Jump to content

Official Photography Thread?


Recommended Posts

Looking at this at the moment, even though it costs as much as the DSLR - http://www.parkcameras.com/6676/Tokina-AT-X-80-400mm-f4-5-5-6-D--Nikon-AF-.html

 

Will it autofocus with my camera? I know some lenses don't.

 

Ben.

 

EDIT: Damn, no it won't. It's a shame, because it's just on the edge of my comfortable budget for a new lens.

 

There's always this - but not sure if it's the right thing? Seems pretty cheap to me: http://www.parkcameras.com/4830/Nikon-AF-S-VR-70-300mm-f-4-5-5-6G-IF-ED.html

Edited by L4byr1nth
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 526
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

General rules: the wider the zoom range (and 18-270mm is laughably wide) the cr*ppier the lens.

 

I'd also avoid anything but Nikon, Canon, and maybe some Sigma lens.

 

Renting is a good idea.

 

18-270 is laughably wide but even Thom has said it actually is not as bad as traditionally you'd presume with anything with a very wide focal zoom range.

thats why i did not dismiss it out of hand.

 

i would sometimes rate Tokina [better build too] and Tamron much higher than some of the Sigma's i've used.

 

you have a D5000 ... hmm no internal focus motor... this does not have an internal focus motor on the lens - manual focus only for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd actually prefer a wider focal range to be honest - I don't get a lot of time for photography nowadays, and I won't be doing much specialist stuff that might require a dedicated lens.

 

Also, my budget at the moment won't allow for a variety of different lenses, so something that's more flexible is ideal for me - I don't necessarily need the very best quality.

 

The more reviews I read about it, the more I'm leaning towards the apparently under-rated Nikon AF-S VR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF ED.

 

Looks exactly what I was after, but I just need to make sure it'll auto focus with the D5000.

 

Ben.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since it has AFS on it, it will...but I will tell you right now thats not the best lens int he world, so if you want professional quality images then you should consider the Sigma 70-200 f2.8, its the best telephoto you can get for under $900 that will AF on your body.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems if you want F2.8 or better, you have to pay through the nose for it.

 

The Sigma one is this, right? http://www.parkcameras.com/9126/Tamron-AF-70-200mm-F-2-8-Di-LD--IF--Macro--Nikon-Fit-.html

 

Internet research suggests the 70-300 Nikkor is under-rated and pretty good, but who trusts the internet these days.

 

Might take a trip to Park Cameras next week and handle both. The 300mm will come in very useful for airshows over the 200mm, but who knows? I originally went in to Park Cameras for a Pentax K-X, and came out with a Nikon D5000 :lol:

 

Ben.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats a tamron, the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 is this.

 

http://www.adorama.com/SG70200DNKAF.html

 

 

 

Your pictures will be professional quality, Thats what I used for an air show and it worked great, if went to air shows more often I would just get a 400mm or 500mm but since I rarely do the 70-200 was perfect.

 

And it will be a thousand times better then that nikon, which is going to be horrible in low light and quality wont be the best at all. But if reach is the most important thing and you dont mind having a average quality picture, then the Nikon would be the route to go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got a Nikon D5000, I like it for my price range. Great for taking pictures, and stuff. Hoping to get better with it. smile.gif

 

Resized picture of the House-In-Progress my dad is making.

 

2myxoo9.jpg

 

And now a non-resized picture.

 

fa7qpt.jpg

 

Oh, it auto resized it. Hah!

Edited by Short Stack
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

The words PHOTOGRAPHY and CHEAP never EVER should be used together:D!

 

Not to sound like a massive *bramston pickle* but;

 

Does this not sound a tadge elitist here? It's like saying "Don't buy a Ford, buy a BMW instead". Seriously, come off your high horse for a minute, and consider prehaps some great shots were taken on cheap camera's.

 

Anyway, London shot taken from Southbank, ISO was messed a little, hence the "noise" in the sky;

 

DSC_0490.jpg

 

DSC_0487.jpg

 

Nikon D5000.

 

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not to sound like a massive *bramston pickle* but;

 

Does this not sound a tadge elitist here? It's like saying "Don't buy a Ford, buy a BMW instead". Seriously, come off your high horse for a minute, and consider prehaps some great shots were taken on cheap camera's.

 

Anyway, London shot taken from Southbank, ISO was messed a little, hence the "noise" in the sky;

 

 

Some awesome pics came from cheap cameras, yes, but find a professional shot taken with a cheap setup of flying airplanes, or anything far away, even at night!

 

To get good shots at night, far away, macro, etc....you need a good camera. I am not saying you need a $2,000-$5,000+ setup though.

 

Your "dont buy a ford, buy a bmw instead" statement proves my point, a ford and a bmw will both get you to the same place (both get a picture), but the bmws interior will be extremely well made, the car will be built better, and it will be a more pleasurable ride (better detailed pic, less iso, higher quality, more options for printing, more professional).

 

So if you do not have the $ to get into photography but you love it, go ahead and buy the best camera that suits your budget because photography is a great hobby and you dont need to spend thousands to have fun. But if you want to have professional pictures and make large prints or sell, then dont expect a $200 lens to do the trick.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like saying "Don't buy a Ford, buy a BMW instead". Seriously, come off your high horse for a minute, and consider prehaps some great shots were taken on cheap camera's.

 

You can capture great/dramatic/etc moments with cheap gear, but you'll also miss a lot of them (noise, AF problems, dynamic range, aperture range, overall IQ). Photography is a technical "sport" and every time I tried to go cheap, quality suffered. Every time I tried to replace a fixed focal tele with a telezoom, or a dedicated macro with a "macro-capable" zoom lens, the number of "keepers" suffered.

 

I'm too poor to afford cheap. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...

If I were you, I would put a flash in a plastic bag (if I were ACTUALLY you id put it in like 3 bags JUST to make sure hahahah), and I would drop it in the tank so its bouncing off of the back (if your back has a mat).

 

Then I would put a flash at the top facing towards the fish, and use a CIRCULAR POLARIZER to cut out the glare, and take the pic on like f1.8-f2.8 iso 200.

 

Thats just coming from someone that has never done that type of photography though, so I mean I could be wrong but thats where I would start. And adjust it from there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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