General Photography Chat - Page 52

Aleks · #**1021** Posted **Apr 7, 2011, 2:26 AM**

Ok, so I've been doing more research and I think I've come up with a smaller list... but i did find another lens which might replace the nikon! although it's not f2.8

-tokina 16-50 f2.8
-Nikkor 24-85 f2.8
-Nikkor 24-85 f3.5-4.5
-Tammy 17-50 non VC

I'm starting to like the Nikkor 24-85 f3.5. It's not that slow compared to the older version, and costs less than 400 bucks!!! It's only (pretty big) weakness is the build quality, but hey, I have an 18-105vr so unless it's an 18-55 or 55-200 I doubt I'll think it's cheap. Well, maybe it'll feel cheap compared to my Tokie!

Btw, my Tokina 11-16 shipped today! Yay!!! Now I have to save up for a mid-range!

diskojoe · #**1022** Posted **Apr 7, 2011, 1:38 PM**

That 24-85 looks tempting but when i looked closer at the specs i saw that it has a variable aperture for 2.8-4 which is not that bad but i like it to be constant. saw this tamron 28-75 that has a fixed f2.8 that looked like it was a nice price but used. dont know how you feel about used.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Tamron-28-75mm-f-2-8-SP-XR-ZL-Di-LD-Aspherical-IF-Lens-/390303674429?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item5adfe9703d

new you can get one for about $450.

Aleks · #**1023** Posted **Apr 10, 2011, 6:59 AM**

yeah, constant f2.8 would be sweeet, but the 24-85 comes in 2 versions: f2.8-4.0 and f3.5-4.5.

The f2.8 is pretty expensive, at over 600 bucks. but i've read it's a good sturdy lens. the f3.5 is wayyy cheaper at 400 bucks, but they're all used because production stopped and nikon went back to the f2.8 version. i've read many many reviews and they've all said the f3.5 version has better results than the older one, but the lens isn't as strong and gets dust inside. so if i do buy it i'll be taking my chances and there might not be a going back =/

no constant f2.8 doesn't cut a lens off my list. I would prefer it, but sharpness would be higher on my list, which is usually at slower apertures anyway's. it would come veryyy useful during dim days thought... and even though i'm considering the slower f3.5 version, it still does better at 85mm (f4.5) compared to my 18-105vr (@85mm f5.6). maybe next paycheck i'll get it and sell my 18-105. it should give me $225 ish since it's pretty new and is in great condition.

as for the tammy 28-75, the nikkor 24-85 f3.5 is a bit cheaper, better reviews and might hold better resale if i even decide to sell it.

toyota74 · #**1024** Posted **Apr 10, 2011, 11:36 AM**

Well my Nikon d7000 has been purchased in a shop in Eindhoven in
Holland and made the trip to Cork Ireland.It is siting in my brothers house
all alone in its box and I wont see it till friday.What a long week it will be

diskojoe · #**1025** Posted **Apr 11, 2011, 4:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aleks

yeah, constant f2.8 would be sweeet, but the 24-85 comes in 2 versions: f2.8-4.0 and f3.5-4.5.

The f2.8 is pretty expensive, at over 600 bucks. but i've read it's a good sturdy lens. the f3.5 is wayyy cheaper at 400 bucks, but they're all used because production stopped and nikon went back to the f2.8 version. i've read many many reviews and they've all said the f3.5 version has better results than the older one, but the lens isn't as strong and gets dust inside. so if i do buy it i'll be taking my chances and there might not be a going back =/

no constant f2.8 doesn't cut a lens off my list. I would prefer it, but sharpness would be higher on my list, which is usually at slower apertures anyway's. it would come veryyy useful during dim days thought... and even though i'm considering the slower f3.5 version, it still does better at 85mm (f4.5) compared to my 18-105vr (@85mm f5.6). maybe next paycheck i'll get it and sell my 18-105. it should give me $225 ish since it's pretty new and is in great condition.

as for the tammy 28-75, the nikkor 24-85 f3.5 is a bit cheaper, better reviews and might hold better resale if i even decide to sell it.

F3.5 is not bad at all. my sony kit lens is a 3.5 -5.6. good lens. it has served my well. i like to have the f2.8 so that i get nice bokeh behind shots of people i take. so the larger constant aperture value was more for that reason then for the additional speed but that does come in handy at concerts. but the thing that i like most about my lens is the glass which is APO. makes a huge difference. pictures are remarkably clearer then my old lens.

but i liked that idea of that 24-85mm. thats a nice range and you get decent aperture range too with either version.

Ayreonaut · #**1026** Posted **Apr 11, 2011, 11:17 PM**

My last exam is tomorrow morning. After that I'll have all summer to focus on photography (well, that and work).

It's been very clear and sunny here the last few days, hopefully that sticks around for me.

photoLith · #**1027** Posted **Apr 12, 2011, 12:27 AM**

^
What, whose school ends in early April? Almost all colleges etc that I know, end in early May.

Ayreonaut · #**1028** Posted **Apr 12, 2011, 12:43 AM**

My last class was last Wednesday, and exams are this week. The Spring/Summer semester starts in mid-May.

diskojoe · #**1029** Posted **Apr 29, 2011, 2:16 PM**

Anybody have some recommendations on good tripods that are actually worth wasting money on?

