***DSLR/Photography MegaThread***

[nocturn]

Here's my next lens. http://www.expresscameras.com/prodetails.asp?prodid=618728&start=1

Thats the cheapest I found it. Everywhere else it's between $750 and $850.

Its alot of bones to throw at a micro but I tried it last week on my buddy's D200 and WOW...what a lens.

 

[FBJ]

That's a fast one, for sure. F2.8 should get you some high shutter speeds and extra-shallow DOF. Good for birds and relatively close action shots that you want to be able to freeze. A relatively short minimum focus distance for a 105mm, too.

Today I'm taking the D200 out to the ballgame along with the 80-200 and the 70-300 lenses. I'm going to shoot in RAW format and process the images with the three software suites I'm trying out (Nikon's, Adobe's Lightroom, Capture1). I want to compare them side-by-side to determine which one's flow I like better.

Link to the "Best Photo Processing Software???" thread...

I'll post some of the results tomorrow.

 

[VF]

I'm going to shoot in RAW format and process the images with the three software suites I'm trying out (Nikon's, Adobe's Lightroom, Capture1). I want to compare them side-by-side to determine which one's flow I like better.

I don't know how Adobe Camera Raw is with Nikon Raws using the default "As Shot" settings, but with my Canon (5D), I had to make my own color profiles using a Macbeth ColorChecker chart in different lighting setups (available at www.sampage.net/color if anyone is interested) before I was at all happy with the color coming out of ACR. But once I got my profiles in there, ACR has been great.

 

[VF]

It seems that most of those still active in this thread are Nikon-ers, but for the Canon folk, I just finished renting a lens (EF 85mm f/1.2L, Mmmmmmmm) from www.lensrentals.com, and it was one of the best lens rentals I have experienced so far. Really great rates, lens was in good shape, you can reserve lenses if you know you need it on a certain date, and everything is in stock (unlike rentglass which is why I went looking for another rental house). Anyway, renting is a great way to try out the lenses you can't afford, and this is a great resource for that.

 

[FBJ]

I don't know how Adobe Camera Raw is with Nikon Raws using the default "As Shot" settings, but with my Canon (5D), I had to make my own color profiles using a Macbeth ColorChecker chart in different lighting setups (available at www.sampage.net/color if anyone is interested) before I was at all happy with the color coming out of ACR. But once I got my profiles in there, ACR has been great.

Lightroom is supposed to support all current proprietary RAW formats. We'll see how it works a bit later tonight. I'm still trying to figure out how the program works.

 

[FBJ]

It seems that most of those still active in this thread are Nikon-ers, but for the Canon folk, I just finished renting a lens (EF 85mm f/1.2L, Mmmmmmmm) from www.lensrentals.com, and it was one of the best lens rentals I have experienced so far. Really great rates, lens was in good shape, you can reserve lenses if you know you need it on a certain date, and everything is in stock (unlike rentglass which is why I went looking for another rental house). Anyway, renting is a great way to try out the lenses you can't afford, and this is a great resource for that.

Rentglass.com never has anything I need in stock. I rented the 80-400 VR Nikon from ziplens.com and I was very happy with it. Their customer service was amazing, too. Very attentive and they came through with exactly what they promised me. The lens was in like-new shape when it got to me, too.

 

[FBJ]

Lightroom is supposed to support all current proprietary RAW formats. We'll see how it works a bit later tonight. I'm still trying to figure out how the program works.

Okay folks. Here's a few images that I processed with Adobe Lightroom. I'm loving this program! And I love shooting in RAW format! There is SO MUCH MORE DATA in the image to play with! It gives you MUCH MUCH more control over how your images turn out!

Main dome at Griffith Observatory. I processed this in B&W (durhey) and tweaked the highlights and contrast to bring out the cloud detail. I also turned off the noise reduction to give it that grainy look.

Obelisk. A shape study. B&W processed much the same way as the one above.

