Iron_Dreamer

Yeah, trying to be an early adopter is almost never fun. Just think of all those poor schmucks trying to get NEX7's for the last few months. Hopefully the D4 and D800 won't be that bad of a debacle, but judging from Nikon's recent history (even pre-2011 natural disasters), they'll probably be fairly hard to come by for a while.

Nice work Naaman! Your builds never disappoint.

Any of you guys hitting the meet up for a Pliny the Younger run on Sunday? Or will it be in SF such that we don't need to make the drive to Santa Rosa?

That particular shot appears to me to have been done, at least partially, in post processing. There should still be a slice of the far background fully in focus if it was indeed done only with lens tilt. If that type of shot is what you're after, the 45 is probably going to give you the best compromise of DOF vs. field of view.

What are you really wanting to do with this lens? You mention landscape, then background blur...? I had the Nikon 45 PC-E for a while. There is definitely plenty of ability to play with shallow DOF at that focal length/aperture. However, I didn't really end up using tilt as much as I thought I would, and the shots where the lens really made a difference were shifted shots, eliminating the keystoning effect. Though I had a nice time learning the lens, in the end, I didn't get enough use out of it overall to keep it in the bag. I could see myself using the 24mm more frequently than the 45 (and keystoning is more of an issue at that focal length). The 17 is a very cool product from Canon, but certainly a specialist tool, at that wide a focal length. However, in the presence of the Nikon 14-24, it's hard to look a a pair of lenses, each more expensive, to cover the same general focal range and quality. Anyway, if you want to play with DOF for people/object shots, the longer, the better. Realistically, you could use any of them for landscapes, that just depends on your style.

Ditto that!

Lenses are more important than bodies. I'd stay with the lenses you prefer. Granted, I doubt there's much practical difference between the C/N 70-200 2.8 II's. If you like f/1.2, fully usable tilt-shift lenses, and countless telephoto options, Canon is the place.

Hell yeah, that was the first thing I got from that picture!

The problem is really the dynamic range of the scene. On a full moon night, by the time the moon peaks over the horizon, the sun has set sufficiently such that the moon is much brighter than the rest of the landscape. Unless you're using an 800mm+ lens, the moon is just a small bright spec in an otherwise dark scene, therefore, the metering of the camera will decide to expose longer, to brighten up the dark scene (and blow out the moon). To get a shot like the ones that you're showing, with detail in the moon, you'll need to take one shot to expose the landscape, another for the moon, and photoshop it in. Or take the picture a few days earlier in the moon cycle, while there is still enough residual sunlight to balance the brightness of the land and moon naturally.

Happy Birthday Jeff!! Make it a great one! Just what I thought!

Yeah, the price point is the real shocker in that announcement. It makes sense, given what the D700's opening price was, but I don't think many people really believed that Nikon would launch the highest resolution DSLR on the market at that price (we're talking about the same company that launched a previous "highest-res" DSLR at $8000). If the AF is indeed the same as the D4, it will be a substantial improvement over the D700. I was quite surprised by how much faster the D4 could focus my 24-120 f/4 when I tried it at CES, it felt more like the 24-70 f/2.8 on a D700 (AF-wise). I'll wait for some real tests and comparisons before going gaga over the no-AA option. It might be great, or it might be a marginal improvement at best, over the standard D800 with a bit of normal capture sharpening. Same goes for the 36MP, let's see both how it really handles noise, and down-res's, and how many lenses are really able to keep up with that level of resolution, especially in the corners. Nikon would be wise not to ignore the non-pro, high-ISO body altogether. Another model with the D800's body/AF/metering, and the sensor/video of the D3s, and let's say 8FPS, at ~$2400-2600 would be a damn good seller, I'd think. The D4 would still retain advantages in video, resolution, and FPS, while giving up no ISO performance.

Damn, all the more reason I wish I could get with you guys in Tampa.

Wow, looks like some great fun!

