Finally, I gave in and upgraded/switched from Nikon to Canon

[Meowjin]

Originally Posted by Hehe

If you ever come back to Nikon on FF with a better budget, lens choices are simple.

14-24 2.8 -->ultra wide angle king. Not even 14L or Nikon 14mm come close to this one in term of sharpness.
24-70 2.8 --> Arguably the best 24-70 zoom on the market (debatable with Sony's Zeiss 24-70, definitely better than 24-70L though)
85 1.4 --> Close competitor to 85L at almost half the price. Sounds no brainer to me

This should cover 99% of situations I can think of. Of course if Nikon happens to remake them or you are just balling, get the 28mm F1.4 AFD.

105 f/2 > 85mm f/1.4

also a old ed af 80-200 (which is rare) is probably the best "70-200" zoom there is for nikon.

[Hehe]

Originally Posted by Senna4ever

The Sony Zeiss may be just a little bit sharper, but at the expense of bokeh quality. I find the bokeh on the canon & Nikon 24-70 f2.8 lenses to be very smooth, while the Sony Zeiss has compromised bokeh for sharpness....still very smooth, butnoticeable in some shots I've seen. In a fashion studio or landscape setting it doesn't matter though.

We tested a Nikon 24-70 f2.8 against a new Nikon 50mm f1.4 G on a D3X, and the 24-70 was NOTICEABLY SHARPER than the 50mm at all apertures! Now, I have no way of knowing if the 24-70 was a very sharp copy, and the 50mm was a shitty one, but the results surprised us.

The Nikon 14-24 f2.8 is almost as sharp if not as sharp as the Zeiss & Leica 15mm primes, which is saying something.

Yeah, that's why I said it's debatable depends on what approach you take. Sony's Zeiss lineup is still excellent though. Or the STF... even though I'm a nikon shooter/fans myself, I gotta say, the Sony 135mm STF's images had me drooling all over it.

How do you like the 50 1.4G? I was planning on getting one since the only normal range prime I have is the noct and it's sometimes hard to focus when doing more action shots. I know you just said the 24-70 is sharper at all apertures (2.8 and up) but how about the performance wide open? comparing to say... 50 1.4AFD?

@Majin
Congrat on the new toy!

Now I have to find some way to fund my lightings...

About the 105 F/2... I don't know why, but I've never learned how to really use anything beyond 100mm. The only 2 lenses over 100mm+ I have/had are 105 Macro VR and 70-300mm VR. The Macro is still around somewhere in the closet sitting in its box while the 70-300mm was traded for sth else.

I don't know, maybe I am just not born with the talent to shoot with telephoto range. I've only managed to get good shots out of 14-85mm's range.

[Senna4ever]

Yeah, the STF (and the Sony 70-200 f2.8 G) is the lens that is making the switch to Nikon painful. I've lusted after that lens for over 15 years.

The Sony Zeiss lenses are amazing, as is the a900....I know of a few studio & landscape shooters that have ditched their canon gear for it.

I haven't used the Nikon 50mm lenses much, so I can't say.

[SuperSlowSS]

why do people care so much about sharpness? seriously... how many of you actually make huge prints of your pictures? The way I see it ... almost all the lens today are pretty damn good and sharp. And I really hope sharpness isn't all that matters.

[PNF]

Originally Posted by SuperSlowSS

why do people care so much about sharpness? seriously... how many of you actually make huge prints of your pictures? The way I see it ... almost all the lens today are pretty damn good and sharp. And I really hope sharpness isn't all that matters.

while that is true, but it seems there are a couple very serious or pro photographers here.. so they probably want their images as sharp as they can be in all conditions.

I have not used any of the lens they're talking about it...

I used my friends new toy, 50mm f1.4 canon. That lens is SHARP and fast! but at $400 US, I'll have to hold off on that for now.... i enjoy compose photos with a front focal point with shallow background, and that 50mm f1.4 has to be in my kit, in the near future!

it is also hard to think that the nikon 14-24 f/2.8 and 24-70 would outperform prime lens... I gotta try that sometimes!

[Senna4ever]

Originally Posted by SuperSlowSS

why do people care so much about sharpness? seriously... how many of you actually make huge prints of your pictures? The way I see it ... almost all the lens today are pretty damn good and sharp. And I really hope sharpness isn't all that matters.

No one wants to buy an unsharp image. Simple as that. Looks unprofessional, and people will know that you don't care about your presentation. Even on a 8x10, you can see if an image is unsharp or not.

...and, no. Many lenses are not very sharp, contrasty or have good colour rendition.

[Meowjin]

Originally Posted by SuperSlowSS

why do people care so much about sharpness? seriously... how many of you actually make huge prints of your pictures? The way I see it ... almost all the lens today are pretty damn good and sharp. And I really hope sharpness isn't all that matters.

I'm sorry but this is the dumbest thing i've ever read on this forum.

[J____]

Originally Posted by SuperSlowSS

why do people care so much about sharpness? seriously... how many of you actually make huge prints of your pictures? The way I see it ... almost all the lens today are pretty damn good and sharp. And I really hope sharpness isn't all that matters.

thats like saying ur buying a lambo or ferrari but dont care about it's handling....

[Hehe]

IMHO, the reason to get sharp lenses is because you could always soften images up if you don't want that much detail. But not the other way around.

Software sharpening is a totally different thing than getting a sharp image right out of the lens. The amount of details that could be lost is very often critical.

There are many things you can do in PP (contrast, color temp, saturation... etc) but there are some other things that you just can't.

[Senna4ever]

Originally Posted by Hehe

IMHO, the reason to get sharp lenses is because you could always soften images up if you don't want that much detail. But not the other way around.

