Can someone comment on how this is different from a "tilt-shift" lens costing hundreds of dollars more? I want to get into the realm of architectural photography, and was told a tilt-shift would be great to have, but LensBaby was also mentioned.
714654
Totally different animal. For architecture you need a real tilt shift. Lensbaby is not built the same.
725615
I am a professional photographer. Portrait mostly but some weddings. This is my go to lens. I love it. Great build, sharp, fast, quiet great lens in my opinion. For a point of reference you can check out my website with pics mostly taken with this lens. www.lbd-studio.com Hope that helps. Amanda
1044998
I just went through the same decision process, in fact I literally bought the D60+ lens kit and returned it (package unopened) for the D80 (body only) + the fabulous 18-200 VR lens. Why? 1) I wanted the additional metering controls vs. the D60 and in fact used all of them on my recent trip to the Hoh rain forest. 2) Keeping to my budget, I opted to spend the money on the 18-200mm VR, and yes, I used its FULL RANGE without having to change lenses. A great way to go when outdoors and taking advantage of opportunities as they present themselves (e.g. deer twins walking right towards us while on the trail!). 3) Quickly realizing the super-zoom wasn't going to get me a FAST lens, I was able to pick up the 50mm f/1.4 right before my travels (which would NOT have AF working with the D40 or D60). If I had the $$$ I might have opted for a D300 and picked up the D40/60 for a lightweight second body, but as the only Digital SLR that I'll be using for the next couple of years, and the small price difference, I am extremely happy with my purchase.
143452
It is a really nice lens. Though if you want portrait or medium telephoto, the 135 f/2 or the 70-200 f/2.8 are both fantastic as well, and maybe better suited.
212784
Wanted to let you all know that I decided on the D7000 and picked one up today. Couldn't be happier. Continuous autofocus during video shooting is useless on it, but I'm learning to manually focus, which is actually more rewarding for me; when shooting at f/1.8 you can get a very cinematic look focusing manually, even when you're chasing around your twin toddlers!
369535
I own the D80 with 18-135 lens and love it. Yes, you sacrifice a tad of fabulousness by picking the lens with the broader range, but I wanted bang-for-buck versatility first. I recommend getting at least *one* of the Nikon-Nikkor lenses, since they have proprietary circuitry that (I believe) the after-markets don't. The one thing you'd gain by starting with the 18-55 lens is that it *is* quite a bit smaller. I hate to mention it here, but I found - post-purchase - my local (Atlanta) membership w'house had a kit with *both* lenses for less than I paid for the body + lens.
775711
sorry, did not see this until now. Hope you bought the lens - awesome. It has image stabilization 3 choices off and 2 on's. one for vertical and one for horizontal movement. Here are some butterflies I photo'd with it. www.patricialamphotography.com/flowers/flowers (yes twice on flowers) first 3 photos. very sharp. Wish my Canon 85 mm f1.4 and 24-70 f2.8 had image stabilization. Sorry for the delay
2123153
Although the original Poster has probably long since made her decision, other interested potential buyers may find a visit to the Ken Rockwell forum worthwhile here, since he really spends time reviewing and discussing the pro's and cons of these two lenses. Definitely worth the visit...http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/10-24mm.htm#comparedDefinitely worth a read!
134990
Hello. I purchased tis lens and I can not be happier with it. The image quality comapred to the sigma to em is superior. LEss Chromatic Averration and way less distrotions on the edge of the frame on full frame cameras.Build is oustanding and I do used it for my paid jobs. Lokk at this link so you cna see some of the images of this magnificent and very good quality lens:http://fmta.com.mx/index.php/galerias-de-fotos/galeriasolimpiadas2014/64-olimpiadasclasificatorias2
560626
Thanks Kin.Actually, I'm looking for something smaller than a reflex on which I could occasionnaly use my nikon lenses.After using a bit an oly e-p2, i'm a bit confused ; it's better than I thought, and has the IS build in.Does anyone know if nikon will release a micro 4/3 camera soon ?
