|
What's New May 8, 2008 - The 28-70 lens is now sold, which means I can move onto the remaining piece to complete this round of upgrades, the 24-70 lens. If anyone is interested, my Benchmark DAC-1 is still available... May 7, 2008 - I picked up the 14-24 lens yesterday. I asked my store contact to hold one for me last Sunday evening and as it turned out, mine was the last one available. My contact forgot that he held one back for me and told me I'd have to come back when they received a new shipment. Then he remembered, oh, wait, I put one on hold for you. He walks to the back room and comes out with my brand new lens. Whew, maybe he was just messing with me.
The 24-70 lens is sold out as well and my contact indicated that it could take a while to get more in due to a shortage (or, is it just high demand - six to one, half a dozen to another). The 14-24 lens is indeed a large lens, or at least the front of it is, but it's not "quite" as big as I thought it would be given some comments I read. However, that front element is indeed bulbous and seemingly vulnerable to potential knocks and dings. The integrated hood is hardly any protection at all and I will be keeping the slip-on hood very close by to cover the front element whenever I'm not using the lens.
It's too bad that Nikon did not copy Sigma's implementation for its 15-30mm lens. This Sigma is similarly bulbous and also has a a very short lens hood, but Sigma had an eye towards DX format shooters when it allowed a front filter to be attached to its two-piece lens hood (a filter ring and lens cap that covers the filter ring). According to Thom Hogan, using a filter on the Sigma causes vignetting even on DX format cameras, so it's not ideal. In the case of the Nikon 14-24, maybe something along the lines of a 95mm sized filter - yes, they do make such large filters, because I have one for my Bronica 40mm wide-angle lens.
While 14-24 is a helluva full frame, wide-angle zoom lens (Sigma actually does better with a full frame 12-24 lens), on the D300, it's merely wide and not anywhere close to being ultra wide, as it would be on a D3. The 14-24 becomes a rather prosaic 21-36 lens on the D300, a range that's been around a coon's age and harkens back to one of the original wide-angle zoom lenses in the much heralded Nikkor 20-35mm f2.8. So, does this mean that I "need" to get a D3 just so I can make full use of the 14-24 lens...I shouldn't answer that ;^)
Below are a few quick snaps of my electric guitar, taken with the 14-24 lens on the D300...oh yah, I bought the guitar that I've lusted after for many a year a few weeks back.
The Fender Stratocaster (Strat) is the quintessential electric guitar. The shape is iconic and is immediately what most people think of when they think electric guitar. There was never any doubt that for my first electric guitar, it would be a Strat. The hardest choice was, which Strat to buy. There are so many to choose from at varying price levels. There are the cheap knock-offs, such as Squire Strats, then there are the real Fenders, but made in Mexico and then there are the higher-end models made in the good old USA. I eventually settled on an American Standard model in Candy Cola Red. I really wanted my Strat in a natural wood finish, but within each series, Fender only offers limited color choices and if the finish you desire is not available with the series you want to buy, tough luck. Maybe the custom shop models allow you to choose a color or finish, but I was out of luck for the natural wood finish with an aged stain. Red was my second choice finish. The American Standard Strats are the lowest cost models made in the USA and go for about $1k in Canada. The American Deluxe models go for a few hundred more and was what I thought I'd be going with, but amp and effects pedal costs had to be factored into the overall budget, so I went down a level for the guitar. The sales guy assured me that I would not be slumming it all with the American Standard Strat and that it's not so much lesser than it is just different, but he did acknowledge that the Deluxe models do have some better parts.
