D600

[Lance B]

Lance above mentions a few lenses. I have the Sigma 12-24 and used it with my D800 to get these : http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...liam-Seascapes whilst it might not be a 2.8 lens it certainly holds its own for wide angle landscape work.

They look great, Rick. IMO, there is little need for f2.8 on these ultra wides, so an f4-f5.6 is more than adequate for just about all UWA work. I have just been looking up these lenses on the net and the Sigma 12-24 seems to have a loyal following and there is quite a lot of support for it and judging by the images I have seen, I can see why.

[I @ M]

IMO, there is little need for f2.8 on these ultra wides, so an f4-f5.6 is more than adequate for just about all UWA work.

Don't just think landscapes and architecture with wide angles. I was quite happy to have F/2.8 available the other day. It might have been at the 28mm end of the lens but but it works just as well at the 16mm end too.

[Cage]

OH! ..... the iPhonery iRony of it all .. and here I am thinking I'm an old fart contemplating getting an R1 (or an old '86-'88 model GSXR1100) .. well, maybe even a Paris-Dakar (for those times where I feel a need to get to more interesting places) .....

well I reckon at least one of us is wrong ..... and it ain't gunna be me this time!!


And if those eedjuts at Vanbar don't get their act into gear properly very soon they'll miss out, and my dollars will go directly towards one of those three aforementioned bikes instead!

Deary me Artie, you are in a bit of a dilemma, aren't you? To bike to it, or just photograph it?

For me, having now reached the proverbial 'three score years and ten', + 1, and having spent half of those years exploring the limits of my abilities, reflexes, and license points tally, it's a no-brainer.

My dicky knees won't allow me to ride like I used to, but geez, I have some great memories to look back on, the highlight being a 22,000K ride around most of Highway 1. And I still have irrational thoughts when I hear a Duke with Conti's.

I guess the decision comes down to what feels right at the time.

Cheers

Kevin

[arthurking83]

...... I was quite happy to have F/2.8 available the other day. It might have been at the 28mm end of the lens but but it works just as well at the 16mm end too.

......

I think that there are some folks that just don't have a need for f/2.8 at any focal length.

Gimme that option too, and I'm sure I'll find a use for it!

[Lance B]

Don't just think landscapes and architecture with wide angles. I was quite happy to have F/2.8 available the other day. It might have been at the 28mm end of the lens but but it works just as well at the 16mm end too.

I did say little need, not no need.

Actually, one wonders why you used f2.8 for this capture as you could have used f4 and, if it was in an attempt to stop action, then used one stop more ISO for the same shutter speed and as it is a well lit scene and the extra stop of ISO wouldn't have been noticeable. In fact, the extra DOF may have been a bonus in this case.

It's just that I rarely try to use a narrow DOF for isolational purposes on an UWA lens. I have a 14-24 f2.8 and I don't think I can ever recall using the f2.8 aperture, may be useable at the longer end for isolational purposes, but I have generally used my 24-70 for this focal length as it is more likely to be what I have already on the camera. I also have the 16-35 f4 VR and find that a much more versatile lens due to VR and I have never found f4 a limiting factor on that lens. The thing is, with the inherent large DOF that an UWA lens gives it is very difficult to get isolation from a wide aperture unless you are very close to the subject and/or there is a huge distance behind the subject without any background giving the effect of isolation.

However, your use of a 28mm in this instance is not use of an UWA lens and just a normal wide angle and this could have been accomplished with one of your other lenses I am sure, 28mm lending itself more to allowing more isolation at f2.8 than say 14-16mm.

My point being, that Kevin is probably going to purchase the 24-70 f2.8 and therefore has the isolational properties of f2.8 for the focal range of 24-70, 24mm still being at the top end of UWA, and in the case of your photo above, would have accomplished the same result as that was taken at 28mm. For UWA use, there is little need for f2.8, IMO, and he may be better served by a cheaper UWA zoom in this range.

