The *Official Photography Thread*

Well I'm not sure exactly. What's his face told me the reason. I forget his name.. He hasn't posted in a while.. lol. If he reads this, I'm sure he remembers recommending the new 70-200 lens that's $1,400. lol

 

its not digital so i dont see it as a quality loss, a fixed 300 mm, on a tripod will come off as sharp if focused correctly

remember we are using mirrors not digital amplification

 

Yeah, a fixed lens, but what about a 70-300 or something of that nature zoomed at 300?

 

its the truth that yes a 300 prime lens will have a better quality photo, but your not going to be so detrimental that your would notice on amateur photography.....

 

Tony, we need him… lol

 

True, true. But I'm one of those do it right, do it once people. Unless it's a $1,400 option. lol. I want the 70-200 f4, but it is about $1000 above my price range. I know it's the best for what I want because of the aperture

 

I probably will. I need to order a 50mm 1.8 though. That and my 18-140 will be fine for now.

 

If your doing landscapes and stars..wide angles. And low light lens for stars. Smaller then 50mm. Usuall 10-30mm for sky and landscapes.

Nature stuff like animals.. 100-400 I guess

 

Well I just wanted the 50 for random stuff. But this helps. Thanks

 

Exactly. Probably one of the most popular lenses. And I don't have one… yet

 

Yea the 50 is great. But trust me..even my 18mm isn't wide enough for some star stuff and landscapes. Do a lot of photo stitching for landscapes.

 

Yes it stabilized but for most shots like birds- you turn it off otherwise it mucks it up since Ive got it on a gimbal head/ tripod. Most of the surfer shots were at least 1/800 with a few being at 1/1000. I tried some at 1/1250 and the noise went up so I had to learn how to dial that back out with luminance and masking in LR (love Youtube). I'm learning all the time (still needs work though as I can see blowing them up). I got all of my equipment used for over 1/2 off the original price simply because some folks thought it was too "scratched up" or in the case of the gimbal head- had no box. I could care less as long as it works. Ill do more scratching anyways lugging this kit around in the forest looking for birds. Only wished I'd looked at the 400 5.6 and now wishing Id spent a little more and just got the 600mm. Even considered selling the 400 for a used Sigmonster. Found one guy willing to play ball.One thing i will say for the 400 2.8- its focus is dead on and fast as hell. It losses a lot when I stepped it down with a 1.4X extender III but if I didn't I would be hard pressed to capture some of these surfers (100+ yards out) - just weighs about 12 1/2... lbs LOL

A decent (albeit loss of aperture/ speed= no low light shots without crazy ISO) was a guy shooting next to me handheld with a Tamron SP 150-500mm f/5-6.3 Di VC. With his 7D, the crop was a crazy 800mm!! Thats reaching power. Resolution/ contrast looked much better when he stepped it down to f/8. Mind you we were looking at a 3" screen on a sunny day but when cropped- it was pretty decent. I think they sell for about $1100 new. Not pocket change but that would cover you for all sorts of different activities and not require a Tripod/ GH since it has vibration control and still light enough to hand hold or get a Surui Monopod and call it a day

 

I won't even be using the 50 for stars. lol. Does nikon even make like a 10mm?

EDIT: Nevermind, the 10-24. Only $800. Bullcrap.

 

Any of you guys care to comment on either of these. Figured I look into one as my portrait lens and Im not sold on either completely. Ive watched a ton of reviews but none head to head

Canon 85mm f/1.8 USM

or

Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM

Both offer nice bokeh and I dont need to be 20 feet back to get it. The 1.4 looks like its better at this but has issues with color fringing but thats correctable in LR. On the other hand- the 1.8 is super fast and capable of great action photography like indoor arenas plus its 1/2 the cost of the 1.4

I joking considered a used 1.2 but even that for its limited use had more issues that I was willing to consider. Some call that THE wedding lens but from all the complaints of slow focus speeds- it seems it misses more opportunities that its long focus can deliver- at least for the price.

I may shoot some portraits but do want it to be multipurpose. Any feedback on either would be great.

I too used to carry my 50mm 1.8 around but found that it hunted too much for my liking and seemed to always be when I need a shot.

 

Variable aperture lenses will generally be softer at their wide open aperture value

Save up for nice glass, it will out live your body...

There is always the 300mm f4, which is inexpensive for what it is

 

Over did it Ben. Lost a lot of detail with the feathers. It's a hard balance with noise reduction.the top feathers look smooth like plastic

 

x2

Noise is okay

 

About time you chimed in. lol. I'll probably save up for what's best. And if you didn't know this yet, I got my new camera finally. I got the D7100. And for everyone, I'm also considering the 35mm. Either that one or the 50. They're both pretty much the same with what I'll be doing with them.

 

I saw that awhile ago, congrats

The 35mm will act more like a 50mm on a FX camera, which will give you a greater field of view, whereas the 50mm will be more a lens with a focal length of 75mm on your crop sensor.

If you don't plan on upgrading to FX in anytime soon, get the 35mm

 

When it completely distracts the image.

I liked the photo before your edit. You really had to study it to notice the noise honestly.

There is nothing wrong with reducing the noise in post, but you are going to lose the fine detail in your image.