[Steinar1]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1283642075' post='2493']

Well, a lot of stuff is said on internet... hard to figure out what is what, yes.



Most AF problems with 3rd party suppliers stem from the Canon platform and so-so AF motor/electronics implementations. They varied from body to body too, most notorious being the EOS 350D. Things are improving on the Canon side there too lately, and you have chosen for Nikon, so you should not worry all that much.

Indeed, the lens that is most problematic lately for Nikon seems to be the new Nikon AF-S 24mm f1.4 G, it appears to give some users a lot of focus problems.



From what I have read about the new Tamron 70-300 VC USD, I think that lens may well be a winner. I would certainly get that lens if I were in your position. I may check that lens out in future myself, in fact.



On the macro lens side, I have never heard of real complaints about AF accuracy, from any brand.



You still have to make the full frame or APS-C choice anyway... that is tough enough <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. Personally I do like APS-C, for its weight and size (well... my 450D is smaller and lighter than a D300s, of course)... but probably in future I will also get a full frame next to it, as you see from my photography I like to play with DOF and unusual angles. 220 to 24mm macro on full frame.... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



If I would put a Nikon kit together for myself right now, I would probably decide on this (taking price and weight into consideration):

APS-C:

Nikon D300s

Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC OS HSM standard zoom

Tamron 70-300mm VC USD tele

Tokina 35mm f2.8 DX macro / standard prime

Extension tube set from Kenko to get the Tamron to focus into (semi) macro ranges.



On full frame:

Nikon D700

Nikon 24-85mm f2.8-4 standard zoom

Nikon 50mm f1.8 standard prime

Sigma 70mm f2.8 or Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro

Tamron 70-300mm VC USD tele

Extension tube set from Kenko to get the Tamron to focus into (semi) macro ranges.



I'm not a flash photographer, but I guess for flash I would just look at an SB600 from Nikon.

[/quote]

Brightcolours, I just found your answer and advice from the other day. There are so many that I forget some <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1283767998' post='2520']

Thank you Brightcolours, as always your message is clear <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> I am actually going to buy the Tamron and then we shall see. Am actually not being adviced by any "Nikon boys", but of course there are different opinions on this Forum too. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> I am thinking a 60mm macro, because it will act as a long prime as well. Have you got a better proposition than the Nikon one? Same thing with the 16-85, I think it is a well performing lense, but of course I could try the Sigma or Tamron 17-50. What do you think?

[/quote]

Well, the Nikon 16-85mm VR is s nice lens for the type of lens it is. That is your choice, the type of lens.

Personally (meaning, for me...) the Canon EF-S 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM and Nikon AF-S 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 VR are less attractive because of their small maximum aperture. So for me, a Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS HSM would be a lens to look at.



For others, the large focal range of the 16-85mm makes it ideal as walk around standard zoom lens. It just depends on what preferences you as photographer have. So... if you are in the market for a larger focal range standard zoom, the Nikon 16-85mm is a solid choice.



The Nikon 60mm f2.8 micro, like the Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro and Tamron 60mm f2 macro (DX/APS-C only) makes for a good portrait prime, yes. Like I said before, there are no bad macro lenses.

But there are a few things about the new 60mm from Nikon that make me dislike it. The old non-AF-S Nikon 60mm f2,8 Micro D had a recessed front element. Which was nice for 2 reasons: You never have to clean it (never gets finger smudges), and you do not need to use your lens hood to prevent sun light from the side making ghosts and degrading contrast.



With the AF-S redesign, the lens got an internal focus design, which made it a lot longer. The old lens extended a bit, but even extended it is not as long as the new one. With the front element exposed, using the hood makes sense (especially to prevent the light problems). But that makes the lens even longer.

It shares that "problem" with the Canon EF-S 60mm f2.8 USM and Tamron 60mm f2 Di II, though. The Sigma 70mm f2.8's front element is not very recessed either, and that lens extends a lot.



The other thing I do not like about that lens, is that it has quite severe CA for a prime lens, and for a macro lens unparalleled CA.



Those things make it for me a lens I personally would not go for. But your mileage may vary, and you may well be happy with that Nikon 60mm. Especially since you like the idea of it acting as a portrait prime. So you can just ignore my personal reservations about that particular lens.

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='jenbenn' timestamp='1283767854' post='2519']

Whatever. I photograph on location and dont babysit my equipment. I am a photographer not a camera collector. Therefore I find it necessary to protect my lenss. No need to argue here.

UV filters have saved at least two of my lenses. IF you bump your front lens without filer your front element will most certainly get scratched. If you bump it with UV filter, there may be a slight chance that pieces of glass will scratch it, but to me that seems quite a remote chance and my expereince disproves your wild assumptions here.



Also why would one fidle around on and off screwing filters all the time, when UV filters dont degrade optical quality for all pricatical purposes?( maybe you can measure some degradation, but I certainly havent experienced anything in prcatice.)

BTW if you travel it is very easy for a little piece of sand to be stuck on your cleaning cloth, resulting in accidental scratches.

[/quote]

Like I said before, I am not particularly careful with my lenses. And yes, I am a photographer, not an over concerned parent. So I care about the image degrading properties of "protective filters" much more than quite irrational fears of front element scratches.

It is about the photo, not about a fear of imaginary scratches.



Explain how you have bumped front elements? In particular against something that could scratch it?



UV filters do degrade, just not in EVERY photo.



It is again just a faulty proposition, that when you travel a small corn of sand somehow gets itself into a micro fiber lens cloth and makes scratches. That is just in your imagination. You do not put lens cloths just anywhere, they have a very smooth surface and have a colour, one WOULD notice something had happened to it. Just again fueling to the myth, but camera shops and filter manufacturers will love to sell you expensive UV filters for all your lenses.