Another black-and-white processed image. This one was shot from the roof with the 10.5mm fisheye. I liked the way the contrast turned out.

An architectural/scenic. I enhanced highlights and slightly deepened the blue hues. In addition, I cranked up the color and luminance noise-reductions.

Here's an indoor, low-light image. Shot through the fisheye with a 1/8 sec exposure at f2.8, ISO200, no flash. Fast enough to stop motion while not underexposing was what I was after. White balance was corrected for tungsten lighting and noise reductions were maxed.

The rotunda. This image turned out to be one of my favorites of the day. White balance corrected for custom color samples (I used the light coming through the glass door). Sharpness cranked to maximum.

Tesla Coil. Creative cropping saves a ****ty photo.

This was an interesting one to process. I found that as I cranked up the highlights to bring out the clouds, I lost the color in the greenish patina of the brass hardware. This is the happy medium.

Ghetto Buzzard. This shot was experimental in nature. I wanted to make sure the exposure wasn't so fast as to freeze the rotor blades. This was cropped and enlarged from the original image.

Here are a few images I shot at Dodger Stadium last Wednesday. These were taken from my seat in the lower reserved section, about a third of the way between the third-base bag and the foul pole. Probably three-hundred yards. 70-300 lens.

Those two really show the limits of the optics on my cheap-ass 70-300. Its especially noticeable when you zoom in a click or two. Ghosty whites. I need a better quality long lens.

EDIT: Sorry, folks. If you're reading this page of this thread for the first time, there's a reason there's no pics in this post any longer. The server where these pics were was changed. Most of them are on my Flickr page, now.

 

[FBJ]

Damn. No loves for my picses.

 

[Cytoxan]

Wow, this thread really makes me want to take a class. Did you guys take a class or just pick it up?

I have a Digital Rebel xt like a few others and have just started to uses some of the manual settings. I felt like the kid that just had his training wheels taken off? I am looking for a good lens to take on a Caribbean cruise. We?re going on several tours and want to take lots of scenic shots. What would you recommend in the $500.00 - $1000.00 range?

Thanks,

 

[UnderTheGUN]

Wow, this thread really makes me want to take a class. Did you guys take a class or just pick it up?

I have a Digital Rebel xt like a few others and have just started to uses some of the manual settings. I felt like the kid that just had his training wheels taken off? I am looking for a good lens to take on a Caribbean cruise. We?re going on several tours and want to take lots of scenic shots. What would you recommend in the $500.00 - $1000.00 range?

Thanks,

I will let someone else comment on the lens choice, but I would highly recommend taking a polarizing filter to the Caribbean.

 

[VF]

Okay folks. Here's a few images that I processed with Adobe Lightroom. I'm loving this program! And I love shooting in RAW format! There is SO MUCH MORE DATA in the image to play with! It gives you MUCH MUCH more control over how your images turn out!

Main dome at Griffith Observatory. I processed this in B&W (durhey) and tweaked the highlights and contrast to bring out the cloud detail. I also turned off the noise reduction to give it that grainy look.

Some how I missed these, they look great! It isn't easy to use wide angle / fisheye without making people nauseated, but I think these look fantastic, very nice. I like your B+W conversion.

Shooting RAW is great! I can not tell you how many times I have been saved by the 4 extra bits per channel (for the 5D at least)

 

[VF]

Wow, this thread really makes me want to take a class. Did you guys take a class or just pick it up?

I have a Digital Rebel xt like a few others and have just started to uses some of the manual settings. I felt like the kid that just had his training wheels taken off… I am looking for a good lens to take on a Caribbean cruise. We’re going on several tours and want to take lots of scenic shots. What would you recommend in the $500.00 - $1000.00 range?

