Greetings from beautiful Jersey City!

[Frank in JC]

There's a marina at the end of my street so I finally took a long exposure at high tide.  The ripples were small and perpendicular to my line of sight, so I was able to get almost perfect streaks in the water.  We don't have much natural geographic beauty, but the sight of downtown NYC across the Hudson River still amazes me.  Unfortunately, the "Bon Vivant" on the right just wouldn't sit still for me.

crop/tweak:


(Edit: I replaced this with a sharper version)

[JD]

Cool pictures.

[phanophish]

Nice Stuff Frank.  Looks like a relatively haze free night as well. 

[Sanjay]

That's great Frank, what lens?

I did long exposures this weekend with my new Nikon 17-55, and man am I disappointed.  The flaring on the glass is horrible.

[Frank in JC]

That's great Frank, what lens?

I did long exposures this weekend with my new Nikon 17-55, and man am I disappointed.  The flaring on the glass is horrible.

It's the 85mm f/1.4 stopped down to f/11 (it's "supposed" to be for portraits, but I keep putting off buying the 70-200).  I did several other images that night with the 17-55, but no flare.  I do get serious flare shooting directly into the sun, however.  Still, it's my favorite lens... seems to consistently nail contrast, color, and detail.

Phano, yeah, the haze really starts kicking when the weather gets warmer.  It spoils every tourist photo taken!

Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 flare


...But when the same lens can capture subtle images like this, I'm not complaining!  (ISO 400, 1/40th sec @ f/2.8, w/ Noiseware)

[Sanjay]

Here is my flare... For both of these the flare extended almost all the way through the frame, and there were spots in the sky with just white dots.  I was quite unhappy.  I'm thinking about switching for the new 24-70... not as wide but if it doesn't have the flare issue...  I still need to try a concert with it.


larger unedited image: http://flickr.com/photos/sanjaysuchak/2431439205/sizes/l/


larger unedited: http://flickr.com/photos/sanjaysuchak/2432254028/sizes/l/

another case of flare: http://flickr.com/photos/sanjaysuchak/2432254666/sizes/l/in/photostream/

[BJ]

Here is my flare... For both of these the flare extended almost all the way through the frame, and there were spots in the sky with just white dots.  I was quite unhappy.  I'm thinking about switching for the new 24-70... not as wide but if it doesn't have the flare issue...  I still need to try a concert with it.


larger unedited image: http://flickr.com/photos/sanjaysuchak/2431439205/sizes/l/


larger unedited: http://flickr.com/photos/sanjaysuchak/2432254028/sizes/l/

another case of flare: http://flickr.com/photos/sanjaysuchak/2432254666/sizes/l/in/photostream/

sanjay, are you using a uv filter?  I read a page (maybe posted here on ts somewhere) where a guy did alot of tests with filters, and certain ones can cause flare (even plain old UV filters).  I have gone with Hoya eversince, whether or not it makes a difference, I dont know b/c I get the Hoya with each lens, i don't know, but it makes me feel better.  also, congrats on your photo "Dupont at Dusk"  NICE


btw..excellent photo here!

[Sanjay]

I took the filters off for these... they were worse with it...  I did have a Hoya UV filter on before.

Thanks for the compliments!

[Frank in JC]

Here is my flare... For both of these the flare extended almost all the way through the frame, and there were spots in the sky with just white dots.  I was quite unhappy.  I'm thinking about switching for the new 24-70... not as wide but if it doesn't have the flare issue...  I still need to try a concert with it.

The dark areas unfortunately give the flare a good place to show up.  I would expect to see it with concert lighting too, but it might be more excusable.  It was kind of a shock when I first got the lens home, pointed it at a light fixture, and saw the nasty flare people warn about. 

I take it as a compromise.  It probably wouldn't do the things it does so well in this zoom range if the design didn't also make it susceptible to flare.  Some lenses would have washed out the color and contrast in the dock picture with the sun in the background.

[Sanjay]

Good point... thanks for the insight...

I guess it still is one of the best lenses I've used. 

[stirinthesauce]

beautiful pic, Frank

[Frank in JC]

Thanks for the comments, guys.  Planning ahead and checking a tide table made all the difference.  Planning... who knew?

[Sanjay]

Frank, I'm curious what your lens stable has in it?  You always make fantastic images and I know that has more to do with skill than anything but I am curious as to what you use since we both have a D300.

[Frank in JC]

Frank, I'm curious what your lens stable has in it?  You always make fantastic images and I know that has more to do with skill than anything but I am curious as to what you use since we both have a D300.

Thanks a million for the compliment, Sanjay.  You do really nice stuff as well.

I think this is everything.  Aside from the Lensbaby, they're all Nikkors. 

manual focus, full frame:
35mm f/2 AI-S
50mm f/1.4 AI-S
Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 non-AI
Lensbaby 3G

autofocus, full frame:
50mm f/1.8 (packaged with my first SLR, a Nikon N50)
85mm f/1.4

autofocus DX:
10.5mm f/2.8 fisheye
12-24mm f/4
17-55mm f/2.8
55-200 f/4.5-5.6 VR (definitely a toy, but surprisingly not a piece of junk)

Obviously missing is the 70-200 f/2.8, but that's just a matter of time. 

I also use a Gitzo 2530 tripod and 1276M off-center ball head when I feel like lugging it around (which is rarely).  I highly recommend the tripod, but the ball head leaves a lot to be desired... I'm looking into getting an Arca-Swiss, RSS, or Markins.

How about you--what glass do you use?

[Sanjay]

That's quite a nice bit... I see you have a nice mix of primes and zooms.  At the moment I'm all about the zooms, but I've been thinking about going to all primes for increased quality and lower F-stops.  However I don't think that I would find it convenient in the least for me.  I also used to have that 55-200 VR lens, ordered it and returned it to B&H just to try out VR, pretty nice lens, just a worthless focal length for me I think unless it's a 2.8

Manual Focus (IE never used)
50mm f1.4 AI-S
105mm f2.5 non-AI (Soligor??? From my mom's camera)

Autofocus
50mm f1.8 AF
17-55mm f2.8 AF-S
80-200mm f2.8 AF
28-70mm f2.8 AF (tokina, trying to sell now that I have my 17-55)

Strange thing about the tokina is that I put both lenses (nikon and tokina) at 50mm, 2.8 and 1/60th of a second and focused on a lampshade.  I honestly could not tell which lens I preferred from that.  They were both equally sharp at 100% crop, the tokina was a bit darker and had more contrast, but the Nikon was lighter and you could see more of the fiberous detail...  It makes me think that I should maybe hold onto it.

If I were to switch to primes, for the cost of what I have above in autofocuses I could get some nice primes... but we'll see.  I see myself sticking with zooms and getting the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 and then upgrading my 80-200 to a 70-200 and I'd have much of the focal length covered.

As for the tripod I just have a slik tripod which is a great tripod, but the ball head cannot support the D300 and the 17-55 at portrait angle... so I either have to get a bracket (not gonna happen) or just but a real tripod.  I don't use it very much.