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. 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... » Read More 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. « Show Less
1325253
Hello, I think I can help. It sounds like in your case, you want to get a true tilt shift lens for architectural photography. Canon makes some very nice ones. Yes, they cost more, but those lenses will enable you to have the proper control of each axis to compose your subjects. They're also probably better optically and will probably give you auto focus control and all that nice stuff. The LensBaby follows the principles of a tilt shift lens, but is much more of a free form, special effect lens. When you tilt and shift with the LensBaby, it creates more of an exaggerated, dreamlike blur that is very cool, but probably not what you're looking for when photographing buildings. Hello, I think I can help. It sounds like in your case, you want to get a true tilt shift lens for architectural photography. Canon makes some very nice ones. Yes, they cost more, but those lenses will enable you to have the proper control of each axis to compose your subjects. They're also probably better optically and will probably give you auto focus control and all that nice stuff. The LensBaby follows the principles of a tilt shift lens, but is much more of a free form, special effect lens. When you tilt and shift with the LensBaby, it creates more of an exaggerated, dreamlike blur... » Read More Hello, I think I can help. It sounds like in your case, you want to get a true tilt shift lens for architectural photography. Canon makes some very nice ones. Yes, they cost more, but those lenses will enable you to have the proper control of each axis to compose your subjects. They're also probably better optically and will probably give you auto focus control and all that nice stuff. The LensBaby follows the principles of a tilt shift lens, but is much more of a free form, special effect lens. When you tilt and shift with the LensBaby, it creates more of an exaggerated, dreamlike blur that is very cool, but probably not what you're looking for when photographing buildings. « Show Less
1325254
A tilt-shift lens is larger, more flexible and various in its applications, and is used mostly with field cameras. A lens baby although similar in concept, is more limited and is made for 35 mm cameras.
714654
Totally different animal. For architecture you need a real tilt shift. Lensbaby is not built the same.
518863
I have this lens, I used it for several months before upgrading to the 75-300 IS USM. If you don't want blurry pictures then you will have to spend the money on better tools. I take a lot of bird pictures and was able to track them using the non IS lens but it was very difficult and unless the pools where the competitions are held are in bright light you won't get sharp pictures. I did try using this one at our dance hall, (poor light for pictures) I eventually had to go to a 50 mm 1.4 that does great in low light. You wanting telephoto though, for the money the 75-300 IS at about $450 was the way that I decided to go and I really like what I get now. I have had my t2i for nearly two and a half years. Hope this helps you a little bit. If you want to see a few of my shots with the IS lens. My flickr page is lightninrod49.
1580106
This lens is useful in many low light situations. it is like the 50mm 1.4G (only bigger, longer, heavier, sharper and a lot more expensive). Compared to the 50mm 1.4G, it also and requires more light due to the longer focal length. Is it suitable for museum or church or any indoor shoot? Yes. Is it worth the price? That depends. IMHO, 50mm can perform that just as well, except it does not that reach.
542246
I've found that this lens is more valuable as a wide-angle lens on a full frame camera. On a crop camera, it feels more like a portrait lens. That being said, it's an amazing lens. I'd like to add that Sigma has released a very worthy and cost effective alternative, which you may want to consider. I happen to own the Canon version, but I've read great reviews of the Sigma.
1260669
USM lenses uses a non motor to focus and it has less vibration. is it worth the difference, perhaps to a professional or a real dedicated photographer. I guess if I had the bucks I'd have many great lenses. The lense you have in question, this one sells for less then $150 in my opinion is not a great lense and has a short life span.
194933
Bill, there are a few variables... Do you plan to go to a FX sensor in the future (D700, D3)? Do you plan on hand-holding or will you be using a mono/tripod? Are you someone that must have the latest and greatest things? Personally I'm going for the VR II, I shoot a D90 now but want to have room to move to a FX camera without worrying about vignetting and edge sharpness. Plus after looking at some of the review pictures that people have posted, especially the side by side shots, I think the VR II is worth the extra $500
692071
the dx unless you plan on moving up to a full frame camera in the future. if you're not going to go full frame don't waste the $ on the fx lens. I have both these lenses, the dx I got first when I first started out, then recently the fx when I got a full frame camera. I've used the fx version on my d7000 (dx body) and honestly I see no real difference between the dx and fx lens on a dx body. even after pixel peeping quite a bit I was really at a loss as to which one was better, they both looked really good.