Thanks,

Although my photos aren't great, I would say the best advice is just take a BUNCH of pictures. Try everything, play with settings, see how far you can push things. Try taking the same picture many many times with different settings to see what it does. Once you start getting the technical stuff down a bit more, you mind is more free to think about the shot you want to get and you aren't worried about how you are going to get it. Reading the "rules" of photography, the tips and tricks (the rule of 1/3s, etc.) is not a bad idea, just make sure you then break all the rules and do what works for you. Now that I have just said to ignore the rules, one of the great sites for learning about lighting is http://strobist.blogspot.com/

I would say if you are just starting, don't go to the full manual modes quite yet, I would try futzting around with either the aperture or shutter speed priority modes (Av or Tv modes), that way if you know if want very shallow depth of field, all you do is you set your camera to Av mode, set the f stop you want, and the camera will set the shutter speed for you. It's nice as sort of a semi manual mode. That way, you can set the parts you care about, and watch to see what the camera does to set the exposure, and you can start getting a feel for the amount of light you need to properly expose for the settings you want.

As for a lens for the XTi, it heavily depends on the style of photography that suits you. Which lenses do you have now, and what do you feel that they are lacking? One of the great walk around lenses for the XTi, and one that 1.6 croppers are loving is the EF-s 17-55 f/2.8 IS (B&H has it for $949 right now) really fast lens which also boasts image stabilization, and a fantastic zoom range, which is the equivalent to a 28-85 on a full frame camera, but again it depends on what you are after. I use a 24-70mm on a full frame 5D, and 24mm is pretty wide, but if you are seeking really wide angle, 17mm on a 1.6 crop camera isn't going to cut it, and you might want to look at the EF-s 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5. A bit over a stop slower on the long end (so half the about of light reaches the sensor = twice the amount of time the shutter has to be open) but it is a fantastic ultra wide.

 

[Cytoxan]

Although my photos aren't great, I would say the best advice is just take a BUNCH of pictures. Try everything, play with settings, see how far you can push things. Try taking the same picture many many times with different settings to see what it does. Once you start getting the technical stuff down a bit more, you mind is more free to think about the shot you want to get and you aren't worried about how you are going to get it. Reading the "rules" of photography, the tips and tricks (the rule of 1/3s, etc.) is not a bad idea, just make sure you then break all the rules and do what works for you. Now that I have just said to ignore the rules, one of the great sites for learning about lighting is http://strobist.blogspot.com/

I would say if you are just starting, don't go to the full manual modes quite yet, I would try futzting around with either the aperture or shutter speed priority modes (Av or Tv modes), that way if you know if want very shallow depth of field, all you do is you set your camera to Av mode, set the f stop you want, and the camera will set the shutter speed for you. It's nice as sort of a semi manual mode. That way, you can set the parts you care about, and watch to see what the camera does to set the exposure, and you can start getting a feel for the amount of light you need to properly expose for the settings you want.

As for a lens for the XTi, it heavily depends on the style of photography that suits you. Which lenses do you have now, and what do you feel that they are lacking? One of the great walk around lenses for the XTi, and one that 1.6 croppers are loving is the EF-s 17-55 f/2.8 IS (B&H has it for $949 right now) really fast lens which also boasts image stabilization, and a fantastic zoom range, which is the equivalent to a 28-85 on a full frame camera, but again it depends on what you are after. I use a 24-70mm on a full frame 5D, and 24mm is pretty wide, but if you are seeking really wide angle, 17mm on a 1.6 crop camera isn't going to cut it, and you might want to look at the EF-s 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5. A bit over a stop slower on the long end (so half the about of light reaches the sensor = twice the amount of time the shutter has to be open) but it is a fantastic ultra wide.

I don?t know if I should thank you for all this information, or to curse you for all the research I have to do to understand what you said?

Seriously thanks! That lens looks pretty sweet.

 

[VF]

I don?t know if I should thank you for all this information, or to curse you for all the research I have to do to understand what you said?

Seriously thanks! That lens looks pretty sweet.

