Clubby

I really don't know. This at places borderlines on tinfoil-hat esoterics. He takes a picture of an an asian model and says "Look how flat the chin and nose are!", then he posts a picture of a big ...

This is wrong. The wider you go, the more substantial every millimeter gets. the differences between 18 and 24 in perspective are much bigger and much more dramatic than between 50 and 85, ...

I think that there will be shortages of the 18-50 when the DLs are released. when the first reviews roll in and the image quality will be as good as expected I for one will be all over this. 18-50 ...

Honestly the new 1.8 wide angle primes by Nikon (20mm, 24mm) are so good that the D Version is a waste of money especially on a high MP camera like th D810. You really don't buy such a camera to ...

No. Nikon just treats APSC as consumer sector and wants you to buy full frame if you want to take it more seriously.

the 28 f/2.8D is notorious for being one of the not so good lenses in Nikons history and from my experience this is an understatement. 20, 24 and 35 in the D-Line are all better.

First off, he and I where talking about Picasso. If you too think that Picasso is where he is in history because some money grabbing gallerists told "us" so, than you have the worldview of a five ...

This is just plain bad, there is no way around it. One illness that befalls you when you are starting out is that everything suddenly seems interesting to you, because you want to take pictures. ...

You may think this is edgy and all but honestly, those hillbilly-kinds of remarks are a dime a dozen, it is so boring and unoriginal that I'm falling asleep writing this. Ask random people on the ...

I didn't mean to belittle the 28mm. The 1.8G line is just so strong in its pricerange that this even subtle disadvantages tend to get blown up. Just like the vignetting of the 35mm (FX) wide open ...

In theory yes but in practice there might not be enough light for that to ensure a proper exposure, especially not in natural light and with longer focal lengths. For a sharp photo it is much more ...

You are looking in the wrong places. The difference between your and her pictures is mainly LIGHT. You had flat muddy boring lighting, her subjects are all bathed in warm golden hour sunlight. ...

No, the Nikon 50mm 1.8G would be way better than the tamron. Half the price of the 1.4 and sharper. If she really knows why she wants the 50mm 1.4 (bokeh) than the tamron is no competition either. ...

Considering that this isn't exactly the best lens in Nikons line up the pictures are perfectly fine. Light is bad so it doesn't appear as contrasty as it propably could be but it's what you would ...

I have both and I don't see much difference wide open, the 35mm is a little sharper yes but that doesn't mean that it can replace a 50. I don't get all the bad reviews the 50 1.8G gets in here. ...

The 28mm while still good, seems to be the worst of the 1.8G primes so far, mainly because of its hard to correct distortion and sharpness issues. The 24mm seems similar in quality to the 20mm ...

There are mostly two concerns: 1. Nikon doesn't share how their systems work with third parties (AF etc.). So third parties have to backwards-engineer everything. It is a fact that ...

The 14-24 2.8 is still king but is closely followed by tamrons 15-30, a fantastic lens for the price. The 16-35 f/4 is not worth it any more because the 18-35 3.5-4.5 is sharper, cheaper and much ...

I would never go with third party lenses unless I absolutely have to, especially if you need it as an everyday work-horse. The danger of getting a turd is much too high with third-parties ...

That is of course your perogative but that notion of art is from the 16th century and it will be very hard to understand art today with this mindset.