305772
The Image Quality of this lens is phenomenal. My Key Points that makes this lens Better than the 28-300:-Razor Sharp-Compact/light weight-1.8/f aperture for indoor photography-Having it a prime isn't as versatile, but creates a creative atmosphere for you to be challenged. -Good for Group shots, as well as portraits-Did I mention it has a GOLD RING on it? :D-Little distortion, but what do you expect from anything under 35mm-It is my to-go travel lens because I am most likely going to take scenic pictures and not birds-Shallow depth of field and the bokeh is awesome! with little natural Vignetting, I think it is a bit pleasing. The Image Quality of this lens is phenomenal. My Key Points that makes this lens Better than the 28-300:-Razor Sharp-Compact/light weight-1.8/f aperture for indoor photography-Having it a prime isn't as versatile, but creates a creative atmosphere for you to be challenged. -Good for Group shots, as well as portraits-Did I mention it has a GOLD RING on it? :D-Little distortion, but what do you expect from anything under 35mm-It is my to-go travel lens because I am most likely going to take scenic pictures and not birds-Shallow depth of... » Read More The Image Quality of this lens is phenomenal. My Key Points that makes this lens Better than the 28-300:-Razor Sharp-Compact/light weight-1.8/f aperture for indoor photography-Having it a prime isn't as versatile, but creates a creative atmosphere for you to be challenged. -Good for Group shots, as well as portraits-Did I mention it has a GOLD RING on it? :D-Little distortion, but what do you expect from anything under 35mm-It is my to-go travel lens because I am most likely going to take scenic pictures and not birds-Shallow depth of field and the bokeh is awesome! with little natural Vignetting, I think it is a bit pleasing. « Show Less
32352
If money is a concern, try the "fantastic plastic" or sometimes called the "nifty fifty". That's the Canon EOS 50mm f/1.8. Great lens. Best optics per dollar, for sure. Only complaint people have had has been about the quality of background blur when shooting wide open. I haven't had an issue personally, it's acceptable for the price. It IS rather ugly compared to the quality of bokeh on the f/1.2L .. But you can buy 15 of the 1.8s for the price of the 1.2, so that's to be expected.The 1.4 has had some great reviews as well.
583554
I found that the photo's I've taken with this lens are much sharper. It's almost like the kit lens was looking through a double paned window in comparison. The color saturation seems to be better too, but it could be due to the crispness of the image. If your unsure - rent one and compare, or find a friend willing to share and try it for a day. This lens is much heavier to carry (more elements means more weight). I don't find this a fault.
1429333
This is a good lens. If you are urgent to have it for business or travel, I would suggest you to buy it immediately. Otherwise, I would suggest you to buy one during holiday season, e.g., Thanksgiving. This lens is very sharp and its IQ is pretty good to focus on the object. Good luck and enjoy using it.
1742091
Thanks to the comments here I now know why I was getting blurry photos. My lens gives unacceptable results in portrait mode, but does very well in landscape mode. Therefore it's leaving my collection and getting replaced with a 70-200mm f/4.
1474695
Not that this will be of much help, but I'm with you. Ordered a 24mm 1.4 (later returned) expecting the same jaw-dropping results I get from the 85mm 1.4 and it's just not there that I can see. As far as your suggestion of getting closer to your subject for pop - sure, a wide angle lens will really exaggerate the perceived depth of a shot. That's how I'd roll with it for the most part; 2' from the subject (more for DX frame), avoiding top and bottom when shooting vertical (unless you want that edge distortion; maybe not so bad on DX). The sharpness you're looking for also won't exist until you get close enough to your subject to give eyelashes and things of that nature some pixels to work with. At 85mm, it pulls these details in and paints them across, say, 5% of the frame or more. With the 24mm you may be talking about less than 1% of the pixels dedicated to what you're looking for details in. I've seen some REALLY spectacular night landscape images that were made with this lens. Also, the bokeh that lens produces is right on par with the 85mm. The issues I had with the 24mm (and the reasons I returned it) were failure to find focus at 1.4 no matter how much I helped it along and a general lack of spectacular sharpness at 1.4. At this end of the price spectrum, this has to be gold. It's real close, and quite nice at 2.8, but so are lots of lenses at 2.8. That said, I've still got this lens on my mind. If it were a 20mm 1.4 I'd just suck it up and do it. At 24 there are some other close options out there.
1611414
I have had both versions of the lens and definitely preferred the one with IS. With that said, the difference in price is significant and the non-stabilized version produces superb images. If you are shooting outdoors with plenty of light it is perfect. If light is an issue when shooting I would definitely save up for the IS version.