I'm not big into accoustic guitars, which is why I've been looking at the hollow and semi-hollow electric guitars, but if my skills improve, I eventually would like to get a 12-string accoustic, because the sound is so much richer than the standard six string. The first tune I've trying to learn is Dick Dale's Misirlou, but let's be honest here, I'm only trying to learn the opening riff to the song made famous by the movie Pulp Fiction. It seems like a simple enough riff to learn, because it's all on the first E string. You have to pick like mad with the right hand while the left hand slides up and down the frets along the single string. If I do it slowly, a person listening could probably hear a semblance of the classic surfer tune, but trying to do it with any speed results in a mess of uncoordinated fingers and picking. Chew gum and walk at the same time? Ah...no! This is definitely a situation where that old hoary chestnut of it's the carpenter, not the hammer rings true. Or, as you readers would usually hear, it's the photographer, not the camera. My Strat is fine, even if it's not the top-of-the-line model (photographically, it's equivalent to a Canon 40D). So, the brutal mess of noise emanating from the amp when I play it is indeed the result of an incompentent, axe-wielding carpenter. I feel like I'm back in 1997 when I bought the Nikon F70 SLR and had no inkling how to use the damn thing. You all know what's happened to me since that fateful summer in '97 ;^) Maybe in a few years, I'll have enough hours on the Strat to start GuitarHobby.com...
May 6, 2008 - Comment from the reader that called me on the "sucker's game" comment:
I want it all and I want it now! However, I tend to always think about weddings, events and sports in low light whenever I think about gear, so while a D3 would be very nice to have, the 200 f2 has been serenading me like a siren, beckoning me to come crash myself on the rocky shores.
The 200-400 lens is another wished for item and it's dropped about $2000 since it was first introduced, which puts it right in the D3 range. This would allow me to play at Mr. nature and wildlife photographer wannabe.
Lots of choices, so little money to make them with. May 5, 2008 - Two more lenses are now gone (12-24, 18-35) leaving just the 28-70 lens left from my garage sale. Take a wild guess as to what I'll be putting the proceeds to... Taking stock of what I sold versus what I bought and/or will buy and I'm (only a little bit) chagrinned by it all. Two D200 SLRs with MB-D200 grips had to be sold to finance the purchase of one D300 with the MB-D10 grip. Three lenses (12-24, 17-55, 18-35) had to be sold in order to generate enough moola to buy one new lens (hey, you're supposed to guess). And, I'm still hoping to sell one last lens, which would go towards the purchase of another lens. With the D300 and the 14-24 (was your guess right?) I at least did not have to invest "new" money for the purchases; all of it was from the sale of older gear. If the 28-70 lens also sells then I would have to invest some new money to complete the desired goal of getting a D300 along with the 14-24 and 24-70 lenses. If the 28-70 goes then the final tally of old versus new kit leaves me short one SLR and two lenses. However, given how I've come to feel about the D200, I'm more relieved and happy to say good riddance than to be non-plussed about being a camera short. The D200 was a good camera in its day, but its day has come and gone with the current D300 and Canon 40D being superior. With the lenses, I cannot recall the last time I used the 18-35 lens in a serious fashion, so selling it was no tear-jerker for me. Selling the two DX lenses means an eventual transition towards an FX SLR, on the hope that Nikon comes up with a 5D equivalent of its own. However, I'm keeping an eye on the pricing of the D3, which is now available for CDN $5000 in some shops and by the time the 2009 wedding season rolls around, the price could be palatable enough for me to swallow - on the assumption that I get enough jobs to warrant the purchase. Having a D3 (or D300 FX) along with the D300 would be a pretty nice kit to have. The D3 for the obvious available light moments, as well as for wide-angle photos, while the D300 would be more or less permanently attached to the 70-200 VR lens. I still have the 18-200 VR and Sigma 30 f1.4 lenses and they are the only DX lenses left now, but I see no reason to sell them. Together, they make a nice travel kit with the basic D300 in tow, because hauling around a D2X (or D3) is rather overkill unless the travel is photography-oriented. Of the other lenses remaining I would not mind