The *Official Photography Thread*

damn i love the firework one!

 

looks like a great setting for a fashion shoot...

 

Thanks. It just makes me mad that I took such a good picture, but my iso is way too high and I just can't take an 18 to 20 hour drive back down there to take another shot. Lol

 

Holy shit is the Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 VRII sharp

 

I wish I had that kind of lighting to work with Great shots Tony, and the lens is super sharp.

 

Thanks

Gotta love shooting in a professional stadium

 

I was just reading a comparison of the 2.8 and f/4 today. It claimed similar, if not the same, sharpness with the obvious stop of less light. Perhaps a "prosumer" upgrade for me someday. Size and weight are a thing for me . . . and cost haha



edit: love the sweat/water/whatever shedding off the helmet in the second to last shot. details much?

 

Do you shoot from sidelines or end zone, or both, Tony?

 

Look into the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 Much cheaper and I prefer it.

 

Yep I shoot from all around the field

Thank you

 

Yeah I said F-it. ended up getting a D3s with a decently low shutter count.
Im like a big kid. but I figured I sold one hobby to further another might as well get what I want.

Now to just figure out what glass to get.

 

The main reason I went with the 2.8 was because I needed the low light performance. The Nikkor f4 has great optics and has really good VR as well.

Yea that is the sweat coming off of the defender.

 

This is what I'd get

14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 200-400, 60, 85

 

Yeah im def getting the 70-200 and prob a 24-70, was thinking about adding a 50 1.4 too.

and Iv heard good things about the Sigma 85 Prime

 

I shot a softball game the other night with my 70-300 VR and I had my ISO up to 6400 to keep up.

My dilemma is, is it worth losing that 200-300 range that I use a lot for birding and such (but isn't all that sharp anyway) for a whole stop of light performance and more weight/size?

the 70-200 f/4 is obviously a far superior lens in more than just being faster, I just need to wait it out and see if I really need to justify a $1,400 purchase. My 85 f/1.8 does work in low light, so I'm back and forth and back and forth on whether it'd be worth it. I really like that 300mm end . . .

 

There are some amazing shots in here! Keep up the good work guys!

 

Isnt the 60 dx?

 

70-200 on a Nikon crop sensor will act like 105-300, where as your 70-300 will be more like a 105-450

I invested in the 2.8 because I would like to eventually start my own business and work on getting more freelance gigs

 

the 40mm micro is DX

 

Durrrr. For macro, I'd go as long as I could(good for portrait use as well)