Nice Photos.

It's brand new, so my impressions are very preliminary. Seems very sharp, but a perhaps just a hint of CA at the edges in some shots. I don't notice too much distortion in DX format other than when I am moving the camera to frame shots.

Yes, you really need to work to get the best from the ultra-wide lens. If you don't constantly check the corners of your frame, they fill with rubbish, which you then have to crop out, defeating the purpose of the wide angle in the first place. The discipline that is needed to use this lens possibly is a good thing for me, though. It will hopefully encourage me to consider foreground and framing more than I otherwise would.

I will give it a try on my F5 shortly, where it will be even more challenging.

Mechanically, it is another top-quality piece of Nikon gear. The pro Nikkors are bombproof. The autofocus is great as usual. You do need to be careful with that exposed (and expensive) front element!

quote:

Originally posted by Colin Lorenson:
Winky,

What are your impressions of the 14-24? I've tried it on my D3 and while its clearly a great lens I'm not sure I'm up to the challenge of framing ultra wide-angle shots on my D3 or controlling the distortion. Maybe its easier on DX.

My last purchase was the 200F2 which is really quite remarkable, and fun.

Hey Colin,

Can you point me to some samples from your 200 f2.0? I can't possibly justify more money on glass at this stage, but I'd keen to see what that bad-boy can do w.r.t. low light shooting and DOF control. Combined with a D3, it potentially changes all we thought we knew about low-light photography IMHO (OK, getting a bit carried away there - but you know what I mean).

Winky

Fantastic photos Adrian. I know that spot at the southern end of Turimetta beach, never seen it looking that good.

Winky, I bought that f1.8 prime lens you suggested for my D40. It's so much sharper than the standard zoom I use it all the time. Hope this isn't the start of another addiction!

quote:

Hope this isn't the start of another addiction!

Don't worry...it is.

Does anyone want a nephew? We have one going spare:



.... in one of his better moments yesterday.

Tony

quote:

Originally posted by bazz:
Fantastic photos Adrian. I know that spot at the southern end of Turimetta beach, never seen it looking that good.

Winky, I bought that f1.8 prime lens you suggested for my D40. It's so much sharper than the standard zoom I use it all the time. Hope this isn't the start of another addiction!

I'm with Sandy on this. You're in trouble now.

I'm glad the lens is working well for you.

quote:

Winky, I bought that f1.8 prime lens you suggested for my D40. It's so much sharper than the standard zoom I use it all the time. Hope this isn't the start of another addiction!

Sounds like the same lens I have just bought for my D70s. 50mm prime f1.8.

I bought it to take some pictures at my niece's Christening. I didn't want to take flash photography in the Church. I must admit, I was very surprised how good the pictures were, considering the relative cheap outlay.

I was going to buy the f1.4, but at double the price for the sake of 1 stop, I'm glad I went for the f1.8.

I can see myself using this lens a lot.

Happy picture taking.

Lontano,

Love your pictures, very impressive.

The ships passing through the scene in Sidney harbour, great touch.

Keep them coming,

Marti

Given that you like wide pictures



and if you want to see the 9mgb version take a look at
Quito

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:

quote:

Originally posted by Colin Lorenson:
Winky,

What are your impressions of the 14-24? I've tried it on my D3 and while its clearly a great lens I'm not sure I'm up to the challenge of framing ultra wide-angle shots on my D3 or controlling the distortion. Maybe its easier on DX.

My last purchase was the 200F2 which is really quite remarkable, and fun.

Hey Colin,

Can you point me to some samples from your 200 f2.0? I can't possibly justify more money on glass at this stage, but I'd keen to see what that bad-boy can do w.r.t. low light shooting and DOF control. Combined with a D3, it potentially changes all we thought we knew about low-light photography IMHO (OK, getting a bit carried away there - but you know what I mean).

Winky

Winky, had the lens for only a month or so and not been out much yet. This ones a keeper so I can be patient.

A quick snap of my wife, indoors with window light at F2. You lose a lot of detail with the small jpeg but you get an idea of the very narrow DOF

Best on black

quote:

Originally posted by Colin Lorenson:

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:

quote:

Originally posted by Colin Lorenson:
Winky,

What are your impressions of the 14-24? I've tried it on my D3 and while its clearly a great lens I'm not sure I'm up to the challenge of framing ultra wide-angle shots on my D3 or controlling the distortion. Maybe its easier on DX.