dumping the two 50mm and one 85mm f1.8 lenses, but only when Nikon finally gets it act together and offers AF-S versions of them. These three lenses are now the only non-AFS ones I have (not counting my two old AI lenses). A newly designed 50 f1.4 (or f1.2) and 85 f1.4 AF-S would be lovely additions. Throw in a 24 f1.4 and I'd be in hog heaven. All just a matter of time...I hope. I said something about this being a sucker's game and a reader called me on it and said I was a sucker too, because I'm playing the game as well. Damn it, I guess I am 8^) May 4, 2008 - Further to my last post about upgrading lenses more frequently than previously thought, DPReview has posted its review of the Nikon 70-200 VR lens. Most users of this lens would have probably thought that the review would be another homerun style report for Nikon. Not so. As a DX lens, the review found little to fault the highly regarded medium telephoto zoom lens and indeed the words used were along the lines of, nearly flawless. However, on the D3, the reviewer was quite disappointed and found its performance more or less unacceptable for an expensive pro lens. It adds some fuel to the fire that maybe, just maybe, the rumour of a replacement holds some credence. The timing would be right given that Nikon has replaced the also highly regarded 28-70 for the 24-70 and the 17-35 for the 14-24 (although some might question whether the 17-35 should be retired by Nikon). The 70-200 VR is now five years old and while superb with DX SLRs, the high demands of the FX chip maybe showing up the DX biases of Nikon engineers back when the lens was on the drawing board. While I was not bothered by its flaws in the corners with full frame, that was with 35mm film (remember that), whereas most would agree that digital capture is more demanding and exacting of lens quality. If the D3 is showing the lenses flaws in the corners, imagine what a high-resolution 24 MP SLR will reveal. If I did own the D3, I wouldn't be too bothered by the performance of the 70-200 lens, because for the most part, I'd expect that I would still use it mostly with the D300 thanks to the 1.5x crop factor. However, if a Mk II version of the 70-200 VR lens does show up, I would probably be hammering away at the piggy bank and rushing to buy one, just as I did with the original five years ago. May 2, 2008 - A reader sent me this link about one person's custom storage array: http://www.mymovies.dk/forum.aspx?g=posts&t=6755 My response back was: HOLY SHIT! That is one f@#$ing awesome setup. The guy is my hero :-) Seriously, that is one mean-ass storage setup and once the 24 MP Nikon and Sony SLRs arrive, I can imagine a few photographers will need something similar once they start churning out those massive RAW files. Hell, probably more than a few pros shooting with the big-buck Phase, Leaf and Hasselblad digital backs could use something like this custom array. God, if I keep going, I'm gonna mess myself up 8^) I've been thinking about cameras and lenses (really, what a surprise), but not in the usual sense of lusting after the latest and greatest (well, not as much). The idea that lenses are for the long-term while cameras can come and go is one that some adhere to and I've heard of some photographers keeping almost every lens they've ever owned. Bjorn Rorslett comes to mind as a pro who has probably kept every single lens he's owned with his 100 or so Nikkors (give or take a few). While in the film era, one could at least hold onto a good camera for 7-8 years before a new one showed up, in the digital age, the time span is now, at best, three years and usually sooner, like two years. So, holding onto good lenses for the long-term sure as heck makes senses it seems and was what I thought I was going to do back in 2006, when I did my last major round of purchases. However, I'm not so sure about this long-term, Warren Buffet style, buy and hold strategy for lenses anymore. I sold my 17-55 DX lens and hopefully, sometime this week, I will receive word that two other lenses will also be sold too (I have a person helping me out). My oldest lens that I bought new is now the 70-200 VR lens, which is now a mature five years old. My newest is either the 105 VR Micro or the 18-200 VR lens - I can't remember which one I bought last, but I'm thinking the 18-200 lens. If the two lenses sell, it gives me, along with the 17-55 sale, enough to buy the 14-24 lens, while the 28-70 still remains in the stable. That's not so bad and it means I only lose the 4mm difference from 24mm to 28mm, in a three zoom lens kit that covers most of 14mm to 200mm. I wanted to sell the 28-70 lens too, because I