Jump to content


Regular Poster
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by WhutJP

  1. quick answer:


    Low ISO means clearer, crisper image (less noise). However low ISO requires more light (wide aperture or slow shutter speeds, or a flash)


    High ISO means fuzzier, grainier (more noise). But the advantage is that it requires less light, so a faster shutter speed or narrower aperture can be used.


    Generally speaking:


    Bright sunny days: low ISO


    Indoors or at night: High ISO

  2. Lenses arrived, had a bit of a play with them this avo.


    They both seem pretty sweet, they do what they say they do and the quality seems just fine. I bet nit picking experts could find things to be bothered about but as far as I'm concerned - they're good lenses.

    The 90's auto focus speed is pretty fast too, doesn't seem to get caught or anything.

    Anyways, here's some pics, first a couple from the wide angle then a few from the 90mm.


    Bear in mind that this was about 4:30pm on a mostly cloudy day (occasional seconds of sunshine kind of day), and only of stuff near my house, so the pictures aren't exactly award winning.


    dsc0456.th.jpg dsc0488small.th.jpg




    dsc0493f.th.jpg from about 3m away.


    dsc0496ih.th.jpg while standing looking down.


    dsc0502e.th.jpg from about 40cm away.


    dsc0503il.th.jpg about 10 cm away.




    dsc0506.th.jpg f.11

    dsc0508b.th.jpg f.3.5



    Take from that what you will, but I am pleased, they are easy to use and seem to be pretty good value for money. I don't think I would have been much happier if I had paid twice the amount for the nikkor 105, the 90 performs just fine. :photo:

  3. works out to be about 1200US for the two lenses. That was slightly more expensive than that park cameras site linked to earlier once the conversion is done. But only a little bit and I get 10% in points to spend at the store I got them from here (yodobashi camera). Along with the camera I bought means I have enough points to just about get that 50mm lens free...


    But now I feel pretty set up - cam, bag, wide lens, macro lens and a general lens. PL filter and uv filters. And a tripod. Until I'm really sure of what I'm doing and things I need, that kit and my bike will be more than happy.


    Lenses should arrive today or tomorrow.


    Anyways, to post some photos:


    dsc0308small.th.jpg dsc0338small.th.jpg dsc0324small.th.jpg


  4. Undoubtedly play with cs4! I know it seems a bit complicated at first, but just take images and draw on them and *fruitcage* them up in all kids of ways. Play with the filters, and all the options in the Image>Adjustments menu. You'll have no idea at first what you are doing but in the end it will all be worth it!

    I totally sympathise with your frustration though, I am going through the same thing with Illustrator. gah, that thing frustrates me cos I've got no clue how to do it.



    Hah! that'd likely put me off entirely, there's some things I don't need to see magnified...

  5. I saw the Sigma 105mm f2.8 for cheaper than the Tamron 90mm f2.8, which is here;




    It's pretty much between the above Tamron, and the Nikon 105mm 2.8;




    Obviously the Tamron is quite a bit cheaper, but if the Nikon is really that much better, I'd be tempted to drop the cash, or at least try and find a used model.



    I just ordered the Tamrom 90mm, so I'll be able to tell you within the week how I like it. I love macro photography.

    I also ordered the Tamron 10-24mm wide angle, for the landscapes.


    decided against the prime just now, I dont think I do enough portrait/people work to justify it. The shopping cart bill was piling up a little high too. At some point I will pick one up though I'm sure.





  6. well, for landscape youre not going to be using your 1.4/50mm at 1.4 are you?

    cant recall what the sweet spot is, but most lenses are around f8-f11 mark.


    for landscape work you would be going wide, without getting distorted.

    i notice distortion at 20mm, on mine [at closer distances obviously].

    at wide angles, the kind of thing that would sort that issue is a tit/shift lens, but theyre fiddly and expensive and manual.

    28mm is a pretty good focal length.


    otoh, have you got a cropped sensor or a full frame camera?

    with a cropped one, you have to compensate for what is going to be recorded on your chip, so if you want a 28mm field of view, you need a 18mm to compensate for the 1.5 crop.

    for a 20mm fov, you need a 13mm, and so on.

    if you are shooting full frame, then the focal length you get is what you get.


    i use 50mm for low light gig stuff and people [and my 85 is for portraits, either that or my 80-200/2.8]

    not for landscapes, so if that is your specialty, the 50 will collect dust.


    i havent used the 18-200, but im not a fan of 'jack of all trades master of none' type lenses.

    my walk about is either a 20-40/2.8 or a 35-70/2.8


    although i run with a few, i'm not a fan of sigma. they rate high on the lemon-ator.

    tamron and tokina, i rate better, and branded obviously best.


    Cheers, yeah it was the setohashi, its a pretty amazing piece of engineering.


    And sorry I should've been more clearer with my question; I don't mean to use the 50mm for landscapes but for people. What I was wondering was if there was a substantial difference between using the 18-200 at 50mm, and the prime. I realise there is some difference but I wondered if it was enough of a difference for it to be worth getting.


    I have a D90, so not full frame.


    Cheers for the note on the Sigma, I will look in to the tamron and tokina ones they have, I haven't actually placed my order yet so yeah. I know the Nikkor would be better but I'd rather go for a third party and be able to afford a prime as well.


    Nice pics - have you spent long in Japan?






  7. Yeah I'm also in the new lens market, I'm considering two, possibly three if I can bear the cost...


    one is a 105mm macro by Sigma, its half the cost of the Nikkor version which means I can afford a second lens - the Nikkor 20mm 2.8 prime. On top of that I'm considering a 50mm prime too (the nikkor afs one).


    A question actually - If I get the 20mm (want it for the sharpness and wide angle, for landscapes) would the 50mm just feel redundant?

    I already have an 18-200mm lens on there which is a fantastic walk around lens but I want as was said before - the wowness the sharpness a prime would give.

    I know the 18-200mm lens is pretty good at 50mm, but max apature is way above the 1.4 of the nikkor 50mm prime. The question is is whether I would notice enough for it to be worth the expense.


    gah, the confusing world of photography.





  8. Thanks for the compliments!

    those photos were taken with a panasonic lumix, lx3, a great compact cam.

    But! I needed more haha, so I finally bit the bullet and got a dslr - a Nikon D90, 18-200mm VR nikkor lens.

    Its nice, I like. I took some photos with it tonight, here's a couple from it;





  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the use of session cookies.