my luvly Bunda - mata ikan 4

my luvly Bunda - mata ikan 3

my luvly Bunda - mata ikan 2

my luvly Bunda - mata ikan

my luv - Bunda - B.O.K.E.H /ndoweh/

my luv - Bunda - B.O.K.E.H 8 *nylepur*

my luv - Bunda - B.O.K.E.H 7

As Nikon's newest and best professional moderate telephoto zoom, one of these (or one of its earlier siblings) is in almost every professional photographers' bag.

Its optics and mechanics are superlative for everything a full-time career professional news or sports photographer would want to shoot with it, on any modern Nikon film or digital camera.

The only reason I don't have one myself is because I already had an older 80-200mm AF-S when this 70-200mm came out, and I usually use my 80-400mm VR instead of either since I shoot things that don't move and prefer the longer range.

kenrockwell.com

my luv - Bunda - B.O.K.E.H 6

This AF-S lens works perfectly with every Nikon DX and FX digital SLR. It also works perfectly with any but the very cheapest or oldest Nikon AF film cameras.

Because its gelded ("G," or has had the aperture ring removed to save cost) it's 99% useless with manual focus cameras. For manual focus cameras, the much less expensive 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D works much better.

See Nikon Lens Compatibility for details with your camera. Read down the "AF-S" column for this lens.

kenrockwell.com

my luv - Bunda - B.O.K.E.H 5

I love this lens. If you have $1,700 then this is most likely the best telephoto zoom ever made by Nikon at any price.

The only reason not to get this lens is the price, size and weight, all of which are to professional standards. You can get the same superb optical performance in lenses that cost much less, but they won't have VR, or they'll require moving a switch to get to manual focus, or they won't zoom, or they won't autofocus.

This 70-200mm f/2.8 VR (or the 80-200mm AF - D) is one of the two lenses used by most professional photographers every day. The other lens is usually a wide zoom on a second body.

The premium you're paying over other 80-200 f/2.8 Nikkors is for speed, ease of use, slightly smaller size and vibration (hand-shake) reduction; not sharpness or optical quality.

If you're contemplating getting this lens, just get it. If you're more familiar with the plasticy $500 - 1,500 VR lenses like the 18-200mm VR, 70-300mm VR, 24-120mm VR or the 80-400mm VR, then you've in for a pleasant surprise. The mechanical quality of the 70-200mm VR is several steps above any sub-$1,500 lens. It's completely metal, completely solid, and a pinnacle of professional durability, optical quality and precision.

For half the price the Nikon 80-200mm AF-D offers the same great optical quality. DO NOT be tempted by used 80-200 lenses or the discount-brand lenses, since a brand new, latest model Nikon 80-200mm AF-D can be had for the same price as used lenses or junky non-Nikon brands.

The 70-200 VR is a little lighter than my $1,500 80-200mm AF-S.

It is the most expensive AF telephoto zoom ever from Nikon. (OK, the new 200-400mm announced in September 2003 is $8,000.) If you can live without VR, as we have for 30 years of these lenses, you can get the same optical quality in the 80-200mm AF-D.

kenrockwell.com

my luv - Bunda - B.O.K.E.H 4

bojoku jian bokeh tenan... emoooyyyy....

my luv - Bunda - B.O.K.E.H 3

my luv - Bunda - B.O.K.E.H 2

Bokeh is how lenses render out-of-focus areas. Ideally these areas are soft and smooth. The problem is when they instead become harsh or distracting.

I noticed that the bokeh of the 18-135mm lens seemed unusually nice when I was making some head shots of a kid. I got curious, so I compared six of my lenses at 135mm and f/5.6.

These comparisons are made at 135mm, f/5.6 and 9.5 feet (3m). They are from my D80 at medium image size.

Of course people genuinely concerned about bokeh shoot f/2.8 or faster lenses. Newspaper photographers and weekend pros all own some kind of 80-200 f/2.8 lens, and pro fashion photographers love 300mm f/2.8 and 400mm f/2.8 lenses. Thus I also set my 80-200 AFS to f/2.8 in the same comparison, as well as at f/5.6.