Feel free to PM me if you want to talk through the lens choices some more. Knowing what you currently have, and where you need to fill out I might be able to give you more useful advice

 

[Cytoxan]

Feel free to PM me if you want to talk through the lens choices some more. Knowing what you currently have, and where you need to fill out I might be able to give you more useful advice

I got a bundle with the camera that included 2 Sigma lenses.

18 ? 50mm & 70 ? 300mm, I?m sure they?re nothing special as the bundle wouldn?t have been so inexpensive. I got married about two months ago, the photographers were great and recommend to get a better lens for our trip. We never got the chance to go over the best choice for us. Once I get a better handle on this one, I want to get a point and shoot converted to infrared.

 

[ImA1032]

Here are a few images I shot at Dodger Stadium last Wednesday. These were taken from my seat in the lower reserved section, about a third of the way between the third-base bag and the foul pole. Probably three-hundred yards. 70-300 lens.

Those two really show the limits of the optics on my cheap-ass 70-300. Its especially noticeable when you zoom in a click or two. Ghosty whites. I need a better quality long lens.

Wowww... I missed all of this while I was in Chicago for 3 weeks in May due to a family medical issue. Some excellent pictures! The 70-300 lens you have, is it the Nikon 2.8 VR? I used that out in Fontana for a NASCAR race and had some fantastic shots. I'm looking to pick one up in the not too distant future... Once I get a few spare overtime shifts in so I can part with the $1100+.

As far as rental lenses go, there's also Samy's Camera that rents equipment. That's where I got my start with a rental Nikon D100 and the VR lens.

The pics below were shot using my D70s and (I believe) my Tamron 70-300 F4-5.6.

 

[FBJ]

Wowww... I missed all of this while I was in Chicago for 3 weeks in May due to a family medical issue. Some excellent pictures! The 70-300 lens you have, is it the Nikon 2.8 VR? I used that out in Fontana for a NASCAR race and had some fantastic shots. I'm looking to pick one up in the not too distant future... Once I get a few spare overtime shifts in so I can part with the $1100+.

As far as rental lenses go, there's also Samy's Camera that rents equipment. That's where I got my start with a rental Nikon D100 and the VR lens.

No. The 70-300 is the f4-5.6 G lens that Nikon USA had made in China until about three years ago. It's really a cheapo. Cost me $175, new. The new VR lens is the shizznit, so I'm told.

I've got a few lenses I need/want, and that 70-300 VR is at the top of the list. I also want the 80-400 Nikon (or perhaps the 50-500 Sigma, but I think the Nikon's VR would be useful at the longer focal lengths), a nice macro lens, and the 28-200 VR lense that Nikon makes. It just takes money, which is in short supply at the moment.

 

[VF]

I got a bundle with the camera that included 2 Sigma lenses.

18 – 50mm & 70 – 300mm, I’m sure they’re nothing special as the bundle wouldn’t have been so inexpensive. I got married about two months ago, the photographers were great and recommend to get a better lens for our trip. We never got the chance to go over the best choice for us. Once I get a better handle on this one, I want to get a point and shoot converted to infrared.

How do you like the 18-50mm zoom range? If you like it, and just want to move up in quality, it might be worth renting the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD and the Canon EF-S 17-55mm to see which one you like (www.lensrentals.com has them, the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 macro is also of similar quality, but I couldn't find if for rent). The Canon is more expensive, but it does have IS, which the others don't (IS is supposed to be good for an extra 2-3 stops, which is handy hand held with a stationary subject, but if your subject is moving, IS isn't going to help all that much)

If you just want to fill out your wide end, you could keep the 18-50mm you have and try the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, or the Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6. The Sigma is slower than the Canon, and not quite as sharp, and it's about the same price. The reason for that, and it's one potential advantage for you, is that it can be mounted on a full frame camera, so if you ever see yourself upgrading to a 5D or any of the 1D-s, that is something to keep in mind.

