|
More site info...
Nikon SLR Lens Talk | Forum profile
|
|
Forum profile page for Nikon SLR Lens Talk on http://www.dpreview.com.
This report page is the aggregated overview from a single forum: Nikon SLR Lens Talk , located on the Message Board at http://www.dpreview.com.
This forum profile page summarizes the general forum statistics such as: Users Activity, Forum Activity, and Top Authors, which are reported in either a table or graph below for a given reporting time period.
Additional forum profile information for "Nikon SLR Lens Talk " on the Message Board at http://www.dpreview.com is also shown in the following ways:
1) Latest Active Threads
2) Hot Threads for Last Week
Warning: These statistics are generated using 'best efforts' and can experience delays and reporting errors at times. Please note that such statistics do not constitute a forum's popularity and/or exact posting volumes at any given reporting period.
|
|
|
|
|
Posting activity on Nikon SLR Lens Talk :
|
|
Week
|
Month
|
3 Months
|
|
Threads:
|
203
|
688
|
3,862
|
|
Post:
|
1,061
|
3,322
|
18,184
|
|
|
Nikon SLR Lens Talk Posting activity graph:
|
Top authors during last week:
user's latest post:
The Devine 24
Published (2009-11-10 05:00:00)
Rich Lanthier wrote: > Nice shots UF, good to see Nute here too... Not seen him much at the Cafe, of course, I've not been there much either! > -- > Rich Lanthier > Having fun with photos. nice to see u too, Rich.......;-)))
user's latest post:
Zeiss 25 2.8
Published (2009-11-07 11:54:00)
ddk wrote: > > nuteshack wrote: > > this lens gets a bad rap, imho. but i dig it! > > > Mostly from those who never shot with one! well half true but its coz the buzz is all about the 100 35 21 ...the 18 gets no mention at all, the 85 a bit more the 50/1.4 only gets mentioned in the same breath as 50/2. And Lloyd frightened everyone one off when he said the 25 was more difficult to focus...
user's latest post:
Tamron 60/2 macro
Published (2009-11-09 17:36:00)
It's not bad. It's not the bokeh from a dedicated portrait lens but quite good for a macro. Your last shot is surreal like hobbit farmhouse from lord of the rings or something. I like it.
user's latest post:
Please Recommend a New Lens for me
Published (2009-11-10 14:58:00)
Nuhppir wrote: > Funny! I just had a quite similar question and answers are here quite different than I got. So have to wonder if me being a girl affects on this :D I got many posts pointing that forget the lens lust, go for a class and start photographing. You actually have none on these answers here :) I seriously doubt if this has anything to do with you being a girl. I just read your entire thread and I believe it might have...
user's latest post:
Filter Recommendation for a new...
Published (2009-11-11 03:04:00)
You bring up some very valid points and Lenstip is an excellent website, however, the last time this article was posted in these forums three key factors were raised 1- The inconsistent result of filters which used the most expensive coatings (Heliopan and B+W). The fact that these filters have the best materials and craftsmanship, yet did not perform well goes to show that filters are more of a "hit & miss" rather than an exact...
user's latest post:
Kenko Extension Tubes
Published (2009-11-10 22:05:00)
apaflo wrote: > With any given camera body, virtually everything you do to provide a set *magnification* will result in exactly the same Depth Of Field. Hence, extension tubes, longer focal lengths, diopters, teleconverters... the DOF will be the same at any given magnification. > > You can switch to a different camera with a smaller sensor size using the same number of pixels, and get more DOF at any given magnification....
user's latest post:
DX Wedding Setup?
Published (2009-11-10 18:37:00)
Ivan Teo wrote: > Here's my current DX setup for a wedding? Comments anyone? > > 1. 2 x D90 cameras: > 2. 10-24mm and 35mm 1.8 on each of the camera. > > I'm starting to find that 35mm is a rather short lens and seriously thinking of getting a 50 1.4D or a 85 1.4D in place of the 35mm. > > Or should I replace the 10-24 and 35mm with a 17-55 lens and be done with it? >...
user's latest post:
New AF-S 70-200 VR II now...