Ive been using a cheap tripod I got at BestBuy for a couple of years now and one of the cheap plastic clips likes to pop open. So I am doing research on what to get when I buy a new one but there are lots of choices and I dont want to spend a couple hundred bucks and then get something that doesnt work good for what Im needing.

mr.John · #**1030** Posted **Apr 29, 2011, 3:02 PM**

This is the baby I carry around, the worst part is I'm not kidding
anyhow check this site for a model that suits your needs ,of course the prices will be much cheaper in the excited states

http://www.lozeau.com/en-CA/catalogu...-minipod-b410/

flar · #**1031** Posted **Apr 29, 2011, 4:42 PM**

My tripod is an Induro I think, it was over $100. As with all my equipment, I test it out before I buy. I couldn't tell any difference between it and the ones that were $400 except those ones had nicer heads. You can do pretty much anything with it, very configurable.

One of my requirements was that the head be removable. Someday I'll get a better head for it. The one I have is adequate but it annoys me sometimes.

My other requirements were that it be light, fold up small to fit in my suitcase, have legs that can spread out flat, be able to reverse the column (camera can go very close to the ground), and have flip locks on the legs. It also has a level and nice carrying case.

diskojoe · #**1032** Posted **Apr 29, 2011, 6:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by flar

My tripod is an Induro I think, it was over $100. As with all my equipment, I test it out before I buy. I couldn't tell any difference between it and the ones that were $400 except those ones had nicer heads. You can do pretty much anything with it, very configurable.

One of my requirements was that the head be removable. Someday I'll get a better head for it. The one I have is adequate but it annoys me sometimes.

My other requirements were that it be light, fold up small to fit in my suitcase, have legs that can spread out flat, be able to reverse the column (camera can go very close to the ground), and have flip locks on the legs. It also has a level and nice carrying case.

Sounds decent. You have a link where I could check out some details about it?

Really what I want/need is for the head to be able to go completely vertical. It would also be nice for it to collapse to a nice size as you described. It also has to have nice leg locks that wont wear out quickly which is the problem I am having now.

I liked the manfrotto that SFOH uses but when I went to research it there were way to many different heads and bodies to choose from.

flar · #**1033** Posted **Apr 30, 2011, 12:13 AM**

This is the one I have:
http://www.vistek.ca/store/ProPhotoI...head-case.aspx

It has a ball head, it can go completely vertical.

diskojoe · #**1034** Posted **May 2, 2011, 2:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by flar

This is the one I have:
http://www.vistek.ca/store/ProPhotoI...head-case.aspx

It has a ball head, it can go completely vertical.

looks pretty decent. i like the price too. this wouldnt break the bank.

flar · #**1035** Posted **May 9, 2011, 3:11 AM**

I picked up a Nikkor 200mm f4 AI-S for cheap, totally manual but I think I'm going to like it.

Robert Pence · #**1036** Posted **May 9, 2011, 11:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by flar

I picked up a Nikkor 200mm f4 AI-S for cheap, totally manual but I think I'm going to like it.

I had one of those, and it was an excellent lens. I stupidly gave it away with my whole bag of Nikon film cameras and lenses a few years ago. I should have kept that lens and the 35mm f/2.8, which was incredibly sharp.

flar · #**1037** Posted **May 9, 2011, 3:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Pence

I had one of those, and it was an excellent lens. I stupidly gave it away with my whole bag of Nikon film cameras and lenses a few years ago. I should have kept that lens and the 35mm f/2.8, which was incredibly sharp.

A lot of people are sorry they got rid of older equipment!

With computer design and improvements to production techniques, they can really make high quality lenses for cheap nowadays. Even the entry level kit lenses from Nikon are sharp and technically superb.

But I like the older lenses because they have a solid feel and a nice weight to them. The glass is so big and clear compared to modern zooms. I find the classic prime lenses from Nikon give a very pleasing look to photos. They're usually pretty fast and have nice bokeh. Although the 200mm I just bought sacrifices speed for size, it's still faster than my 55-200 zoom, has way nicer bokeh, and feels ten times better in my hands.

diskojoe · #**1038** Posted **May 9, 2011, 4:13 PM**

F4 is not too bad for a 200mm. The bokeh is espcially nice. Plus if you got this cheap enough then its all good.

flar · #**1039** Posted **May 11, 2011, 2:11 AM**

To have a wider aperture (like 2.8) at a focal length like 200mm means a huge lens. I don't like to carry big lenses or a lot of weight. This 200mm f4 is less than 5" long and takes a 52mm filter. The small size and good performance are why this lens is sought after. It easily fits in my camera bag and won't scare anyone or beg to be stolen.

mr.John · #**1040** Posted **May 13, 2011, 11:57 PM**

I have been using the new nikon D7000 lately and one thing that's left me puzzled is why after editing a shot (using the software that came with the camera) the file becomes about one third of the size of the orignal.... ie a 6mb photo not edited turns into a 2mb edited (mostly just sharpening and minor exposure adjustments no cropping) anyone have an answer?