568654
Very bad in my experience with it. It's a good camera outdoors, especially on sunny days. Indoors, the combo of the long zoom and small sensor make for dark pics and/or blurry pics. Almost all cameras are trade-offs. This one's trade0offs were not for me. The FZ150 is a much better camera and the FZ200 is probably better yet. The FZ200 is expensive, so not a truly fail comparison. It is also bigger.The best compact in the world right now (my belief and that of many others) has a 3 -4 x zoom and a 1" sensor and costs $650 --- the Sony RX100. It's the same size as the ZS15 or maybe even a bit smaller. I wish it were cheaper !!! :-). Very bad in my experience with it. It's a good camera outdoors, especially on sunny days. Indoors, the combo of the long zoom and small sensor make for dark pics and/or blurry pics. Almost all cameras are trade-offs. This one's trade0offs were not for me. The FZ150 is a much better camera and the FZ200 is probably better yet. The FZ200 is expensive, so not a truly fail comparison. It is also bigger.The best compact in the world right now (my belief and that of many others) has a 3 -4 x zoom and a 1" sensor and costs $650 --- the Sony RX100. It's the same size as the ZS15 or... » Read More Very bad in my experience with it. It's a good camera outdoors, especially on sunny days. Indoors, the combo of the long zoom and small sensor make for dark pics and/or blurry pics. Almost all cameras are trade-offs. This one's trade0offs were not for me. The FZ150 is a much better camera and the FZ200 is probably better yet. The FZ200 is expensive, so not a truly fail comparison. It is also bigger.The best compact in the world right now (my belief and that of many others) has a 3 -4 x zoom and a 1" sensor and costs $650 --- the Sony RX100. It's the same size as the ZS15 or maybe even a bit smaller. I wish it were cheaper !!! :-). « Show Less
425390
Depends on what you need it for. The EF version is just as good for all intents and purposes...the extra $400 is for the Image Stabilization. Do you need IS? The main reason for IS is if you also plan on using it as a medium telephoto prime lens (such as for portraits). If so, then yes! I did, and I'm very happy. But if all I needed it for was to take photos of small inanimate objects while using a tripod, then I would have gone with the EF version and saved the $400!
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!
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.
1841396
Once I got thinking about this I realized I had no idea given the 180º of view (not knowing if the usual crop sensor issue would come into play), so I checked here:http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/simulator/and it doesn't seem to. So, to answer the actual question:Awesomeness, that's what happens. The lens is so incredibly fun. It totally opened up all sorts of shooting I'd been wanting to do, and even opened my eyes to shooting I didn't realize I wanted to do. I can't express how much I love this lens. Rarely leaves the camera. The focusing distance is incredible also (5-6" I believe). Absolutely worth the money. Once I got thinking about this I realized I had no idea given the 180º of view (not knowing if the usual crop sensor issue would come into play), so I checked here:http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/simulator/and it doesn't seem to. So, to answer the actual question:Awesomeness, that's what happens. The lens is so incredibly fun. It totally opened up all sorts of shooting I'd been wanting to do, and even opened my eyes to shooting I didn't realize I wanted to do. I can't express how much I love this lens. Rarely leaves the camera. The focusing... » Read More Once I got thinking about this I realized I had no idea given the 180º of view (not knowing if the usual crop sensor issue would come into play), so I checked here:http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/simulator/and it doesn't seem to. So, to answer the actual question:Awesomeness, that's what happens. The lens is so incredibly fun. It totally opened up all sorts of shooting I'd been wanting to do, and even opened my eyes to shooting I didn't realize I wanted to do. I can't express how much I love this lens. Rarely leaves the camera. The focusing distance is incredible also (5-6" I believe). Absolutely worth the money. « Show Less
575221
I agree and have noticed that as well. I bought the older version and have been pleased with it. I have also not read complaints about the newer version. It may be as simple as supply and demand or something we are not aware of. You might check review sites just to make sure the version 2 is well rated and then go for it if it's cheaper. The 20MM has been a great lens, I have received compliments about my photo's and 9 times out of 10, it's taken with the 20mm.
1561298
when u r spending that kind of money, go for the L lens. It just makes more sense. The difference in optical quality is night and day.
1216094
It has a non-removable built in lens hood (I assume that's what you mean by "shade") which obstructs the edges of the picture if you have a full frame sensor. It does not obstruct a cropped sensor. If you have a full frame camera then there's a version with the hood removed for $60 more, which is worth it because then you can get an image which is circular, though still clipped along the sensor short axis. It's also possible to find people who will remove the hood, which is what I recently had done with mine. This is a fun lens, I have been really happy with the results from mine.
294922
Mindy,I have this lens, and it's my favorite piece of gear I own. It's sharp at 1.4 (no other lens I own is as sharp as this one wide open) and it has sick contrast. I found that the 24/1.4 was too wide and added distortion and the 50/1.4 was too tight. The 35/1.4 is my go-to for any portrait session. It would be great for a newborn session because you could use it to capture the whole nursery, and you could shoot portraits without distorting the baby too much. I wouldn't recommend shooting super close to someone's face with this lens because you will see a little bit of distortion, but take a step back and you're golden. Mindy,I have this lens, and it's my favorite piece of gear I own. It's sharp at 1.4 (no other lens I own is as sharp as this one wide open) and it has sick contrast. I found that the 24/1.4 was too wide and added distortion and the 50/1.4 was too tight. The 35/1.4 is my go-to for any portrait session. It would be great for a newborn session because you could use it to capture the whole nursery, and you could shoot portraits without distorting the baby too much. I wouldn't recommend shooting super close to someone's face with this lens because you will see a little bit of... » Read More Mindy,I have this lens, and it's my favorite piece of gear I own. It's sharp at 1.4 (no other lens I own is as sharp as this one wide open) and it has sick contrast. I found that the 24/1.4 was too wide and added distortion and the 50/1.4 was too tight. The 35/1.4 is my go-to for any portrait session. It would be great for a newborn session because you could use it to capture the whole nursery, and you could shoot portraits without distorting the baby too much. I wouldn't recommend shooting super close to someone's face with this lens because you will see a little bit of distortion, but take a step back and you're golden. « Show Less
2228567
Thanks Branden, I didn't think it was a "macro" lens, but wanted to ask. I'm planning on buying this lens when ever I decide I can afford a $1,000 lens. I've since purchased the Canon 60mm EF-S Macro lens and like it very much.