It is fine for you to keep using UV filters standard on all your lenses. But it is also fine to point out the protection value myth.

[Steinar1]

You may think I am geting into petty details here, but could you recommend a good, but not overly expensive tripod. My old one has a broken leg and is 22 years old so it is retired. Assume to go with a D300s!

[couplos]

what an incredible threat, seems everything seems to pass in review !



concerning RAW-converters :

you don't have to spend money immediately if you're not shure,

just gett a free software, Canon DPP (only for canon f.e.),

free download...

or Ufraw (limited options),

or Rawtherapee (excelent but horibly slow),

or...Helicon filter "the old 4.9 version" is free...(seems to be one of the better noise reduction tools btw),

maybe try one or two of these,

and purchase another software later if you think you need it.



concerning filters,

well I was a fan of protecting filters too,

untill I found out that, especially in low light, they gave focussing problems,...

good uv-filters are furthermore quite expensive...



further...

the only filters I think that are necessary in digital,

are a good(!) polarising filter, a must have if you shoot outdoors !

and maybe a ND-filter if you like to go more creative outdoor (if you'd like to play with low speed or wide diafragm in sunny wether),



and last but not least...

don't forget photography meens writing with light,

a good flash shoold be added to the equipment soon or late,



kr

couplos

[Guest]

Sorry, I lied. You are correct. UV filters are unnecessary. One shouldnt use them. Any protective value is a myth. There is a huge conspiracy of manufacturers tricking people into buying useless equipment.I admit I am a dumb fool first falling for bad marketing and then making up a myth about the usefullness of filters.



Sometimes the internt is a sad place. Two people just cant report their differnt experiences. There must always be one ever so knowledgable person who thinks no one can possible have a legitmate opinion differnt from his own. I hope, brightcolors, my statement above will save your day.



@vieux loup: There are arguments for and against filters, as you have read. You need to make up your own mind wether tu use them or not. My expereinces is that I would definately recommend using them.









[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1283774005' post='2525']

Like I said before, I am not particularly careful with my lenses. And yes, I am a photographer, not an over concerned parent. So I care about the image degrading properties of "protective filters" much more than quite irrational fears of front element scratches.

It is about the photo, not about a fear of imaginary scratches.



Explain how you have bumped front elements? In particular against something that could scratch it?



UV filters do degrade, just not in EVERY photo.



It is again just a faulty proposition, that when you travel a small corn of sand somehow gets itself into a micro fiber lens cloth and makes scratches. That is just in your imagination. You do not put lens cloths just anywhere, they have a very smooth surface and have a colour, one WOULD notice something had happened to it. Just again fueling to the myth, but camera shops and filter manufacturers will love to sell you expensive UV filters for all your lenses.



It is fine for you to keep using UV filters standard on all your lenses. But it is also fine to point out the protection value myth.

[/quote]

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='jenbenn' timestamp='1283785863' post='2533']

Sorry, I lied. You are correct. UV filters are unnecessary. One shouldnt use them. Any protective value is a myth. There is a huge conspiracy of manufacturers tricking people into buying useless equipment.I admit I am a dumb fool first falling for bad marketing and then making up a myth about the usefullness of filters.



Sometimes the internt is a sad place. Two people just cant report their differnt experiences. There must always be one ever so knowledgable person who thinks no one can possible have a legitmate opinion differnt from his own. I hope, brightcolors, my statement above will save your day.



@vieux loup: There are arguments for and against filters, as you have read. You need to make up your own mind wether tu use them or not. My expereinces is that I would definately recommend using them.

[/quote]

The point is not whether people can have different opinions, but the point is whether wrong arguments are being used. Myths are plenty, and yes, why would a manufacturer of UV filters not say it is protecting your lens element? do you believe every claim every manufacturer or anything and every salesman makes?



To illustrate just how easy it is to get a front element scratched:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzOLbMPe0u8



And yes, broken filters indeed can scratch front elements. Breaking filters is EASY. Breaking lens elements... judge for yourself.



And now about filter induced IQ degrading.

Contrast loss/veiling with backlight:

With UV protective filter:



Without:



http://neilvn.com/tangents/2010/02/27/using-filters/



Ghost light images:



Hoya DMC pro1 Digital





According to Luminous Landscape:

"The filter flare factor"





"Ironically, the better your lens, the more desirable it is not to have a filter on it. Also, if you commonly shoot with a zoom with more than ten elements, a filter, even if it's multicoated, isn't doing the lens's inherent flare and veiling glare characteristics any favors. The more glass surfaces, the less the transmission, period.



So use a filter when you need one, and by all means get one of those slick new Schneider MRC filters if you ever shoot in the wet. Otherwise, use that UV filter like a lenscap, and take it off before you shoot."

[Steinar1]

This is becoming quite instructive <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> Obviously nobody would expose their lenses to that kind of stress, unless you fall on it trying to to pass a fakirs spikebed <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> But seriously, I am impresses by what I saw. Hope the other manuf's glass is just as good. As far as I am concerned, I will limit it to polarizing filters, because I know the good effect IT has on the light of a sunny day. Seriously Brightcolours, I am impressed by your knowledge about the technical aspects of photography. I am just an amateur who is trying to get back into the thick of things and I really appreciate the effort to help in seemingly all ways.

[wim]

The B+W MRC is the B+W Multi-Resistant Coating, the multicoated, scratch resistant, water and grease/oil replllant version in their filter range. A pol filter is a polarizing filter <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



Sorry about that <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



Kind regards, Wim

[Steinar1]

If anybody is interested, there is an interesting discussion being shown by clicking on the link under the 2nd photo of the lady further up;