My last purchase was the 200F2 which is really quite remarkable, and fun.

Hey Colin,

Can you point me to some samples from your 200 f2.0? I can't possibly justify more money on glass at this stage, but I'd keen to see what that bad-boy can do w.r.t. low light shooting and DOF control. Combined with a D3, it potentially changes all we thought we knew about low-light photography IMHO (OK, getting a bit carried away there - but you know what I mean).

Winky

Winky, had the lens for only a month or so and not been out much yet. This ones a keeper so I can be patient.

A quick snap of my wife, indoors with window light at F2. You lose a lot of detail with the small jpeg but you get an idea of the very narrow DOF

Wow. That is a narrow DOF. There is perhaps 3cm in focus? Maybe less. It opens up a lot of creative opportunities, I think. I'm looking forward to seeing some more.

Kongsten Fort.



Larger image here

BRYCE

quote:

Originally posted by Lontano:

Nice. A single image or composite? If it is single exposure it was incredible to get the sky, opera house and water all well exposed. I'd be tempted to photoshop some full-moon detail onto the white disc - but that would be cheating .

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:

Nice. A single image or composite? If it is single exposure it was incredible to get the sky, opera house and water all well exposed. I'd be tempted to photoshop some full-moon detail onto the white disc - but that would be cheating .

The photo is exactly as taken - no trickery. I was sitting having dinner at Doyles fish restaurant and looked out and saw this wonderful view that I had to take a picture of. This was at 6.30pm in the evening.

I had to handhold this picture as I did not have a tripod with me, so I put the camera on ISO 3200 and took this shot. Even with the high ISO I was able to blow this picture up to a 36 * 24 inch print and the quality was awesome - no noise whatsoever.

This is a "correct" exposure of the scene. A combination of blown highlights and no shadow detail.




This is a 3-shot HDR combo (The image above is the middle exposure). Sure, this one's a bit "fake" and cartoony/videogame, but it more closely resembles the detail I could see with naked eye as I took the shots. I'm convinced. It is my very first HDR effort (with Photomatix plug-in).

This also from my apartment this evening. No HDR - just underexposed a stop-or-two...

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:


This also from my apartment this evening. No HDR - just underexposed a stop-or-two...

Winky,

That is a striking shot. I love those deep tones and the depth that the low building with hardly any lights in the foreground gives. You make me feel guilty since I hardly touched my D200 in the last six weeks.

You might be interested in the work of Michael Wolf who just came out with a photography book of buildings in Chicago, a lot of them taken at night.



By the way, what is HDR?

Regards,
Haim

HDR stands for High Dynamic Range and is a digital processing technique that is currently very trendy. Basically, you take a few bracketed shots of the same scene then combine them with software. Put simply, the highlights are mostly taken from the underexposed shot and the shadow details come from the overexposed shot. It's sort of like reducing the contrast of your image, but it picks up a lot more detail. I works best if the shots are exactly aligned, but the software tries to correct what it can.

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:
HDR stands for High Dynamic Range and is a digital processing technique that is currently very trendy.

Thanks.

I was afraid that it was going to be something hydrolic. I am way too slow to catch up with all those trends so I am just happy to be out of touch.

Another question: was your original image a vertical or an horizontal one?

Haim

quote:

Originally posted by Haim Ronen:

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:
HDR stands for High Dynamic Range and is a digital processing technique that is currently very trendy.

Thanks.

I was afraid that it was going to be something hydrolic. I am way too slow to catch up with all those trends so I am just happy to be out of touch.

Another question: was your original image a vertical or an horizontal one?

Haim

Horizontal

This is different idea. Same scene, different exposure.

Link below to the MW site. Thanks for the tip, Haim.

Michael Wolf - Transparent City

quote:

Originally posted by winkyincanada:
This is different idea. Same scene, different exposure.

Link below to the MW site. Thanks for the tip, Haim.

Michael Wolf - Transparent City

Michael Wolf's book is very large and its images are very impressive.
I am definitely going to drag my tripod to the city and do some night shooting before it gets to be too cold.

Haim