[swifty]

f2.8's probably useful in astro landscapes, where everything's at infinity so DOF isn't an issue and the extra stop/s help keep ISO/shutter speeds down.

[Lance B]

f2.8's probably useful in astro landscapes, where everything's at infinity so DOF isn't an issue and the extra stop/s help keep ISO/shutter speeds down.

These are usually taken on a tripod, so I doubt it would be much of an importance.

I am not saying that f2.8 UWA lenses are not useful, just that it is less useful for most applications and has limited use, IMO.

[swifty]

These are usually taken on a tripod, so I doubt it would be much of an importance.

Yup, on tripods but keeping shutter speeds to a few seconds compared to minutes keeps the stars round instead of trails. Of course the serious astrophotographers have those neat tracking guides that tracks the earth's rotation.

[I @ M]

Actually, one wonders why you used f2.8 for this capture as you could have used f4 and, if it was in an attempt to stop action, then used one stop more ISO for the same shutter speed and as it is a well lit scene and the extra stop of ISO wouldn't have been noticeable. In fact, the extra DOF may have been a bonus in this case.

Shutter speed in this shot is independent of both aperture and ISO, it is fixed at 1/1000 and neither ISO changes or aperture changes will affect it.
The only two ways to get to F/4 are to either increase the light ( not possible ) or to increase the ISO to 800 and that only brings in less clean images to start processing. Depth of field in this shot is acceptable as is. F/4 is not needed.

My point being, that Kevin is probably going to purchase the 24-70 f2.8 and therefore has the isolational properties of f2.8 for the focal range of 24-70, 24mm still being at the top end of UWA, and in the case of your photo above, would have accomplished the same result as that was taken at 28mm. For UWA use, there is little need for f2.8, IMO, and he may be better served by a cheaper UWA zoom in this range.

I started reading where Kev was saying he was interested in using his 10-20 Siggy as a wide angle and then your post ( #96 ) advising of the UWA lenses available for an FX body that will do the job. Out of the FX lenses you listed, all would be in very much the same price bracket, having F/2.8 available to use is a bonus that makes good sense to me.

[arthurking83]

You don't use a super wide angle lens at f/2.8 for the 'isolation' it provides!!

The difference between f/2.8 and f/4 in terms of isolation is insignificant at the least, and I would say completely unnoticeable even to the discerning eye!
I can't say that I've ever thought of getting an f/2.8 UWA lens for the ability to isolate subjects more .. in fact I don't think I could count on one hand any time when I've wanted any UWA lens for the purpose of subject isolation at all! ... apart from once when I wanted to see how an f/2.8 UWA lens renders the bokeh, and so far that I've seen, they're usually pretty ordinary at doing that anyhow.

Of the two UWA lenses I've briefly played with that had f/2.8 apertures(Tokina 11-16 and Nikon 14-24) the bokeh usually looks nicer in it's rendering at f/4 compared to f/2.8 anyhow.
So even tho theoretically the faster aperture setting will isolate the subject matter more, the more nervous looking rendering at f/2.8 cf f/4 can be an issue.

that extra stop of aperture is generally all about the ability to capture one more stop of light where it otherwise wouldn't be available, or for the purpose of a brighter viewfinder!

I can count many times when I've rued the fact that I never invested in a faster f/2.8 aperture UWA lens, in many situations(such as tonight).
And where many folks seem to preoccupy themselves with spending money on faster wide angle lenses and then subsequently spend more money on accessories to slow down the amount of light getting through to the sensor, I find myself on the opposite end of the spectrum, always wishing that I'd gotten that faster lens in the first place.

I'd find the difference between f/2.8 and f/4, or f/4.5 very useful as opposed to occasionally useful .. hence the dilemma .. spend that significant amount of extra money on the lens, or on something else?
It's all about uses and need really. 90% of the photos I capture are of the landscape variety and the rush to get an f/2.8 UWA lens is less urgent than than just the fact of getting any UWA lens and various accessories for it.
If I could justify that added expense tho, I'd get the faster lens in a heartbeat!

