Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/04/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]That's food for thought. An acquaintance, who's a staffer shooting in-house, told me that he's worn his out. He said it was his favorite lens. S.d. On Apr 1, 2010, at 9:35 PM, Mark Rabiner wrote: >> Jesus, Mark, you find that lens useable? >> S.d. >> >> On Apr 1, 2010, at 8:06 PM, Mark Rabiner wrote: >> >>> And 149 with the compact 55-200 >> >> > A 80 to 300 full frame lens for full frame is a bit of a monster to shoot > with. I have one. > But The 55-200 f4-5.6 G ED AF-S DX Nikor is that lens at a forth of the > size and weight and price even. Its one of the few advantages to a cropped > format you get to use some real compact gear and even pay less money. You'd > think you were shooting with a half fame system. Then you find out you are. > If I had the current VR anti vibration version of that lens I'd be using it > ten times more. Its only a bit bigger and heavier. > I obviously do find it useable as I just said so. > And while typing it had the images right in front of me on my screen in > Bridge. > The specs of this very inexpensive lenes also speak for themselves. > They are very competitive from a results angle. > While heavy fast expensive glass is normally considered professional > Lightweight compact slower and cheaper glass from Nikon often has as good > or > not better specs. Contrast and resolution. And on a number of levels I > find > compact glass more useable. Hence my interest in Leica. > > I hear when you shoot Canon you have to stick with the 2.8's the cheaper > stuff does not have the specs. > But shooting a nikon system we do have that option. > It looks bad. People expect to see a 2.8 Yuban coffee can on your camera. > But to have what looks like a 50mm normal lens on your camera but be able > to > get 3oomm reach is very thrilling and useful to me for the 55 months I've > been using this lens which I got for 150 bucks new the week it came out. > I had the sigma lens before that but it had apparitions on the white > backdrop. Large eerie ghosts. In the field though you never saw them but > back then I was half the time in the studio. > > As I go back to the 60's to me a zoom lens is an 80 - 200. > This 55-200 is that lens only for DX as close as I can get to the classic > 80 > - 200 angles I am used to > And I used it on the white backdrop with studio strobes hand holding it for > shoots lasting several hours. > > http://www.bythom.com/55200lens.htm > http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/55200.htm > Thom is farily high on it Ken I doubt uses it at all but briefly checked it > out. > I never had much problem with how slow it focuses. > Especially shooting trees. Even blowing in the wind. > > [Rabs] > Mark William Rabiner > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information