motor

sameerrao · 05-22-2006, 05:46 PM

I returned my 12-24 lens today ... didnt seem to get much use from it as much as I had originally hoped. Traded it for a Nikon 70-200 F2.8 VR. Unfortunately the 70-200 is in backorder - so I will have to wait a bit till I get my hands on it.

I will be selling the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 soon. The Sigma is awesome and I got great pictures from it but VR will be really useful at a race track that I find myself going to a couple times a year.

I also need a buy a more normal lens for taking some landscapes and static car pictures and such. Any suggestions?

On a side note, I had bought my 12-24 lens from Ritz Camera about 1.5 months back and they took it back without a fuss after all this time and without me losing any money. Some of the other shops have a 5 day return policy and if you return it any later you stand to loose about 15%-30% of its original value as a re-stocking fee. Ritz is certainly more expensive than the e-tailers but I am very happy with their service.

MartijnGizmo · 05-26-2006, 06:25 PM

The 18-70 kitlens from the D70(s) is a nice and afforable standardlens.....

sameerrao · 05-26-2006, 09:21 PM

You know what .. that is exactly the lens that I am planning to buy - seems perfect for everyday shooting and static objects...

ae86_16v · 05-27-2006, 02:26 AM

Not meaning to jack your thread, but I just picked one up from eBay for under $200 shipped. If you must have new, I think they are around $300 - $350.

sameerrao · 05-27-2006, 02:33 AM

Originally Posted by ae86_16v

Not meaning to jack your thread, but I just picked one up from eBay for under $200 shipped. If you must have new, I think they are around $300 - $350.

I can get new for about $280 shipped from adorama.com including a 67-77 step up ring so that I can use my existing filters.

Thanks for the heads-up .. I will check up on ebay as well.

sameerrao · 05-27-2006, 02:45 AM

My Nikon 70-200 F2.8 VR arrived ... Hope to take a few pictures this weekend to give it a proper road test.

L-R: Nikon 70-200 F2.8 VR, Sigma 70-200 F2.8, Ferrari 348

First impressions:
- It is about 4 inches longer and about .3 lb heavier. The length and extra weight means that it is a bit more cumbersome than the Sigma. You can definitely sense the extra weight. But this is something one gets used to after some time.

- Placement of the zoom and focus ring - the placement for the Sigma lens was: Camera body --> focus ring --> zoom ring (i.e. the zoom ring was the furthest away). In the Nikon, the arrangement is Camera body --> zoom ring --> focus ring. The Nikon arrangment is a lot more logical and you can use both controls pretty easily with the same hand. The focus ring was awkwardly located - you needed to slide your hand closer to the body to focus and then slide it back to hold the camera steady. Of course this wouldnt be that important if AF was used only and no manual adjustments

- Construction - like the Sigma, this lens looks solid - can take a beating

More impressions later. I made a quick comparison of the two lenses to check out if the VR works - I will post it separately

TT · 05-27-2006, 04:20 AM

Cool! That's money well spent

BTW, how the fuck can you insert the ferrari into your camera? Do you need an adapter of some sort?

:splat:

sameerrao · 05-27-2006, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by TT

Cool! That's money well spent

BTW, how the fuck can you insert the ferrari into your camera? Do you need an adapter of some sort?

:splat:

Definitely possible with a 67mm-1:18 step up ring. Of course the maintenance costs goes thru the roof as it is a Ferrari of course ...

MartijnGizmo · 05-27-2006, 01:40 PM

I've been getting great results from my Canon-version:

sameerrao · 05-27-2006, 01:48 PM

TT · 05-27-2006, 05:37 PM

LMAOOOOOOOOO!! Brillant!

dutchmasterflex · 05-30-2006, 09:19 AM

ROFL.. haha.. that's hilarious martijn!

Where the pics at samerreo?

sameerrao · 05-30-2006, 01:34 PM

Some Houston downtown shots ....

--> Pics 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 were shot on from inside the car when it was moving slowly with the VR on Active mode.

But even VR can't save this shot taken while moving about 35mph while the inevitable bumps on the road reared their ugly heads

Yes I am aware that only a part of the car is visible but it was the best I could do due to obstructions around me ... The 70-200 VR requires you to be pretty far away from the car to be able to see the whole thing ...

Panning shots
EXIF: 90mm-F22- 1/30 -- The S4 was moving really slow here so I slightly overdid it to create motion

70mm-F22-1/60sec

Nature shots

--> I love the sunset silhouette ...
Fun at night with slow shutter speeds ...

Misc stuff

--> It was tough catching the golf ball in the frame ...

Learn your ABCs thru the camera ...

DOF tests

My test guinea pigs - Lucky and Rev - they always oblige me for a photograph

nthfinity · 05-30-2006, 02:18 PM

for the downtown shot, all taht looks off is the fucos... i dont see movement otherwise.

1/30 still looks a PITA to keep the camera still even with VR on... that said, the two hondas, and the mercedes seem to work the best

my post earlier w/out Image stabilization, or vibration reduction etc. of the Cobra was taken @ 1/50 of a second @ 55 mph....

the wheels look great, but the pictures still look soft, and shake is still evident in them... keep practicing

sameerrao · 05-30-2006, 02:42 PM

No offence but I thought your Cobra image was too soft. I liked the Blue Chevy Monte Carlo one though. The quality pics of the SDK and Martijn are what we need to improve to.