D3 FRUSTRATIONS!!! Is just me??? Is there a solution?

I am glad I am not alone...others have made me feel better as well. Thanks for taking the time to reply. Lost of good suggestions in this thread.

Rumors??? What rumors?

If Canon makes it...why hasn't Nikon already? Tamron did it...the 35-105/2.8 was a good lens. They messed it up with the 28-105...but they got it right on the 35-105.

I will try to test the 28-105 Wednesday evening. It definitely is not as good at 28mm as I would like. But I will try to get a test up ont he D3 compared to the 28-70 and 24-85. I was hoping the 28-105 was IT...but the lack of AFs really is a deal killer. And I KNEW it would be...but got one anyway.

It is unfortunately that the 24-120 VR can't be IT! I think CJ NCY sums it up...just not quite the lens I want.

But if you have news of a rumor...maybe I can make due for a while. It is not like I have any other choice...but I am thinking about going to pick up a D300 just because Nikon can't make the lens we need.

--
Drew
http://drewloker.com about.htm (me) (Equip list in Profile)

Thanks for sharing...glad to know I am not alone.

Did you buy your 24-120 new?

I would really like for the 24-120 to be THE lens. But I already onwed one...sold it to buy a 18-200. But your statement is exactly my impression from samples sent to me from people on ebay selling.

But I am just wondering if buying a brand new one might not have better results...getting something fresh off the assymbly line from Nikon.

--
Drew
http://drewloker.com about.htm (me) (Equip list in Profile)

turn the DX switch off in your brain! You got used to the DX crop of your lenses and now you must get used to a whole lot wider FX world! As simple as that.....
Viktor
'Happy shooting!'

Yes, mine was purchased brand new. I still own it but don't use it for anything critical. My 24-70 and 70-200 VR live on the D3 mainly.

24-120 is on my D3 most of the time now. It produces much better results than with my D2x.

I'll order one tonight if you can convince me it is good enough for a wedding.

Do you have any samples?

--
Drew
http://drewloker.com about.htm (me) (Equip list in Profile)

I have a reply I wrote to you...but I keep getting an error. ASP error on firefox...just a dead end via IE. Other replies work fine...checking with this simple reply...

Higuma said:

Drew Loker said:

17-35...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Drew Loker said:

This lens is not only great on DX but I honestly think that my D3
breathed a whole new life into it and at less than half the cost in a

Click to expand...

Well, I am definitely a bargain shopper...and I have looked at the 17-35...It certainly seems like that may be what I need to get. At first, I was considering this as an alternative to my 10-20...but rationalized that I would just continue to use it on the D300.

Drew Loker said:

Drew Loker said:

D200 to a D300?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Drew Loker said:

No Contest = the D300 is a far superior piece of equipment

Click to expand...

WoW!!! What a decisive position! I was shocked at the D300 when I held one at BB last week...almost walked out with one. I was really impressed. I had been telling myself that it can't be that much better than the D200. I had already talked myself out of the rigors of buying another DSLR and selling another. But holding it in my hand...I can see why lots of people opt for it instead of the D3. There are lots of things I really like about the D3. I actually really like the dual card slot...I feel much safer as I shoot in Backup mode when shooting events. Besides, my wife mostly shoots with the D200...so, if I get a D300...it would be for me to start shooting with two cameras again...and that is so lame when I was perfectly happy shooting with one D2h...with her shooting the D200. Recently, I have even been using a 2nd D200 and a D40 as other cameras at a wedding with different lenses for different needs, like the 70-200 on the D40 as the ultimate back of church bazooka...quiet...performs well at high ISO...but that is Before FX. Now it is all confusing. I sold the extra D200 thinking the D3 is all I needed. Now I am learning that I need a DX body to round out the D3????

Drew Loker said:

really didn't understand wide as well as I thought - Big Wake up
call... I too understood how it worked but it took me a long time to

Click to expand...

What have you realized? What am I missing?

Drew Loker said:

This is were a 2 camera set up comes in.... 17-35@FX with 24-70@DX
gives me 17-105 F2.8 constant with gold ring / L-glass quality optics
True I would die for that in just one lens - someday perhaps

Click to expand...

Well, I feel better that I am not alone. It has seemed by several early replies...and other threads...that it was just me. But some later replies have come in with the idea that it is not just me. Nikon needs to give us the right tool...soon. I don't think it should be necessary to have to carry two cameras around my neck. I am willing to...and have done so since as early as 1988! In the early days...it was to have slide and b&w films at the same time. In recent years...it was usually to have one really wide...and one really long. At my most recent weddings, I personally was shooting with three cameras with three different lenses. But my complaint is that there isn't a good lens for right in the middle. 24/28-70 isn't it! At least not on a D3.

