Purchased my first Nikkor 2.8 lens!

[Youthman]

If you've been in the HT threads, you probably know that I love photographing audio gear. I recently upgraded my Nikon D90 to a Nikon D7000 and decided it was time to begin upgrading my kit lenses to better glass.

After seeking advice from the Nikon Cafe, last week, I purchased a Nikkor 17-55 2.8 lens and it arrived today. So far, I absolutely love it! It was much larger than I expected it to be. Build quality is superb, especially compared to the cheap plastic kit lenses that I own. Images are sharp and bokeh is very smooth. Couldn't be more pleased with my purchase.

Here are the first photos I have taken with it.

[Schu]

I remember that feeling, then I realized that was only a stepping stone to my first Zeiss prime.

[Youthman]

I'm ok having this feeling for awhile.

[Max2]

Thats a sharp lens and those pics look superb.

[dtel]

Thats a sharp lens and those pics look superb.

Agreed very nice

How are you liking the D7000, I have been looking at it for a while now, I would love to switch but it's not happening for a while. It's said to be much better for low light and noise.

[TasDom]

Very nice, congratz

[Youthman]

Thx Max and dtel. I've only had the D7000 for about 2 weeks. At first, I wasn't pleased with it at all. I was having major Auto Focusing issues with it. Images were not very clear, even at f/11. After some research online, apparently the D7000 as well as many other DSLR's have AF issues. The D7000 is the lowest model that has an AF Fine Tune where you can adjust from -20 to +20 for each lens that you own. It saves those presets and uses the correct preset when you switch lenses. Some lenses you do not need to adjust while others, you may have minor or major adjustments in the AF Fine Tune. From what I can see, the AF on the 17-55mm 2.8 works fantastic.

Here is a comparison of my 55-200 f/4-5.6 kit lens next to the 17-55 2.8 lens.

I bought my D7000 on CL for $450. She included two lenses for free....an 18-105mm lens (has 3 small scratches on the lens) and a 70-200 2.8 (has Auto Focus Issues). The sharpness was too inconsistent for their Studio so she thought I might enjoy playing with it since they were going to throw it away. It is truly a BEAST of a lens and weighs 2x the weight of the D7000 body.

[Youthman]

Thx Tas

[mustang guy]

That lens takes great pics. Low distortion, and very crisp. It looks almost macro. Very cool. We have had Tamron and Nikkor lenses mostly, and without a doubt, the Nikkor are the best build quality, and usually the best image quality. One exception was an excellent macro Tamron. It was fantastic. You could take a picture of a flea on a frogs nose.

For Christmas, I bought the wife a Nikkor wide zoom lens (AF-S DX NIKKOR 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED). It's cool, because zoomed, the lens is a normal fixed focus looking lens. When un-zoomed, it widens the field of view an incredible amount. It can make a small room look huge. I figure it's the kind of lens they use to take pictures of rooms in cruise ships. Anyhow, it is great when you are trying to get a lot of people in a picture, and you can't back up far enough, perhaps because of a room, or perhaps because you are in a crowd. The wife really likes it.

Edited April 30, 2014 by mustang guy

[Youthman]

Yeah, 10mm would be considered a Super Wide Angle lens. Does it look fisheye?

[mustang guy]

Yeah, 10mm would be considered a Super Wide Angle lens. Does it look fisheye?

Yes, there is fisheye, but it is definitely better than the selfy distortion. Here is an image taken with it from Ken Rockwell's site. The first is before photoshop correction filter, and the second has been corrected.

Edited April 30, 2014 by mustang guy

[mustang guy]

Just to add this from Ken's post:

Distortion performance top

The Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G DX AF-S has a healthy amount of distortion.

Even corrected as directed below, it doesn't correct perfectly if you're doing scientific work. For that, pray for a DxO module.

I may scare a lot of people unnecessarily Most people will never see lens distortion unless they are shooting brick walls. For instance, the distortion is invisible in this shot:

[dtel]

Here are the first photos I have taken with it.

Looking at the pic's again I really like the colors, how did you have the camera set,(pic 1) just wondering I know you have no problem using a slower shutter speed and I definitely like how it looks natural.

Your room really looks great, love how all the colors go so well together.

Edited April 30, 2014 by dtel

[dtel]

I figure it's the kind of lens they use to take pictures of rooms in cruise ships.

I think your right, has to be.

That is a cool lens, 10mm is really wide and looking at that first pic it does really good. 18mm is as wide as I have and it's a kit lens.

Many year ago when you bought a camera it was almost standard to have a 50mm as the kit lens, but it was fast. I for some reason wanted to add longer zooms not knowing what I was missing with wider lenses.

[Youthman]

Looking at the pic's again I really like the colors, how did you have the camera set,(pic 1) just wondering I know you have no problem using a slower shutter speed and I definitely like how it looks natural.

For this shot, was early evening. We have a large 3 panel sliding glass door to the left of the room so there is a lot of nice natural light. I didn't want it too late in the evening or there would have been harsh light from the sun as it was getting ready to set.

I prefer using natural light when I can so I turned off the living room lights as they produce unnatural light and shadows on the speakers.

Camera was set on a tripod (super important if you are going to use long exposure times. If you don't have a tripod, use a chair, stool, small table etc).