Software sharpening is a totally different thing than getting a sharp image right out of the lens. The amount of details that could be lost is very often critical.

There are many things you can do in PP (contrast, color temp, saturation... etc) but there are some other things that you just can't.

Wut?

[Hehe]

^

lol, guess I have problem communicating with real pros. Just referring to some people got the idea of "sharpening" as in PP programs differently.

My friend once asked me why I spent thousands on lenses, I told him to get sharper images. He then asked me, doesn't Picasa have the option of sharpening?

I really lol'd.

Make it simple, suppose an image is
01010
01010
01010
01010
01010

On a sharp lens, it probably comes up as
01010
01010
01011
01011
01010

While a not-so-sharp lens comes up as

01011
01110
01110
01110
01011

As far as I'm capable of in PP, if I wish to make the image taken by sharp lens to be as soft as the non-sharp one, I probably have 1000 options to do that in PP. But not the other way around it.

[SuperSlowSS]

Originally Posted by Senna4ever

No one wants to buy an unsharp image. Simple as that. Looks unprofessional, and people will know that you don't care about your presentation. Even on a 8x10, you can see if an image is unsharp or not.

...and, no. Many lenses are not very sharp, contrasty or have good colour rendition.

I don't think I said anything about contrasty or color rendition. and really todays lens are very sharp compared to most lens in the old film days.

Originally Posted by MajinHurricane

I'm sorry but this is the dumbest thing i've ever read on this forum.

I don't know how to answer to this. But looking at your pictures...you have a ways to go. You could have taken most of them with a p&s. Please don't take this the wrong way, not saying your pictures are bad. But just p&s could have done the same job in some of your photos.

Originally Posted by J____

thats like saying ur buying a lambo or ferrari but dont care about it's handling....

I think most people that buy lambo and ferrari don't care too much about its handling... or they just like to know it can do it(like some people after sharpness).. but they don't actually take it to the limit.. but thats a totally different topic. haha



anyways guys... I just have one point: don't buy into this sharpness shit. Having the sharpest lens in the world. It is like the mega pixel crap. I am not saying you should have a blurry len. But theres more to pictures than sharpness. And you can take good pictures with even kit lens. (might be limited in some aspect.. but it shouldn't hold you back in terms of sharpness if you just post on the net, print 4x6 or even 8x11)

[w00tgasm]

So tell me, what happens if you crop an image and it's not sharp because the lens happens to be a bad copy?

[Meowjin]

There's going to be some serious ownage when I get off at work.

[niforpix]

^^ lol Oh you guys are funny. Great way to start a day!

[PNF]

Originally Posted by SuperSlowSS

I don't know how to answer to this. But looking at your pictures...you have a ways to go. You could have taken most of them with a p&s. Please don't take this the wrong way, not saying your pictures are bad. But just p&s could have done the same job in some of your photos.

I think most people that buy lambo and ferrari don't care too much about its handling... or they just like to know it can do it(like some people after sharpness).. but they don't actually take it to the limit.. but thats a totally different topic. haha

Now, I dont think I want to post my future shots... people probably going to think whats this amateur doing taking pictures that my daughter can do with a P&S..

Valid logic on the lambo/ferrari.

very few people who buy them actually "drive" them to their potential. Some do, just saying, few do.

Anyway, all my stuff are here!! except my filters, and my battery rechargers, for my flash!! Gonna go out and shoot something this weekend!!!

Thanks for all of you guys input. I'm learning and I'll catch up!!!

[77civic1200]

Those are some of the most retarded generalizations I have ever read on here.

If you are happy shooting with a p&s, fine, then maybe you should sell off your Dslr gear. You yourself have asked a few questions in the forum about which lens to get, why? sharpness doesn't matter to you, so whatevers cheapest should win out right? don't be such a hypocrite.

[Meowjin]

Originally Posted by SuperSlowSS

I don't know how to answer to this. But looking at your pictures...you have a ways to go. You could have taken most of them with a p&s. Please don't take this the wrong way, not saying your pictures are bad. But just p&s could have done the same job in some of your photos.

Just because you say something dumb, doesn't mean you can go off insulting other peoples work. The problem I have right now is your claiming that "who cares about sharpness" ALOT OF PEOPLE DO. Why spend MONEY on a LENS you will be UNSATISFIED WITH because you knew there were SOMETHING BETTER DOWN THE ROAD.

Also I do take offense, just because you use the cop out "don't take it the wrong way" doesn't mean that it isn't an insult, and is such a stupid generalization anyways, because any photo can be taken with a p&s. But it'll be impossible to achieve DOF, rich colors, and high ISO shots.

But you know what I will respond with these.

[Meowjin]

full resolution shot of the third

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2425/...18d5c21c_o.jpg

17-55 f/2.8 shot on a d2x

[SuperSlowSS]

lol sorry to get you guys all worked up, I had too much to drink... haha
Just get whatever works for you and makes you want to shoot!

But I stand by my generalization.. todays lens(lets assume you have a good copy) are very good. you are far likely to have focus issues, dof, etc than len sharpness problem. And of course buy the best you can buy.

[baldy]

were you asking her to make pig noises and this is her nose on the recoil?

[Soundy]

Originally Posted by MajinHurricane

full resolution shot of the third

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2425/...18d5c21c_o.jpg

17-55 f/2.8 shot on a d2x

What, you couldn't have posted a full-size of one of the chicks??

[77civic1200]

^ha ha ditto

I was like third pic eh *scrolls back up to count* ah damnit! its the guy with the fake abs

[PNF]

lol on the fake abs.