The Absolutely Greatest "Cheap" Lens I've Ever Bought
Feb 11, 2016 19:57:53 #
asiafish wrote:
I believe that is the Jupiter 9. The Jupiter 3 is also a 50mm, only a faster f/1.5, while the Jupiter 12 is a 35mm f/2.8.
Oops, my bad, you are absolutely correct!
Feb 12, 2016 13:49:47 #
Mike N
Loc: Fairbanks, Alaska
I just received a 35-70 f2.8 af-d yesterday from an ebay seller in Japan for $350 with shipping. It looks virtually new. Very impressed with this lens. Plan to use it on my F4 and D7100. This is the second lens that I have got recently from sellers in Japan and both were at least as good if not better than advertised and the packing was fantastic.
Feb 12, 2016 14:31:46 #
Mike N wrote:
I just received a 35-70 f2.8 af-d yesterday from an ebay seller in Japan for $350 with shipping. It looks virtually new. Very impressed with this lens. Plan to use it on my F4 and D7100. This is the second lens that I have got recently from sellers in Japan and both were at least as good if not better than advertised and the packing was fantastic.
Hey Mike, congrats to both of us. You might be interested in what I just posted in Photo Gallery under the caption,
"Trial Run with my "new" AF Zoom-Nikkor 35-70mm f/2.8D"
Lemme know what you think. Thanks
Feb 16, 2016 10:38:51 #
I've got one, but find I don't use it as often as I thought I would. On my crop frame, I use my 18-50 2.8, and 50-150 2.8 sigma 90% of the time. (I wish they wouldn't have stopped making the Sigma, awesome lens)
Feb 16, 2016 11:01:40 #
bkyser wrote:
I've got one, but find I don't use it as often as I thought I would. On my crop frame, I use my 18-50 2.8, and 50-150 2.8 sigma 90% of the time. (I wish they wouldn't have stopped making the Sigma, awesome lens)
Well, you're flush with a couple of nice 2.8 lenses and I'm not. Just the 18-200 3.5-5.6 (which is a decent multi-purpose DX lens) and the 35-70 was a very cheap, if slightly archaic, way to enter the world of fast glass for me. The push/pull zoom doesn't even bother me. After all, it's a short range. If I could afford a 24-70 2.8, I throw the rest away. But.....
Thanks.
Feb 16, 2016 13:47:21 #
Raz Theo wrote:
Well, you're flush with a couple of nice 2.8 lenses and I'm not. Just the 18-200 3.5-5.6 (which is a decent multi-purpose DX lens) and the 35-70 was a very cheap, if slightly archaic, way to enter the world of fast glass for me. The push/pull zoom doesn't even bother me. After all, it's a short range. If I could afford a 24-70 2.8, I throw the rest away. But.....
Thanks.
Thanks.
For what it's worth, we survived a LOT of years with no VR on lenses. What I told someone who asked me about the poor light performance on a Nikon D-200, we didn't know any better when that camera was new, and learned how to compensate for low light, even at weddings. You will probably end up learning better technique by not having the VR if you think about it.
Feb 16, 2016 16:55:26 #
bkyser wrote:
For what it's worth, we survived a LOT of years with no VR on lenses. What I told someone who asked me about the poor light performance on a Nikon D-200, we didn't know any better when that camera was new, and learned how to compensate for low light, even at weddings. You will probably end up learning better technique by not having the VR if you think about it.
I agree and I know you're right. When I mentioned the lack of VR in my initial post, I was talking about the psychological aspect. I have been shooting since the late '50's and often chide my younger fellow shooters about the additional weight they're lugging around, not to mention significant expense, for the sake of VR - only to realize I've formed a similar dependency in this digital world. :)
Feb 16, 2016 17:01:39 #
bkyser wrote:
For what it's worth, we survived a LOT of years with no VR on lenses. You will probably end up learning better technique by not having the VR if you think about it.
bkyser, BTW here's a link on this subject that I posted to the gallery this past week. It's self-explanatory.
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-368305-1.html
Feb 19, 2016 18:37:02 #
rjaywallace wrote:
Looking forward to seeing the images. There's nothing wrong with "old".
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Feb 23, 2016 11:35:55 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.