[cupic]

Went into Hardly Normal and test drove the D600 and I must say Im tempted.
To me in my hands it seems a bit small than the D300 which fits like a glove when its fitted with the grip.
To all out there with large hands,does it feel a bit small to you as well?
Prices are going east to west but will have to sell my D300 with possibly the 300mm f/4 and tele convertor to buy a D600


cheers

[zollo]

Went into Hardly Normal and test drove the D600 and I must say Im tempted.
To me in my hands it seems a bit small than the D300 which fits like a glove when its fitted with the grip.
To all out there with large hands,does it feel a bit small to you as well?
Prices are going east to west but will have to sell my D300 with possibly the 300mm f/4 and tele convertor to buy a D600


cheers

It does feel small in my hands also, but only in the height of it. they have made the actual grip section more ergonomic than something like the 7000 or d300, so that feels ok to me. still, i am looking forward to attaching a battery grip, which will make it pretty comfy I think


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[arthurking83]

I had a test play(no images tho) as well.
Actually feels nicer than the D7K to hold for largish hands.

As a D300 owner, I'd say it's acceptable in the grip(personal taste) and to me it felt half way between a D7000 and a D300. Of course the D800 felt just that lil bit more comfy for me.

D600 would be something I think I could get used to in terms of in the hand feel and hand holding all day, but I'm sure the D7000 would cause me grief after extended hand holding.

[cupic]

In the game to get a D600 and found one at this site
www.discountcameras.com.au
sorry in advance but just looking at all avenues


cheers

[znelbok]

What would you guys recomend as a lens to get initially with this camera. I eventually want an UW lens for landscape and my previous lens was an 18-135 which I found good for general purpose work.

My initial lens list is
14-24 f2.8
24-120 f4 or 24-70 f2.8
70-200 f2.8

The 24-70/120 would be the lens that I am initially looking for, or something similar. These a Nikon lenses, but looking at Sigma I see some lenses that are significantly cheaper with similar specs
e.g. Sigma 24-70 f.28 for $690 compared to the nikon 24-120 f4 $1100 or nikon 24-70 f2.8 $1540. As you can see the Sigma is significantly cheaper (under half the nikon) and I am concerned that I am missing something important between the two (three) lenses.

Thanks

Mick

[arthurking83]

Sigma Tamron and Tokina always make lenses that are cheaper than the comparative original manufacturer stuff!

Apparently the original manufacturer stuff is wayyyy better, but 99.9% of people would be hard pressed to tell the differences between the respective images when they're outputted to most commonly used sizes(ie. print or web display).

Of course pixel peepers will tell you that the original manufacturer lenses are much sharper than the third party equivalent, but in most of these instances we are talking about distinguishing details such as the dust flecks that have landed on a persons eye lash, or the eye lash details themselves!

if you care enough to be able to reproduce the dust specks on a person's eyelashes then you need the original manufacturer lens, if all you want is a good image, that accurately resolves just the eyelashes than the third party lens will most likely suffice!

What I find 'interesting' is when people bleat on about how much sharper the original manufacturer lens is, and then spend either lots of time or money on processing this sharpness out of skin features!

In your case, unless you need the faster f/2.8 aperture ability, the 24-120/4 will be a good allrounder lens to play with if an allrounder lens is something you reckon you'd use.

There lies the question .. more reach or more aperture?

I suppose another way to look at it is:
lets say you really need two lenses as a short term end point.

your options could be:

1) get a 24-70/2.8 + one longer-ish lens to have that extended reach for when it becomes important.
say $700 for a Sigma 24-70/2.8 and then an option for a longer could be something like a Sigma 150mm macro(dunno exact pricing, but lets say $900) you get good portraiture lenses with a bit of WA ability plus the option to shoot close in.

