Old 03-08-2016, 03:45 AM   #51
Noct Foamer
Senior Member
 
Noct Foamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 571
Default

Thom Hogan ("byThom") has released his updated lists of recommended lenses. His experience generally agrees with my own, only his is much broader:

FX:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/len...-lenses-2.html

DX:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/len...ed-lenses.html


Note that not every lens is an expensive one.


Kent in SD

Last edited by Noct Foamer; 03-08-2016 at 12:55 PM.
Noct Foamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2016, 05:06 AM   #52
John West
Senior Curmudgeon
 
John West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mill Valley, CA
Posts: 1,081
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noct Foamer View Post
Thom Hogan ("byThom") has released his updated lists of recommended lenses. His experience generally agrees with my own, only his is much broader:

DX:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/len...-lenses-2.html

FX:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/len...ed-lenses.html


Note that not every lens is an expensive one.


Kent in SD
Based on Hogan's reviews of Nikkor DX lenses I purchased an 18-140 as a replacement for my 18-200 for my D90. A Nikon "refurbished" version was on sale at Adorama and I paid only about $200. It will get its first real workout next weekend on the C&TS.
__________________
John West
See my pix here and
here and here
John West is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2016, 12:47 PM   #53
KevinM
Senior Member
 
KevinM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,003
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noct Foamer View Post
Thom Hogan ("byThom") has released his updated lists of recommended lenses. His experience generally agrees with my own, only his is much broader:

DX:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/len...-lenses-2.html

FX:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/len...ed-lenses.html

Kent in SD
Hi Kent,

When I click on either link, I get the FX lens review. Not sure what is going on there.

I am amazed at the number of lenses, such as the 24-70 f/2.8 that he considers less than stellar performers. Fortunately, I have no use for a D8xx. No use for the high pixel count, and the burst rate is pretty anemic.

I totally agree with his assessment of the 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR, however. I have never been impressed with that lens on DX or FX. AF is not great, and neither is VR. At f/8 it is not terrible off a tripod, but wide open, not very good. I don't ever take it with me on trips.

Fortunately, it was under $600....my least expensive FX lens.
__________________
/Kevin

My RP stuff is here.

Link to my Flickr Albums. Lots of Steam Railroad stuff there from all over the US.
KevinM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2016, 12:54 PM   #54
Noct Foamer
Senior Member
 
Noct Foamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 571
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinM View Post
Hi Kent,

When I click on either link, I get the FX lens review. Not sure what is going on there.
I was a little tired, and watching "Big Bang Theory." I went back and fixed the link.


Kent in SD
Noct Foamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2016, 01:34 PM   #55
bigbassloyd
Senior Member
 
bigbassloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hilldale, West Virginia
Posts: 3,727
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John West View Post
Being an economist by training and cheap by nature, I feel the need to point out that images that are tack sharp at 100 percent enlargement ("actual pixels" in Photoshopese") do not necessarily produce better images for the rest of us to enjoy unless you are making very large prints or cropping around very small details. Low light capability is a more complicated argument but I think the same principles apply. I think a reasonable case can be made that a lot of money is wasted on unneeded capability in terms of the end use of the vast majority of images recorded. You can get high quality pix without investing in the very best cameras and glass, which cost a small fortune.

But you can be a really good photographer without spending a fortune and simply learning to use what you have well. The biggest challenge is skill not equipment.
Skill comes eventually since failure is a great teacher. Back when I ran cheap equipment, there was a hard list of limitations that were defined by the equipment, and not my skill. Today I use equipment that will allow me to capture an image no matter the conditions. Like my above linked photo. I'm not walking up to that spot with my old rebel and 70-210 EF lens from 1989 and capturing that scene. Not sure that the old rebel went to 2000 iso anyhow.

So while I follow your general premise, I will not wholeheartedly endorse it.

And Harpers Ferry will look nice on the wall as a very large print.

Loyd L.
__________________
Social Media elevates the absurd and mediocre to a point where they aren't anymore, and that is a tragedy.