It's hard for me to take anything much smaller than APS-C very seriously, and even an APS-C cam needs to be damn well done. I find it quite annoying that many m43 lenses are nearly as expensive as their full-frame equivalents (like the Panasonic Leica 25 1.4 vs. Nikon/Canon/Sigma 50 1.4), which cover four times the sensor area. I'm interested to see how the X-Pro1 sensor tests out. ISO performance certainly looked good on the LCD when I tried the cam at CES, but still not up to D3/D700 levels (though some diehard Fujiheads would try to convince you otherwise). The sensor size and lens speed of the Fuji system make it the most promising on the market right now, for image quality.

Now that sounds like fun!

Have a merry metal birthday!

Holy kilovolts!

I have this lens as well. The behavior you mention is endemic to any internal-focusing macro lens. As the lens focuses closer, the effective aperture size is reduced, hence the smaller f-number displayed in the viewfinder. Some older copies of this lens (like mine) still show the chosen aperture, rather than the working aperture, as yours does. It is a killer lens though, I've used it for everything from macro, to portraits, and night landscapes. Did you get the new stabilized version, or the older, non-stabilized version?

Yikes, that sucks! Trying to fix it yourself might end up doing more harm than good, given the tiny, fragile nature of the parts inside most digicams. Best of luck, though!

A definitely maybe for me!

I think the inconsistent focal point (from not using a tripod) is the biggest issue with that comparison, next being the differing lenses (if you're really trying to compare the two sensors).

People seem to have no issue with square filters that large and larger. I'd rather use a slightly less than perfect filter on an amazing lens, than use a slightly better filter on an average lens (i.e. what I've been doing for those situations). I'm not going to be shooting this setup into the sun (generally a silly thing to do with a polarizer anyway), so flare would not be terribly concerning.

Naw, a long day of travel is 16-20+ hours of driving

Yeah! I wish I had gotten that Rok 35 1.4 that cheaply, but it's been in use for a good six months now, so that's almost worth it. These days I sport the 14-24, 45 PC-E, 24-120 f/4, and 70-300VR from Nikon, along with the Rok 35, Sigma 150 macro non-OS, and a Tokina 17 f/3.5 that I keep around mostly for times when I need a filter on an ultrawide. Though that lens is probably going away now that a more reasonable, readily available filter solution for the 14-24 is out: http://www.fotodiox.com/product_info.php?products_id=1492

Did you buy the 14-24 used? It is not uncommon for the zoom to get somewhat off-track or misaligned, most commonly during shipping. I bought my used copy through a local transaction in the Bay Area so that there was no shipping and I could evaluate it in person. Both zoom and focus rings operate as smoothly as I'd expect on my copy, even after hauling it along for 200+ miles of wilderness hiking last year alone. The zoom should feel moderately stiff and take a bit of force to move (likely because you are moving the massive front element group) but it should move smoothly with no hitches or hiccups. If you want an f/2.8 telephoto, I'd get either the 80-200 AF-D (two-ring) or 70-200 VR II. The 80-200 AF-S has a first-gen silent wave focus motor that fails relatively frequently (as do those in the 17-35 AFS and 28-70 AFS), and the 70-200 VR I was essentially designed for crop cameras, as it has issues with vignetting and corner sharpness on full-frame that even stoping down doesn't fix. Pretty much all of Nikon's recent lenses (especially any of the Nano-coated lenses) very good optically. You're more likely to encounter optical issues with some of the older AF lenses (18/2.8, 18-35, 28-200, older 24-120VR). Some folks prefer the more dreamy look of the old 85/1.4 AF-D to the newer 85/1.4 AF-S (sharper, but bokeh is a bit different). Nikon also has the 105 and 135 DC (defocus control) lenses for some unique bokeh effects. Check out the forum at NikonCafe.com, lots of sample shots from different lenses (well-organized), and a pretty friendly overall environment with good knowledge.