If overall quality (both image quality and build quality, i.e. built like a tank) is of greater importance to you than zoom reach, and you want lenses that will mount on a full frame camera, then you might look at the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L and the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L Mk II (the 16-35 is quite a bit more expensive due to it being a stop faster (when I was starting out, 1 stop never sounded like that much, and it always baffled me why with two lenses, with all else being equal, why the one that was 1 stop faster was almost twice the cost, but 1 stop is a lot, twice the amount of light you can capture))

As for the long end, I don't know how useful it will be to your trip, but in case you where itching to replace your Sigma 70-300, Canon now has their workhorse 70-200L non-IS in a f/4.0 version that is a very reasonable $600 or so, and it is a fantastic lens for the cost. I don't know if you are willing to shoot primes or not, but in that zoom range, the EF 135mm f/2.0 is simply magic (although it might be a little long on a 1.6 crop camera for it's intended use as a portraiture lens), the EF 85mm f/1.8 ($300) holds up surprisingly well against it's big brother "THE" portraiture king 85mm f/1.2 ($2000), and if you don't like the idea of a big white L lens (the 70-200) and want something a little more stealthy (not white) and still want the image quality on the long end, the EF 200mm f/2.8 is a fantastic choice. And I have to throw it in there because it has to be the best $80 lens on the planet, the "nifty fifty": EF 50mm f/1.8 (or it's sibling the 50mm f/1.4, which is $300, but lets you manual focus full time instead of having to flip the autofocus switch to MF like you do on the f/1.8 - both of these might be a good compliment the to 17-40 or the 16-35 if you chose to go that route)

 

[ImA1032]

No. The 70-300 is the f4-5.6 G lens that Nikon USA had made in China until about three years ago. It's really a cheapo. Cost me $175, new. The new VR lens is the shizznit, so I'm told.

From some of the reviews I've read, that lens was supposedly made by Tamron. They pointed out several things between the two that were exactly identical but I don't remember the details. It certainly sounded as though Nikon had gone to someone else to make a lens for their labeling.

I've got a few lenses I need/want, and that 70-300 VR is at the top of the list. I also want the 80-400 Nikon (or perhaps the 50-500 Sigma, but I think the Nikon's VR would be useful at the longer focal lengths), a nice macro lens, and the 28-200 VR lense that Nikon makes. It just takes money, which is in short supply at the moment.

Luckily summer is here and that's my busy time. Hopefully in July I'll have 96+ hours of overtime and be able to swing the $1100-$1400 for the 70-300VR lens. BUT... I also want to get a nice size LCD TV too... which I think I'd get more use out of than the lens... so we'll see where my priorities wind up. Then again, there's always August overtime...

 

[FBJ]

From some of the reviews I've read, that lens was supposedly made by Tamron. They pointed out several things between the two that were exactly identical but I don't remember the details. It certainly sounded as though Nikon had gone to someone else to make a lens for their labeling.

I don't know who built it, but its a piece of ****. It was what I could afford at the time. At $150, you get what you pay for. That's for sure.

Luckily summer is here and that's my busy time. Hopefully in July I'll have 96+ hours of overtime and be able to swing the $1100-$1400 for the 70-300VR lens. BUT... I also want to get a nice size LCD TV too... which I think I'd get more use out of than the lens... so we'll see where my priorities wind up. Then again, there's always August overtime...

$1100-$1400?? Where do you shop, man? The Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR lens shouldn't cost you any more than about $500 with shipping included! For $1200, you could probably pick up the 80-400 VR that Nikon puts out. Sigma also makes an 80-400 (or even one of their discontinued 50-500 lenses on eBay) that's about $200 less and just as good, quality-wise.

I've got enough saved up to buy the 70-300, but I'm thinking I'm just going to save up another $600 and buy the 80-400. You don't lose much on the wide end of the focal lengths ( I always carry my 28-200 lens anyhow) and you gain another 150mm (with the conversion factor figured in) on the high end. I've used the 80-400, and I was exceedingly happy with it.