2) get a 24-120/4 and then couple that with either a WA medium aperture prime(28/1.8 - $700), or a standard prime(50/1.4 - $400), either way you get a faster aperture. With this option you have a long-ish focal length within easy reach handy, but when light is really low, you now have the option of a truly fast aperture with either an f/1.8 or f/1.4 speed lens if the need arises.

For the sake of what that means.
if shutter speed remains constant, an f/2.8 lens that requires ISO6400, will mean that your f/1.8 lens will allow you to use lower sensitivity setting at say ISO2500(or 3200 with 1/3rd more shutter speed, or the same ISO @ 6400, but in even lower light levels .. etc)
Of course the f/1.4 lens will then give you equivalent ISO settings of 800 keeping the shutter speed the same.

But remember that aperture is not just about lowering ISO .. it's just one of the options available to you when/if you need it. It's also about subject isolation if required.

[zollo]

well in addition to ak's post above, there is one reason i do prefer manufacturer lens and that is compatibility and reliability. i bought a sigma 17-70 f/2.8 as did a photographer i work with and both within 3 months our OS systems on the sigma lens were playing up, jumping around at the most inconvenient times. even switched off it would spasm like a rabbit in a bag making the lens very hit and miss, almost unusable. the sharpness and general iq were fine. i did not bother to fix mine, but the guy i work with got it fixed, and within a month this time his was doing it again. in contrast, i have taken over 200 000 photos (this lens is on its third nikon body) with a nikon 16-85 and it has performed flawlessly within its purpose, needing only new rubber grips as they perish under the workload. only now the af is starting to slow down, meaning the motor will expire sometime soon. still, the average hobbyist will not use their lens at anywhere near the workload i do.

there are couple of other issues with third party such as inconsistent compatibility, and one other thing to consider is resale value, much better for oem lens than 3rd party.

[monsters]

What about the 16-35mm F4 for WideAngle lens. Ignore this if it was mentioned earlier.
I am thinking of getting a wide angle lens too but cant afford the 14-24 f2.8

[arthurking83]

well in addition to ak's post above, there is one reason i do prefer manufacturer lens and that is compatibility and reliability. ...... .

This is true, but it's also true in the opposite direction too.

I have 2 Sigma lenses(and granted they're not OS types) but they've been flawless, and the 10-20mm lens has copped a beating and two halves(not just the extra half!)

I also have Tamron lenses, and mind you I have a few Nikon's too.

The only lens I've ever sold was a Nikon lens(80-200/2.8), and because it wasn't performing the best on my camera .. and replaced it with a Tamron 70-200/2.8 which worked a whole lot better.

Read up on the tales of woe that many encountered with the early batch of Nikon 24-70/2.8's(loose knocking noises, or something) .. read up on failed AF-S motors on 28-70/2.8's .. read up on internal shavings on the new 70-200/2.8VRII ..

The point is that mechanical components can be prone to manufacturing or design faults either to begin with or eventually down the track ...

I don't buy this argument that one brand is better than the other, and even if they were better made as a brand on the whole, is the Nikon lens 3x more reliable than the Sigma lens?

That is, you would expect 3x as many Sigma lenses to break down or falter than you would Nikon lenses.
(I dunno where you'd find this info, but I'm sure you won't find figures that look like that).

It is true too that most of the original mfg lenses will focus faster, but this speed can also be questionable too(depending on need and usage).
It's also true that mfg lenses will focus more accurately, but this is also questionable, as the reason I sold my 80-200mm was it didn't focus accurately on my camera!(where the Tamron does!).

The point is that you'll hear one side of the story from one person and then an alternate POV from another with opposing experiences.

[zollo]

It's not just lens though, I've been through 2 knock off battery grips, one which died totally and one which wouldn't take the en-el15 only the aa batteries, and my genuine nikon one hasn't made a whimper since I bought it soon after it came out for the d7000.

I think the main point is, that through working professional, hard, everyday use, I have learnt that there is a difference between oem and 3rd party, but, for more occasional users, the difference will not be so obvious and other factors come into consideration.