Ok, so I indulged

myself and bought a new lens: Nikon’s newest mid-range zoom and so far their best. I currently own an older model, Nikkor 35-70mm f/2.8 AF. Here’s a side by side comparison. The AF ZOOM Nikkor 35-70mm f/2.8 followed by Nikon’s newest AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 G ED




I have shot a lot of college basketball games and I typically use a tele-zoom and then switch to a mid-range for shots under the hoop. That is when I noticed the drastic differences between the glare my Nikon 70-200 VR II produced in comparison to my AF ZOOM Nikkor 35-70mm f/2.8. The AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 G ED uses the same nano coating technology as the Nikon 70-200 VR II. The camera is pointed towards a ceiling light, I’ve found the best way to test a lens is in poor conditions but you don’t need to be a photographer to tell the differences are drastic. The older model doesn’t even register the line in between the lights.

I’m also excited to stop lugging around my wide angle, Nikon’s 14-24 f/2.8. I regularly use 24 or 28mm however I can’t achieve that with my Nikkor 35-70mm. As much as I love using 35mm (perfect for street photography) I need 24-28mm for a lot of jobs and it doesn’t make sense to lug around a lens just for 24mm. Rarely do I ever use 14mm unless I’m hiking or camping, the distortion is too much to use for people unless it’s a party pic. I also use a D300s which is a DX format sensor, making my 35-70 much tighter, closer to a 40-90mm. I do however use an F6, that camera I LOVE. I’m going to post more on my F6 when I get a chance to scan some chrome. 

ISO Review of Nikon’s cameras

Screen Shot 2014-03-22 at 10.07.20 PM

Click the image above to read the full story 

I know it’s hot playing in the Arizona sun but I can’t stand 3200 ISO. Packard Stadium has much dimmer light compared to ASU’s Farrington Stadium. As a photographer, I would never use 3200, unless I sought grain as an artistic method. As a photojournalist, ISO 3200 is OK. Certainly not ideal for anything printed, but is suitable for web viewing.

These were shot with a Nikon D300s and a 70-200 2.8 VRII at f/2.8 ISO 3200 and around 1/320 1/400. With such a small aperture and long focal length (400mm would be ideal) motion doesn’t really stop at 1/250 with highly distorting grain. Because of the fast aperture the depth of field is small, and is subsequently lost in the high grain. Most sports need something higher than 1/250 anyway. It takes 1/8000 to stop a baseball from a pitcher! They are going around 100 mph.

There are, however other cameras that can handle higher ISOs. All of them are digital, no film, (no reprocity failure either) but the D ƒ, D4, D3, and D7000 are certainly better equipped as far as sensors and firmware. I did some research you can see below the differences. Click the image to read Ken Rockwell’s analysis.

Screen Shot 2014-03-22 at 10.30.28 PM

I get a lot of information from Ken Rockwell’s website and I recommend it to anyone. He is very methodical, accurate, and like a true photographer he shows the science to prove it. I’ve sent him a donation, he uses it to feed his kids!

His conclusion was that the D7000 and D3 were the best. I think I would prefer the D3. The D7000 is the cleanest, as Ken Rockwell stated, however I think my shooting style would better suit a softer texture. He did point out the D300 paints over subject texture at high ISOs more than the D3 and D700, which is something I have certainly noticed over the years with my D300s. (the s stands for the updated model, changes are only internal, so it could be better) The feature is not a bad idea but I would like to control it, I’d make it look like something between the D7000 and D3.

DSC_8923_1 DSC_8946_1 DSC_9015_1 DSC_9016_1