Published (2009-11-10 18:19:00)
Hello ! Here are the replies to the questions that were asked: - The total length of the lens is now 214mm (was 224mm with earlier version) - The diameter of the lensis a little bit bigger compared with version VRI - The gold label mark as "Nikon ED" is no longer mentioned that way, it is now together with "AF-S Nikkor..... GII ED", but there is a new separate label "N" (nanocrystal). - The lens I bought is...
user's latest post:
fast winter lens
Published (2009-11-10 15:10:00)
Knipser63 wrote: > Oh, thank you for the right word and spelling. I should have done leo.org to find the right vocabulary. Ah, come on. There are plenty of US and UK based posters who regularly mix up it's and its, here and hear, photos and photo's, and generally give a damn about grammar and spelling. No need for being overly self-critical, given English is (apparently) not your native tongue...
|
|
|
|
Latest active threads on Nikon SLR Lens Talk ::
Started 5 days, 14 hours ago (2009-11-09 11:21:00)
by James Youngman
Jos12 wrote: > I would like some help with choosing a good fast lens for the low light conditions in the coming winter months. > I like to shoot landscapes and also flower close ups. > I'm thinking of the Sigma 50 1.4, the Nikon 50 1.4, 35 1.8 or the new Tamron 17-50 2.8. Is the 2,8 of the Tamron good enough in low winter light? It depends on the sensitivity of the medium you're using. Are ...
Started 4 days, 4 hours ago (2009-11-10 21:17:00)
by VTHokiEE06
I haven't used it personally, but it does have a corrective elements, which will more likely than not degrade the image quality somewhat. I think Bjorn Rorslett replaced the entire mount on an FD tilt shift lens to work on Nikon, but that seems like a lot of effort.
Started 5 days ago (2009-11-10 01:22:00)
by sox OZ
You say you want a 24, 35 & 50, so why would you spend the money on getting the zoom. Really this sort of decision is a preference thing as I prefer the versatility of a zoom and only have a few primes, where as there are a lot that only shoot with primes.... It's that one of the reasons to get a DSLR, to be able to change lenses, so get what you want in the first place as it will save you ...
Started 3 days, 23 hours ago (2009-11-11 02:46:00)
by VividExposures
Started 6 days ago (2009-11-09 02:00:00)
by fraserj1
bbrault wrote: > Santa arrived a little early this year! > > I decided to ignore KR and I just ordered the Nikon 24-70 for my D700 > It should arrive in a few days. That's funny, because I have to decide NOT to ignore him! > I am looking for a filter to protect the front element (scratches, etc...) > I was considering a double coated UV filter. > Any recommendations? The Nikon NC ...
Started 4 days, 2 hours ago (2009-11-10 23:22:00)
by Logge
get a used Nikon AF-S 80-200 f2.8, it's a tremendous lens and except for the VR it matches the quality of the Nikon 70-200. i bought mine pretty banged up (but clean glass and mechanics) for less than a new 70-300VR, got really lucky, best lens i have and paires wonderfully with my 17-55 if you can't find one, i'd get the Nikon AF-D 80-200, the Nikon performs better wide open than the Sigma (not...
Started 4 days ago (2009-11-11 01:59:00)
by Keith Aitken
Ray Do some more research if you have the time. Briefly : I have read generally positive comments about both Sigmas if the original quality control is good enough. ( sometimes a problem with Sigma lenses ). Reconsider the 300 f/4, and dig deeper for comments. It takes the 1.4 TC exceptionally well, and its IQ is so superb, that even if you both think that 300mm is not long enough, crops ...
Started 4 days, 1 hour ago (2009-11-11 00:31:00)
by Jack Bishop
I second the Gitzo 1551 traveler. It works fine with my D700/Nikon 70-200 2.8.
