Here’s a list of some new gear I’ve acquired over the past few months during my dry spell on this blog.

A couple of new lenses I picked up are the Nikon 10.5mm f/2.8 Fish Eye lense and the Nikon 180mm f/2.8 AF lense both new. These two lenses are really a lot of fun. The Nikon 180mm is a great lense because it is smaller and more compact than the now legendary 70-200mm VR zoom. I find the Nikon 180mm to be an awesome lense for pounding the pavement looking for cool street shots. I’m not an in your face photographer so this is the perfect lense to sit back and look somewhat unnoticed. It’s also reasonably fast and the quality is superb, not to mention the Bokeh as well. I definitely do not find this to be a redundant lense at all to the 70-200mm. The size and weight are just too different. Also, the 180mm has a 72mm diameter versus the 77mm of the 70-200mm VR lense.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the Nikon 10.5mm fish eye is a blast. I highly recommend this lense to anyone and everyone looking for something new and different. The only downside to this lense is the price. It’s a bit pricey and was not easy to buy even though I have all these lenses. However, I find myself not leaving home without the lense and the number of keepers is excellent. I love this lense along with the 180mm. In a way, they both make excellent street lenses.

I also purchased a second Nikon D200 body. The Nikon D70s was great as my former backup, but there something to be said for having two bodies of the same model. I find moving between both bodies to be much easier now. I should also note that I have my wife and a couple of associates who all use my D200’s during shoots, so it’s just plain easier to communicate with one another when we are all using the same camera model. I thought about the Pro Nikon D2Xs, but that’s just too much money at once for me to fork over considering my level of expertise and the fact that for me, I have rather enjoyed my pro lenses a little better than the camera bodies. That’s just me though.

What’s next on my lense lust list?? Why it’s the Nikon 105mm F/2 DC lense of course.

Possibly Related Posts:

• Historic Lanterns Japan
• Making the Connection
• Blind Fashion Japan Self Portrait
• Narrow Margin
• High Key Lantern

Not to long ago I received an email from a reader and for some reason my reply did not get delivered. So I thought I would post their question here and do my best to answer in the hopes they will visit my blog again in the future. Here’s the email:

Dear Jim,
I am considering purchasing several lenses for my wedding work. I realize you are not a wedding photographer but you have the two lenses that I am considering. I would appreciate your opinion as to which one would serve my purposes best as a mid range low light wedding lens. The two lenses are Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 and the Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8. The other lenses I now have are 24-120mm f/3.5, 50mm f/1.4, 70-200 f/2.8. I am also considering the Nikon 12-24mm f/4.0. Any advice will be greately appreciated.
Thanks, David

Of the two lenses that were mentioned in the above email, I would have to say my favorite is the Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 lense. There are several reasons for this which are as follows:

1. I’ve rarely experienced any flaring or color fringing.
2. My percentage of keepers is very high with the Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 lense.
3. I like to fill the frame as much as possible which is easier with the 28-70mm for me.
4. The sharpness and picture quality just seems better to me.
5. The color is also very nice and a little on the saturated side which fits my style.

The Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 is also a great lense and I often take it out when I quickly need a lense for events or nothing in particular. The problem I have with this lense is that I tend to get more flaring and color fringing on sunny days. Plus the color cast seems more apparent than the 28-70mm. If I were shooting a wedding on a sunny day with the 17-55mm I probably would be worried a little bit, but in the hands of an accomplished photographer, that may not be a problem.

I first bought the Nikon 17-55 back in January of 2006 right after Christmas. The lense was pretty hot back then and without much research I decided to buy it in my hometown of Seattle after receiving my new Nikon D200. Later, I had the opportunity to splurge and buy the Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 and almost instantly I noticed the difference in picture quality. At least with my copies of both lenses, the difference was apparent which really surprised me. This lead down the path of curiousity about the Nikon 17-35mm lense and it’s supposed legendary status. Not too long thereafter, I purchased an $800 dollar copy from Ebay in California. WoW! The 17-35mm was suddenly the best lense I had ever owned. The color and sharpness was astonishing. Thus I settled on the Nikon 17-35mm and Nikon 28-70mm has my mid-range lense setup. Hands down, I feel the 17-35 is much better than the 17-55mm, however there is a loss of range which is a problem for some. In addition, I don’t think the 17-35mm makes a very good portrait lense because of some slight barrel distortion around 17mm. However, the real glory of the legendary Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 is when shooting Landscapes and not Weddings of course.

Also mentioned in the email is the Nikon 12-24mm f/4 lense. I have this one too and in addition just recently acquired the Nikon 10.5mm Fish eye lense. Truthfully, I haven’t done much work with the 12-24mm but it is a good wide angle lense. It does have some distortion on the wide end at 12mm, but that is to be expected. The Nikon 10.5 Fish Eye is just awesome. I love this little lense and highly recommend it for those times when you’re bored and want to try something different. I acually find myself not leaving home without it now because it is so much fun. There is obvious barrel distortion with this lense, but that is supposed to happen so I just make it work… and boy does it work! You can’t really compare the Nikon 10.5 with the 12-24mm in my opinion because they are two different styled lenses for different purposes. If I did have to make a choice between the two wide angle lenses though, I would definitely buy the Nikon 10.5mm Fish Eye. It’s just a fun little lense that makes photography much more enjoyable.

Please note that these comments are not technical, nor are they from an individual who pretends to be any sort of professional photographer. Photography is a both a hobby and a profession for me, but most of all I am about having fun with my camera. My comments about the lenses above are based on my style and the limited experience I have with the equipment and for that matter photography itself. However, I do strongly believe that all of my Nikon Lenses are in excellent working order with the exception of the Nikon 17-35mm purchased brand new. So, if I say the Nikon 28-70mm looks better than the 17-55mm, I don’t think that means I have a bad copy of the 17-55mm. They are both good, I just seem to think my pictures look better most of the time when produced with the Nikon 28-70mm or 17-35mm lenses.

Thanks for the email David and my apologies for the not being able to get my reply through. Hopefully you’ll be able to read this blog post in time to help with a very difficult decision indeed. They are all great lense thats for sure. Enjoy!

Possibly Related Posts:

• Historic Lanterns Japan
• Making the Connection
• Blind Fashion Japan Self Portrait
• Narrow Margin
• High Key Lantern