My personal photography site
bigbassloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2016, 03:48 PM   #56
John West
Senior Curmudgeon
 
John West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mill Valley, CA
Posts: 1,081
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinM View Post
I am amazed at the number of lenses, such as the 24-70 f/2.8 that he considers less than stellar performers.
Hogan is a real nit picker, very focused on the technical side. Which is why I like to read his reviews.

Interesting contrast between Hogan and Ken Rockwell, the other popular internet photo equipment "guru" I read. Rockwell is much more focused on getting "good enough for the purpose" results, value for money, and valuing skill over equipment.
__________________
John West
See my pix here and
here and here
John West is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2016, 06:36 PM   #57
KevinM
Senior Member
 
KevinM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,003
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John West View Post
Hogan is a real nit picker, very focused on the technical side. Which is why I like to read his reviews.

Interesting contrast between Hogan and Ken Rockwell, the other popular internet photo equipment "guru" I read. Rockwell is much more focused on getting "good enough for the purpose" results, value for money, and valuing skill over equipment.
Hi John,

I totally agree with your assessment of Hogan vs. Rockwell. They are at opposite ends of the spectrum. I'd like some of the "joy-juice" that Rockwell is drinking.

I do think that we may be approaching a point in which the sensor technology on cameras is outpacing the development with optics. I used to joke that I didn't want a D800, because it had enough resolution for me to find flaws in every lens I own. After reading Hogan's review, I think my joke was actually pretty close to the mark.
__________________
/Kevin

My RP stuff is here.

Link to my Flickr Albums. Lots of Steam Railroad stuff there from all over the US.
KevinM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-11-2016, 02:14 AM   #58
Mark Rosnick
Senior Member
 
Mark Rosnick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Shiremanstown, PA
Posts: 200
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John West View Post
Hogan is a real nit picker, very focused on the technical side. Which is why I like to read his reviews.

Interesting contrast between Hogan and Ken Rockwell, the other popular internet photo equipment "guru" I read. Rockwell is much more focused on getting "good enough for the purpose" results, value for money, and valuing skill over equipment.
Funny I agree John. I read both of their reviews and if you believe Hogan my 20 year old, sharp as a tack 80-200 2.8 Nikkor is crap. But if you read Rockwell its an awesome lens. I'll keep my old 80-200 2.8 and old manual focus 300 f/2.8 thank you very much.
Mark Rosnick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2016, 05:06 PM   #59
John West
Senior Curmudgeon
 
John West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mill Valley, CA
Posts: 1,081
Smile Nikkor 80-200/2.8

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Rosnick View Post
Funny I agree John. I read both of their reviews and if you believe Hogan my 20 year old, sharp as a tack 80-200 2.8 Nikkor is crap. But if you read Rockwell its an awesome lens. I'll keep my old 80-200 2.8 and old manual focus 300 f/2.8 thank you very much.
I have TWO of those 80-200/2.8's....had to get the second when they finally added the tripod mount. I think most folks even today consider them to be great lenses. Almost makes me want to go FX, just to use them again. But oh the weight, and with digital you don't really need the 2.8.
__________________
John West
See my pix here and
here and here
John West is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2016, 02:36 AM   #60
Dennis A. Livesey
Senior Member
 
Dennis A. Livesey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,982
Thumbs up

The moment I saw the results of my first L lens, a 17-40mm I said:

"Once you go L, you never go back!"

It took awhile to get my current collection, but I now have three L lenses for my full-frame 6D's and APS-C 40D:

17-40mm L f/4

24-70mm L f/2.8

70-200mm L f/4 IS

I am covered for 99% of the things I want to do.

__________________
Dennis

I Foam Therefore I Am.

My pix on RailPics:

I am on Flickr as well:

"Dennis is such a God, he could do that with a camera obscura and some homemade acetate." Holloran Grade

"To me it looks drawn in in Paintshop. It looks like a puddle of orange on the sky." SFO777
Dennis A. Livesey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2016, 04:57 AM   #61
3375
Junior Member
 
3375's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 8
Default

In order

Canon 17-40 F/4L
Canon 70-200 F/2.8L
Canon 50mm F/1.8
3375 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.