You'll notice that the image sizes from the 18-135mm and 18-200mm lenses seems less than the other 135mm lenses. This is because of their IF (internal focus) design.

kenrockwell.com

me! & my luv shadow - fisheye lenses

It a one-of-a-kind zoom fisheye lens, not a wide angle lens. Fisheye lenses bend straight lines deliberately. I've owned fisheye lenses for decades. They are very difficult to use well, and fairly useless except as a special effect. Recently I've been using DxO software to stretch out the curvy images into something useful, but DxO doesn't work with the Tokina 10-17mm lens currently.

This Tokina costs the same as the real Canon or Nikon fisheye ($500 - 600), either of which which I strongly suggest instead of this lens.

For Nikon get the Nikkor 10.5mm DX.

Canon makes no fisheyes for their 1.3x and 1.6x digital cameras like the 1D and Rebel and D20 D30, but Canon does make a spectacular 15mm Fisheye for the film and full-frame cameras for the same price as any of these.

If you are serious about fisheyes, get the Canon 15mm Fisheye and a Canon 5D, which offers far superior fisheye performance over any of the other solutions. I own both the Canon 15mm and the Nikon 10.5mm.

If you want a wide angle that keeps straight lines straight, then forget this Tokina 10-17mm zoom, because it's a fisheye! Most people don't want a fisheye - they want a wide angle which isn't this 10-17mm.

If you want a wide angle, I strongly suggest instead the Tokina 12-24mm for the same price. For my Nikon I own the Nikkor 12-24mm which is more expensive. For Canon I'd get the superior Canon 10-22mm which isn't much more expensive than the Tokina. See also my explicit Digital Wide Zoom comparison.

kenrockwell.com

my luv - Bunda - B.O.K.E.H

WHAT IS BOKEH?

Bokeh describes the rendition of out-of-focus points of light.

Bokeh is different from sharpness. Sharpness is what happens at the point of best focus. Bokeh is what happens away from the point of best focus.

Bokeh describes the appearance, or "feel," of out-of-focus areas. Bokeh is not how far something is out-of-focus, bokeh is the character of whatever blur is there.

Unfortunately good bokeh doesn't happen automatically in lens design. Perfect lenses render out-of-focus points of light as circles with sharp edges. Ideal bokeh would render each of these points as blurs, not hard-edged circles. Mathematicians would say the intensity distribution of the blur circles are rectangular in perfect lenses, and good bokeh would prefer a Gaussian distribution. This is one area in which physics doesn't mirror what we want artistically.

Differing amounts of spherical aberration alter how lenses render out-of-focus points of light, and thus their bokeh. The word "bokeh" comes from the Japanese word "boke" (pronounced bo-keh) which literally means fuzziness or dizziness.

A technically perfect lens has no spherical aberration. Therefore a perfect lens focuses all points of light as cones of light behind the lens. The image is in focus if the film is exactly where the cone reaches its finest point. The better the lens, the tinier this point gets.

If the film is not exactly where that cone of light reaches its smallest point, then that point of the image is not in focus. Then that point is rendered on film as a disk of light, instead instead of as a point. This disc is also called the "blur circle," or "circle of confusion" by people calculating depth-of-field charts. In a lens with no spherical aberration this blur circle is an evenly illuminated disc. Out of focus points all look like perfect discs with sharp edges. (OK, at smaller apertures where the image is in pretty good focus you may see additional "Airy" rings around the circle, but that's a diffraction pattern we're not discussing here.) This isn't optimal for bokeh, since as you can imagine the sharp edge of these discs can start to give definition to things intended to be out-of-focus.

There are no perfect lenses, so one usually does not see these perfect discs.

Real lenses have some degree of spherical aberration. This means that in practice, even though all the light coming through the lens from a point on the subject may meet at a nice, tiny point on the film, that the light distribution within the cone itself may be uneven. Yes, we are getting abstract here, which is why some denser photographers refuse to try understand bokeh.

kenrockwell.com

my luv - Bunda - fisheye lenses