Started 4 days, 7 hours ago (2009-11-10 18:07:00)
by KevinJames
There's plenty of questions on this forum that are much more stupid: "I'm shooting a wedding this weekend...what lenses do I need?" "Going on Safari in Kenya...do I need a long lens?" "Why is the (fill-in-the-blank) out of stock? "When will Nikon have "pro-quality" 70-200 f/4 available" "Why did Nikon raise its lens prices?" "Should I sell my (fill-in the-blank)? And many others. If you want ...
Started 4 days, 9 hours ago (2009-11-10 16:50:00)
by VividExposures
17-55 and 85 1.4 sounds like a decent setup.
|
|
Hot threads for last week on Nikon SLR Lens Talk ::
Started 1 week, 1 day ago (2009-11-06 18:47:00)
by bruno77m
little review in spanish http://www.digitalcamaralens.com/Html/Objetivos/Ni kon/Nikkor%2085-3,5%20Micro%20VR/Nikkor%2085%203,5 %20Micro%20VR%20Const.%20y%20Ergonomia.htm
Started 1 week ago (2009-11-07 15:29:00)
by Rich Lanthier
Congrats! Let's see some shots!
Started 5 days, 15 hours ago (2009-11-09 10:38:00)
by ranamo
If you sold the 105 VR because it was too heavy, you have a problem. Unless you are willing to get some primes, all pro grade zooms will be heavier than the 105VR. grtzzz Ad
Started 6 days, 8 hours ago (2009-11-08 17:52:00)
by ARClark
It's hard to imagine that's it worth $500 more than the VR1, but as you said, the price is based on what the buyer is willing to pay. Alan
Started 5 days, 21 hours ago (2009-11-09 04:10:00)
by bikinchris
Well, you do have one point. The 70-200 f2.8 would them become a 280mm f4 lens. Not quite a 300mm, but very close. But then you could also put the same 1.4 convertor on the 300mm f4 and have a longer lens. Knezz wrote: > Why would one purchase a Nikon 300mm AFS f/4 if you already have a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR? Wouldnt it make better sense to purchase a Nikon AF-S AF-I Lens TeleConverter TC-14E II...
Started 1 week ago (2009-11-07 20:55:00)
by trickortreat
My cousin is having a baby and in anticipation she just bought a DX Nikon with kit lens and asked my advice. I was thinking of just recommending the nikon 60/2.8 macro but this new tamron sounds really interesting for baby closeups and portraits but I can't seem to find much info on it's performance. I know the tamron 90/2.8 macro is a terrific lens so I'm hopeful that this one is also. Do ...
Started 5 days, 9 hours ago (2009-11-09 16:58:00)
by kramp
I have the 400 2. 8 af-i and use it often with the 1.4 tc and occasionally with the 2x tc, I have tried the 1.7 tc with it. The 1.4 works very well and is almost always on the lens. The 2x I hardly ever use since the results are variable, if the subjects are close and fill the frame and the light is soft it works okay. I don't own a 1.7 but I really want one since it does work well with this ...
Started 1 week, 2 days ago (2009-11-05 04:32:00)
by AlternativeImages
What about the 55-200mm vr? There's also the 18-200mm vr (get the old version, not the new one. Only difference between the two is a zoom lock @18mm, which isn't even where the zoom creep is - everything else exactly the same.) edit: 18-105 vr is also a very nice one.
Started 5 days, 1 hour ago (2009-11-10 00:20:00)
by ajmeeker
Started 5 days, 14 hours ago (2009-11-09 11:21:00)
by James Youngman
Jos12 wrote: > I would like some help with choosing a good fast lens for the low light conditions in the coming winter months. > I like to shoot landscapes and also flower close ups. > I'm thinking of the Sigma 50 1.4, the Nikon 50 1.4, 35 1.8 or the new Tamron 17-50 2.8. Is the 2,8 of the Tamron good enough in low winter light? It depends on the sensitivity of the medium you're using. Are ...
|
|
Size: 1,404 bytes
