Nikon Users

[Formatted]

Canon are the only ones to make a real macro lens:

Overread the topic name is "Nikon Users"

If your gonna buy a 600mm you are probably using it for sports or wildlife! So its great that you can manual focus at skiers going at 75 mph or a Osprey going at 60 mph! Thats fantastic wanna teach me?

If you are going to spend $4000 on a lens then you may as well dish out a-bit more for the AF-S version

 

[benhasajeep47 45]

Let me be clear with a 85mm filter size not focal length.

Why would filter size be important? It is a possible indication of the largest lens element used in a lens. But it has no bearing on the quality of the lens. Yes faster lenses let in more light, so naturally they will need a larger front element / larger filter. But going by filter size is no indication of a lens performance. Matter of fact most fast big lenses or very wide lenses use a rear filter that is fairly small. The front element is so large it was easier and less expensive to use a rear filter.

 

[Overread16 4]

Canon are the only ones to make a real macro lens:

Overread the topic name is "Nikon Users"

Yah I know, but Iwanted to point out that nikons can do everything with their lens range that any other company can barring high magnification macro (and that for most highmagnification macro is not a limit)

If your gonna buy a 600mm you are probably using it for sports or wildlife! So its great that you can manual focus at skiers going at 75 mph or a Osprey going at 60 mph! Thats fantastic wanna teach me?

If you are going to spend $4000 on a lens then you may as well dish out a-bit more for the AF-S version

This is a valid point to consider not only for the AF speed factor, but also because older MF camera bodies were easie to focus on manualy than most DSRLs. The viewfinder images were bigger and the viewfinder would have focusing aids built in - many DSLRs (esp entry level ones) have far smaller viewfinders and no focusing aids at all - they are made with AF being the dominant focusing method in mind.

Let me be clear with a 85mm filter size not focal length.

Why would filter size be important? It is a possible indication of the largest lens element used in a lens. But it has no bearing on the quality of the lens. Yes faster lenses let in more light, so naturally they will need a larger front element / larger filter. But going by filter size is no indication of a lens performance. Matter of fact most fast big lenses or very wide lenses use a rear filter that is fairly small. The front element is so large it was easier and less expensive to use a rear filter.

I'm also confused on this point as well and was going to mention it last night (but forgot to do so). Filter size is not what you want to be going on, heck if you want larger filters Sigma lenses tend to have larger filter sizes than most canon or nikon lenses. It won't tell you the quality of the lens at all

 

[Phranquey]

If you are going to spend $4000 on a lens then you may as well dish out a-bit more for the AF-S version

Are you going to dish out that bit more for me.... ??

I paid $2200 for my 500 f/4P. The AF-S version tends to go for $5000+ in VG condition, and I want nothing to do with the AF-I version.
I will have one eventually, but for now mine does plenty fine.... It's far better than the one I didn't have.

 

[Formatted]

There is a amazing deal in the UK for a 600mm f/4 AF-S £4890 INC VAT. Mental!

 

[christenajenifer]

I am using Nikon AF 135mm f/2 DC.Nikon AF 135mm f/2 DC is Nikon's, and arguably the world's, greatest portrait lens. It has a very similar smaller brother, the 105mm f/2 DC.

The 135mm DC is also Nikon's sharpest 135mm lens, and an extraordinarily great lens for nature and landscape photography