DSLRUsers.com

Well . . .

After talking to a few of you guys including Birddog and gstark, I finally decided to try it out and bought (from our seemingly 24 hours camera shop) a lowepro mini trekker and a 24-120 VR lens.

Tried it out today and all that I can say is AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The lens really outperforms what I was expecting and just focuses so fast . . .

Thanks guys for your help!

When I finish looking through the pics I took today (may take a while
I will try to post some that appear to be OK

Glenn

You'll wonder why you bought the kit lens in a few days, Glenn.

Congrats. One day I hope to have this, the 12-24, and the 80-400 VR's (and a 2x extender because why not have 1200 range?). Only then will nothing stop me from the ultimate in all time gloriosity.

dooda wrote:Congrats. One day I hope to have this, the 12-24, and the 80-400 VR's (and a 2x extender because why not have 1200 range?). Only then will nothing stop me from the ultimate in all time gloriosity.

A 2x isn't going to work very well on a lens that is already f5.6.

Would you say it's worth spending the money on over the stock lens?

I find the stock lens to be sharp, clear, nice colour, etc, and don't "feel" like there's an upgrade needed yet, apart from wanting to get the 24 - 120mm range

However, if you could list the benefits you fee over the stock lens, that would be great

Thanks,
Tommo.

Tommo,

The stock lens is excellent. Sharp, good colour rendition, great range.

The 24-120 has greater reach but loses out on width, but is much sharper.

Add in the VR ... what's an extra 3 stops worth to ya?

gstark wrote:Add in the VR ... what's an extra 3 stops worth to ya?

Thanks, one thing I'd like to clarify. When you say 3 stops... do you mean in terms of being able to run up to 3 steps slower shutter speeds without a tripod and still producing a good smooth image?

Just be carefull there!

The 3 stops are for YOUR movement not YOUR subject's...

MHD... please post some sample pics if you could... i'm thinking about this lens for portrait work..... i was decided upon the tamron 28-70 f2.8, however i may lean towards the nikon glass if it proves to be a good zoom.

cheers

Sorry, I dont have one...

I was just saying that VR will correct for movement in your hands etc... not for your subject...

It is not strictly a three stop improvement... just when shooting still (or close to) subjects at low light...

I am not knocking it... for that price I want one!!! and I LUST after the 70-200VR

Tommo,

Tommo wrote:

gstark wrote:Add in the VR ... what's an extra 3 stops worth to ya?

Thanks, one thing I'd like to clarify. When you say 3 stops... do you mean in terms of being able to run up to 3 steps slower shutter speeds without a tripod and still producing a good smooth image?

That depends, but yes, exactly. Pay attention to MHD's comment, and look at this image, which was shot, handheld, at a half second.

xerubus wrote:MHD... please post some sample pics if you could... i'm thinking about this lens for portrait work..... i was decided upon the tamron 28-70 f2.8, however i may lean towards the nikon glass if it proves to be a good zoom.

cheers

Xerubus,

If you are after superior Nikon zoom for protrait I can recommend 17-55 DX - I'm sure birddog would be able to recommend some others. I have this lens and it is golden.... almost too sharp - and that's wide open.

Mind you I have a frined who shoots weddings (among other things) and he has just acquired the 12-24 sigma and the 24-120vr nikkor - for the predominant purpose of shooting weddings and portrait. Only just got his gear and should be joining the forum soon.

Can you buy me one too?

Gary, that pic is a great example of what VR can (and can not) do!

1/2 a second!

thanks craig.... as much as i would like to get the 17-55dx i'd rather not spend that extra money just yet, as i'm also getting the 85f1.4.... which is making a very large hole in my pocket.... was just after a good quality zoom at this stage as an all-rounder.

look forward to chatting to your friend about the wedding and portrait stuff.

Scott,

MHD wrote:Gary, that pic is a great example of what VR can (and can not) do!

1/2 a second!

Exactly.

That was on my first outing with the lens - just a lunchtime exploratory - and they've barely spent any time separated since. Can you understand why?

Indeed...

xerubus wrote:thanks craig.... as much as i would like to get the 17-55dx i'd rather not spend that extra money just yet, as i'm also getting the 85f1.4.... which is making a very large hole in my pocket.... was just after a good quality zoom at this stage as an all-rounder.

look forward to chatting to your friend about the wedding and portrait stuff.

Ahhh.. The 85 f/1.4 Now THAT is a lens... You are setting your self up really nicely! Have you got a second body?

not just yet... it's on the drawing board... decided to go with a second d70.... was very close to getting a d2h or a d100, but decided on a second d70...

hehe

be careful with those around your new arrival petal..

He's not projectile spewing yet

give him time.... and don't leave the strap hanging over the side of a table whilst attached to the camera....

trust all is well with mother and baby....

hey Petal, 2x 10D does not a 20D make.

I gotta say, cosmetically - I prefer the Nikon cameras


hehe