(to be cont)
http://drewloker.com about.htm (me) (Equip list in Profile)

Higuma said:

Drew Loker said:

I just don't know what to do to replace the 28-70 on the D3.

Click to expand...

Don't replace it - put it on a D300 = great combo... then put a
70-200 on a D3 and you can shoot with only a 35mm overlap

Click to expand...

It shouldn't be this way...we just need a 35-105/2.8 VR AFs.

Drew Loker said:

At F2.8 constant with VR on the long end in combo with the BEST low
Light sensor on the market - killer combo

Click to expand...

If I do this...at least I would still probably shoot the 24-85 on the D300...because on a DX sensor, the 24-85 is a really good lens.

Drew Loker said:

You need a D300 as secondary for your style and clients

Click to expand...

I will go back to BB today to look again at the merits of the camera, another grip, etc. WoW! What a bummer!

Thanks for helping to brainstorm! (strange that this email had to be slit into two)

http://drewloker.com about.htm (me) (Equip list in Profile)

This is an interesting thread and similar to my situation.

I generally like the longer reach of DX and wondered how the D300 is as a second camera to the D3 as far as the button layout and menu options go. With my D2X and D200 I always found myself pushing the wrong buttons for playback and zoom on the D200.

Rick
--

Have a system to achieve work you are proud of, that can absorb the problems that inevitably happen when you are in a hurry.

Well, here's a couple. They've all had post processing but when all is said and done, I get results from the lens that I'm happy with. The first two were with my D2x. The ATV shot was with the D3.

Two separate concerns - lens performance and autofocus. Autofocus is a known problem with the new AF system design in the D3 and D300 with the very tight grouping of the cross type sensors (the ones that work best in low light).

The only lens you mentioned using that should be expected to produce sharp images is the 28-70mm f2.8 lens. No surprise that you got soft images with the 28-105mm lens - why do you think it was up for sale?

Try the 50mm f1.4 or 85mm f1.4 to see what this camera can do with sharp lenses. Why would you think it could be otherwise? An excellent camera is not going to compensate for a $100 lens, in fact quite the reverse. You might as well be shooting with a D40.

Unfortunately Nikon at the present time does not produce a lens that is equivalent to the Canon L 24-105mm f4 IS lens that covers this range and is pro grade lens in every sense.

I can't find it here..

What do you care about the 28mm on the lens. You don't need anything wide anyway. If it works say, 50 and up, that's all you need isn't it?

Wow! Thanks for the link. That is a pretty cool place. I was just about to say that I don't really have a place to rent as I am about 100 miles from Houston. I have looked into paying the daily rental...but when you factor in having to pay for time in transit, it gets pretty silly. But this place rents by the week...and that is pretty cool. But then I see they aren't really renting any BIG glass. I may just buy the 24-120...buy it...try it...I can always sell it for nearly the same.

Now, I WOULD like to rent a 200-400.
--
Drew
http://drewloker.com about.htm (me) (Equip list in Profile)

Thanks for the reply. It is a good question. Actually, I used initially a 35-105 Nikon for a lot of years. Then, I had a lab that insisted in a fixed focal length for dance package processing...or they would charge more...so I got a 35-105/2.8 from Tamron. Both lenses were good lenses. I used the Tamron right up until the day I got a D100. The 35-105 was not a D lens...so...I downgraded first to a 24-135 (it was not as good as the 35-105)...then the finally got the 28-70.

You are correct...it shouldn't be that different from shooting during the film days. But I think a lot has change since the film days. I for one shoot 5 times as many pictures as wedding. For better or for worse, I am having more fun...and the clients like it better. But it is much faster shooting. Weddings seem different also. I have been shooting for over 20 years. And times are different. I am different. Weddings are different. The type of weddings I do are different.

Point is...it should be the same...but 1) things are different and 2) I want a pro level 35-105.

--
Drew
http://drewloker.com about.htm (me) (Equip list in Profile)

George

Hmmm. I am not seeing what you are seeing. Thanks for replying...both of you all. No offense taken...and I do appreciate you taking the time to critique. But I don't see what you are talking about. numerous shots were shot from one knee when I was shooting the bride sitting down. And I frequently crouch down and ensure that I am shooting on level.

Do you have a specific picture in mind? More than just a couple? I see a couple when I shot down on a table grouping. But for the most part, as I review the gallery myself, I don't see a lot of what you are talking about. Like, take 120 for example. Is there a problem with it????

As far as the lighting...I realized after the fact that it was bright enough in the room that I should have shot on S or shutter priority and bumped the SS up a bit. 1/60 was too slow. but as far as the flash being too bright...I kind of prefer that...as opposed to bounced lighting...like off the ceiling.

Thanks for your time!
--
Drew
http://drewloker.com about.htm (me) (Equip list in Profile)

no text