guessing you also have a D3 to plug it into.
>> Anonymous
>>198031
Never plug a DX lens on a D3 unless you're a fucking fag.
>> Anonymous
>>198037
oh shiiiii...

i didnt see it didnt say N or F
>> okto
>>198024"An image can be grainy and blurry as fuck, and it can still be powerful...a noisy image just looks like trash."
grain ftw.

>>197093
So jealous. I

>>197199
Because you like narrow DoF. IS is great for dealing with a slow lens, but I've never seen the DoF get narrower because some glass jiggled around.

>>197223
Better than an L lens? You do know they don't just charge more for L glass as a joke, right? I know you said "for crop", but I have a hard time believing all the IQ of the 24-105 is concentrated around the outer edge of the image plane.
>> Anonymous
>>198037
divide by zero aaaaaaaagh
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>198087Better than an L lens?

short of the 4 digit primes, yes

it is better than the 24-70 and 24-105 at any given FL, and has 2.8 _and_ IS

>> I know you said "for crop", but I have a hard time believing all the IQ of the 24-105 is concentrated around the outer edge of the image plane.

see neat little chart
>> Anonymous
>>198087


The 17-55 IS is exceptional. Canon really did a good job on that one. The only complaint is the occasional flaring, but a 17mm wide aperture zoom seems to be prone to this sort of thing. Optically it is superb. If you plan on using the crop system for a while then it is well worth getting. Even if you don't you can always sell it on as soon as you change to a larger format for about 80-95% of what you paid for it.
>> Anonymous
>>198101
Hmm the old 28-70L is better than the 24-70.
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>198101
holy crap, that's pretty interesting, it just kinda sucks that it's the same price as the 24-70 or the 24-105. L price for non-L.
>> Anonymous
Why would I be?

Primes are far greater than your shitty zoom.
>> Anonymous
>>198535
Still not in the 21st century?
>> Anonymous
>>198530

Don't be so hung up on the stupid branding. It's the optics and results that matter, not your e-peen from owning it.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !fKArfJ/kL.
I already have 4 copies of every lens in this thread.
Fucking poorfags. Tell your parents to get a job.
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>198783
Still, there's a big difference between build quality in an L vs non L, I'll also probably be moving up from crop sensor when/if new 5d comes out (buy off someone unloading old 5d).
So I try to stay away from ef-s lenses, with the exception of 10-22.
>> Anonymous
>>198890

If you decide to move up then you can sell it for much of what you paid for it. Think of it as an incredibly cheap rental.
>> Anonymous
>>198898Think of it as a $250 rental
>> Anonymous
>>198931

Depends on how good at selling he is, but for perhaps a year or more's worth of use, that is CHEAP.