Your Camera Equipment

It doesn't have to take up the hotshoe at all, it has no electrical connections there and you just put it there to keep it from hanging down all the time. It would work just as well sitting to the side or taped to a tripod or whatnot.
 
Nikkor 50mm f1.4 AF-D. I didn't buy the AF-S because I've yet to read any review that says the AF-S is worth more than the AF-D. This is a quick test that has no real factual value, and should be taken as it is: a quick "test".

Pictures shot with the fan-fucking-tastic nikkor 16-85 VR (at f5.6):

50mmlens1.jpg


100% crop straight out of camera, no sharpening applied, just adjusted the exposure:

50mmlens100crop.jpg


I'm very very very happy with the 16-85. Now, how does it compare to the 50mm f1.4? I shot this scene with both lenses at f5.6 and 50mm. Well, the 16-85 was set at 50mm, but it turned out to be more like 47-48mm.

The scene:

scene.jpg


50mm f1.4 at f5.6 100% crop:
50mmfull1.jpg


16-85 f5.6 100% crop (exposure adjusted to +1 ev with camera raw)
1685full1.jpg


50mm f1.4 at f5.6 100% crop:
50mmfull2.jpg


16-85 f5.6 100% crop (exposure adjusted to +1 ev with camera raw)
1685full2.jpg


I was suprised to see how different the camera measured the light with these lenses. The 50mm picture looks about +0.25-50 over exposed, while the 16-85 is about -1.0 to 1.25 under exposed. As far as sharpness and capturing details goes, the 50mm has a slight advantage - but not by much. It also seems like the contrast is better on the 16-85.

The only real advantage the 50mm has over the 16-85 is bokeh - it's much smoother on the 50mm. And, ofcourse its low light capabilities :)
 
Last edited:
The more glass you have, the less light will go through. The 50mm lenses as a rule have the least glass, so they tend to overexpose.
 
the 16-85 really is a gem. I don't understand why people choose the 18-200 over the 16-85, never made sense to me...
 
Hot clue: The 18-200 is longer, and older.
 
what would be the best addition to my 18-55 nikon d40 lens?
 
to your lens? circ. polarizer, but aside of joking maybe some telezoom? this is just imo. 70-200 above for example.
 
to your lens? circ. polarizer, but aside of joking maybe some telezoom? this is just imo. 70-200 above for example.

I mean another lens :)
 
is that worth it at the expense of image quality?
It is, and here, I do to some extent agree with Ren Kockwell, if you feel the need to go for long tele in a jiffy. As an outdoor reportage lens, I see few problems with using it. The Nikkor is one of the best of the bunch anyway. :)

17-70 + 70-200 ftw.

14-54+50-200. :p
 
17-70 + 70-200 ftw.

I've been thinking of upgrading my 18-70 for a while, it's just a shame all of the lenses I like the look of are for cropped bodies. I've decided I won't by any more lenses like that since eventually I would have to replace them anyway. If only Nikkor 17-35's were going for reasonable rates..... :(
 
Nikon 55-200 VR. Good and cheap lens.

I'm a real and total n00b at the lens department, my 18-55 has 3x zoom, this 55-200 has 3,6x times. that isn't that much more, so what exactly is the extra benefit of this kind of lens?

Maybe one of you knows a good site that explains all this lens stuff in teletubby-language, understandable for the complete novice?
 
It's just the next logical step in making your 18-55 longer. The 18-55 covers the wideangle nicely, but 55 can be too short for zooming in. The 55-200 gives you the ability to zoom in further, given you change lenses.

The zoom factor indirectly tells you something about the quality of a lens. The less zoom factor a lens has, the less compromises the manufacturer has to make. It is a very general, yet likely true statement that the more zoom you squeeze into a lens, the worse it's going to get compared to a lens with less zoom factor. There are exceptions, and of course, general quality still differs hugely.

Anyway, the 18-55 coupled with the 55-200 gives you the zoom range from 18-200 with two cheap to buy lenses that are absolutely fine for their money.

As for explaining this the easy way, I don't know. I was where you are not too long ago, and I kind of got the hang of it just with browsing the internet, reading reviews and recommendations.
 
Last edited:
It's worth taking note that any reviews you find on the web are mostly bringing out the worst in a particular lens to see how it performs and not bringing out the best of it. Often the situations the lenses are tested under are completely unrealistic.
 
My wife has a D80 with 18-55 and 55-200. They are fine lenses but they are not made to last. Plastic mounts and after only a month or so, the 55-200 had lens creep in the zoom. Having said that, they are very light weight and I'm not sure you can beat the price for what you get, which is Nikon glass.

My gear:
Nikon 6006
Nikon D80
SB-22
Tonika 19-35mm f3.5-4.5
Nikon 50mm f1.8
Nikon 28-85 f3.5-4.5
Nikon 70-300mm VR f4.5-5.6
Circular polarizer, .9 Neutral Density, Red, Green, and Yellow (can't remeber the numbers) for B/w), and 3 step-up rings.
 
Top