Camera Settings:

Camera was set to Manual Mode

ISO: 100

(allows for lowest noise. Using this low of ISO in a dim room will require a long shutter speed thus the necessity for a tripod or sturdy object to hold the camera still)

Aperture: f/4

I chose f/4 because they say that one f/stop above the lowest is your sharpest. So in my case, the lens is a 2.8 so one stop above that is f/4.

Shutter Speed: 1/3 of a second

Once I set my ISO and Aperture, shutter speed was determined by taking a photo and seeing if the image was properly exposed. If it was too dark (under exposed), I would increase the shutter speed time. If the image was over exposed (washed out), I would decrease the shutter speed. 1/3" seemed to provide the right exposure.

Focal Length: 19mm

To capture the entire system, I needed to be zoomed out almost all the way.

I can't remember if I shot in .jpg or RAW. I typically bring the image into Photoshop, resize to 1000px wide (for forums), adjust the Curves and add a slight "Unsharp Mask" which adds a little sharpening to the image.

This is pretty much my standard setup when photographing any of my speakers or audio gear. Until yesterday, the vast majority of the photos that I have shared on the forums were taken with my 18-70mm kit lens. Dtel, if you use the above steps, you should be able to get very good quality pics even with your kit lens.

What camera body are you shooting with now? Everything I've read says quality glass is a better investment than a new camera body.

[dtel]

It's Nikon D 80, my first digital camera. Looking back I should have kept my old lenses from years ago.

Your right about the glass for sure, the kit lens is 18-135 3.5, and it's very convenient length and does well but nothing special. I added the 70-300 VR which does better than expected and has great bokeh.

The last lens added is the 50mm 1.8, I love it although I should have spent another $75 and got the 35mm because the 50 works like a 70mm on a DX camera. But I can't complain it's a great lens, very fast focusing and better glass than my other two and is the cheapest Nikon makes @ $125 new, hard to not have one.

Last I finally got a better tripod, at 6'-3" I was tired of bending over and using a weak tripod. Since I don't take longs hikes I didn't care about weight and wanted a tall model that was strong and have a ball head. I love this tripod http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/507991-REG/Slik_615_780_Pro_780DX_Tripod_with.html

[Youthman]

I know what you mean about the 50mm. I found it's great for outdoor portraits but often is too close for indoor use. I could see where a 35mm would be a much better focal length for indoor shots.

I have a cheap walmart tripod but it serves the purpose for my use. I would love a ball head though as it would make it much easier to adjust the angle of the camera.

[Youthman]

When I was researching what model I wanted to upgrade to, this Nikon Camera Timeline Chart was pretty cool because it helped me to see what tier each model was and how old it was in comparison to the other models.

[Max2]

Thx Max and dtel. I've only had the D7000 for about 2 weeks. At first, I wasn't pleased with it at all. I was having major Auto Focusing issues with it. Images were not very clear, even at f/11. After some research online, apparently the D7000 as well as many other DSLR's have AF issues. The D7000 is the lowest model that has an AF Fine Tune where you can adjust from -20 to +20 for each lens that you own. It saves those presets and uses the correct preset when you switch lenses. Some lenses you do not need to adjust while others, you may have minor or major adjustments in the AF Fine Tune. From what I can see, the AF on the 17-55mm 2.8 works fantastic.

Here is a comparison of my 55-200 f/4-5.6 kit lens next to the 17-55 2.8 lens.

I bought my D7000 on CL for $450. She included two lenses for free....an 18-105mm lens (has 3 small scratches on the lens) and a 70-200 2.8 (has Auto Focus Issues). The sharpness was too inconsistent for their Studio so she thought I might enjoy playing with it since they were going to throw it away. It is truly a BEAST of a lens and weighs 2x the weight of the D7000 body.

There always seems to be give and take when tuning a zoom lens. What does wonders for the wide end screws up the zoom on the long end, or at least that has been my experience. I try to tune my zooms at the focal length that I use them most regularly. I lay out a 18" ruler, tripod the body and pick a number as a target. You can immediately see if the lens is front or back focusing where the tuning is set by which number is more in focus, behind your target or in front.

I don't know much about Nikon lenses, but from what I have seen their kit lenses are much better than the Canon kit lenses. Once you hit the Canon L series, I think its a wash with the Nikon ED line. I think the newer Nikons are the way to go and offer a better deal unless your a Canon diehard and want to get into spending 4-6K on a nice setup.

Edited April 30, 2014 by Max2

[dtel]

That's a handy timeline, I got the D 80 right after it came out and wanted the 90 when it was introduced but later looked at the 7000, but the 80 works fine so I just stuck with it. I really wanted full frame but my lenses would have to go with the 80 and I didn't like the full frame prices at all.

My wife (girlfriend then) bought me my first real camera 36-37 years ago, a canon AE-1. Used it for a long time and after two expensive repairs gave it to my dad and he used it. I switched to Nikon it died after many years and between that and the price of film and developing I gave it up for a while.

Then looking at digital I couldn't stand the shutter lag so I did nothing.

Michael Colter came down here for our wedding (renewal) in 07 and while walking around the quarter he handed me his Nikon D 200 and said take some pictures. I was in love, NO shutter lag and all the adjustments I liked with my old cameras. That was it, I was looking to buy a camera, the D-80 had almost all the things I was looking for without the D200 price.

I really did miss taking pictures, but I got back in just in time to get many pic's of the grandkids.

Forgot to tell you GREAT price on the 7000, you would have had to be nuts not to jump on that deal.

Edited April 30, 2014 by dtel