also want the new 24-70 lens. A few people have asked why I want to sell the 28-70 lens, because I've stated that its a good sample and much better than the 35-70 lens that it supplanted. All I can say is that the 24-70 looks really nice and those in the know like it more than the already excellent 28-70. Time does not stand still and technology advances. Long-time readers might recall reading about 35-70 lens wherein I stated quite boldly that I would never sell it despite some shortcomings with ergonomics and lens range. The 28-70 lens changed all that and why would I ever want to use the 35-70 lens when I have a superior alternative available? There was no point keeping the 35-70 lens that I regarded as a paperweight after seeing the difference from the 28-70 lens. After that experience, I've been careful not to make such declarations anymore, because even the awesome 70-200 VR lens will eventually be replaced and so too will the much heralded 14-24 lens. It may be for a much longer period than SLRs, but nothing is forever. And, no, I'm not trying to make excuses to justify my latest desires...really 8^) May 1, 2008 - Reader's question:
If you're choosing between the D200 or D300, go straight to the D300 and never look back. While the D80 is considered to be a bit better than the D200 for higher ISO, the D300 appears to be much better - but, a caveat that I've taken very few photos with the D300 at this time. Physically and ergonomically, the D200 and D300 are nearly identical, but the D300 with its companion MB-D10 adds some nice upgrades. The most obvious is the three-inch LCD, but the grip also adds a small thumb controller so that you no longer have to do a big finger stretch to change focus points. The grip feels more solid than the MB-D200 and I like not having a stem that has to go into the camera's battery chamber. This makes the grip easier to store away in the camera bag if I decide that I want to go with a more compact camera. There's also no need to remove the original camera battery door either. Small things for sure, but nice that Nikon can continue improving the design. AF is faster and more sure, but in a quick test of using the outer focus points, those points still falter when trying to acquire focus on a low contrast subject. The center point and maybe the immediate one or two points surrounding it are more reliable, which is still much better than the D200, wherein even the center focus point still faltered when pushed, e.g. sports and fast moving subjects. I was using the 18-200 lens for this quick test, so the faster pro lenses could be better for this. Speed is very nice and as you might expect when using the larger EN-EL4 battery, the 50% increase in frame rate is noticeable. There will definitely be a more duplicates and triplicates if you set the D300 to 8 fps and Continuous focus mode with release priority, but I don't mind at all to get the faster frame rate. So, outwardly, while there does not appear to be huge differences between the D200 and D300, there's no doubt in my mind that the D300 is a worthwhile upgrade and I'm not looking at the Canon 40D as much as I used to :-) I've not used the D80, so cannot offer any comparison, but for event photography such as Bar Mitzvahs or weddings, I'm happier having the D300 available now with the ability to get cleaner ISO 1600 files and being able to push up to 3200 if need be. I'm quite confident that if you get a D300, the D80, D70 and D50 will quickly start to gather dust, because of its immediate superiority. Again, don't even bother with the D200. I can only imagine what a D3 would be like to cover an event... What's New Archives for 2007 - July to December |
Correspondence & About this website Copyright © 1998-2008 Edwin Leong |
|
  |
|
A few posts back, I hinted at finally giving into a long-time craving I've had since I was a kid. I finally gave in and bought a Fender Stratocaster electric guitar and now I'm going to work on imitating my Fender-using guitar heros of Mark Knopfler, David Gilmour, Eric Clapton and Jimi Hendrix.
I also bought a Fender Blues Junior tube amp and a Boss ME-20 multi effects pedal to get me going. I love it all and I can't wait until mid-June when I finally get my life back and can put some time on the new axe. However, gear junkie that I am, I'm already thinking about my next guitar. I thought I'd get myself an American series Fender Telecaster (and pretend to be Keith Richards or Bruce Springsteen), but now I'm thinking of an Ibanez semi-hollow guitar, which is a copy of the classic Gibson or Gretsch guitars favored by BB King (Gibson), Brian Setzer and the late Chet Atkins (Gretsch).
