General Photography Chat

[Ayreonaut]

Now, over the past 11 days I've averaged over 30 views/day on Flickr.

[Robert Pence]

Originally Posted by bulliver

^ By soft I mean the opposite of 'sharp'. Specifically I was told it was soft at both extremes of the focal length. Another SSPer, Robert Pence I think, was talking about how much he liked it, further back in this very thread perhaps...

Sigma makes a 18-200mm f3.5-6.3

No idea how good it is....

That was me. I got the Nikkor VR lens with a D200 in a kit, and didn't expect much from a lens with that range. I got pleasantly surprised and got excellent results with it, and the guys at the camera shop echoed my sentiments.

Edit: Toledo Ohio Union Station, shot with D200 and Nikkor 18-200 VR:

[Aleks]

Originally Posted by Tony

If I were you, I wouldn't waste money on fancy-looking brand name diffusers at this time. Something as simple as this: http://cgi.ebay.com/New-Flash-Bounce...item27ad7be968

works perfectly fine (and this is what I have too). You just have to learn when to use it / when not to, and how to bounce the flash on walls / ceilings. Plus it's only 3 bucks, how can you go wrong?

After you've mastered this (which I haven't by a long shot), you may want to look into those more expensive diffusers.

Yup, I thought about that too. I wanted to try something cheap first and move up from there but the flip-diffuser definitely showed better, more natural skin tones. Another option (the least likely option) is to make my own diffuser but I'm too clumsy to do that and I would probably poke my eye out in one way or another. I'll definitely compare flip-diffusers to omni-bounce ones because I want to order it along with the SB-600 for Christmas. Spring time will come along and many people will begin to get married, have parties, and just random stuff in general.

But yeah, the reason why I would rather get something better (even if it is more expensive) is because I want to provide as much quality as I can for my costumer (if I find any!). I mean, I'm certainly not a pro (or even close), but that doesn't mean I won't try my hardest to make good pictures.

Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast

How do you change your mind so much? What lens do you have currently again?

Anyways, I think at this rate, I think before you actually decide to get one of these lenses and ending up wanting something completely different a week after, really think about what will serve you the best with your photography. How much could you use it? Could you use it for both wedding and urban photography? Is the focal length, f stops, etc. most interesting to you? Ask these questions and make sure you don't buy right the second you get the money and think of it. Good luck again!

Question for all: does anyone here still use their kit (18-50/18-55/17-55/17-50) lens often? I'm finding my 55-200mm vr is fastly becoming my "everything" lens and I only use the kit for when I want to do wide angle stuff.

Personally I want 50mm f1.8...on my Christmas list, after which I'd probably try to save for the 10-24mm Tamron which is about 550 CAD.

Yeah, people probably hate me for all these stupid posts! I want to get an f/2.8 lens because I do a lot of indoor shots. Plus Seattle has a lot of low-light and when I'm in a densely forested park, moving, or it's just dark I get blurry shots, even with VR on. I mainly want it for Urban Photography but for the random events I shoot it'd be nice to use too. Oh, and the 2.8 will offer decent bokeh's.

The hard thing will be comparing a Tamron and a Sigma. I don't know any stores that carry Sigma (apparently Sigma made a deal with B&H (or Adorama) to sell them lenses for a lower price than independent stores), and Tamron, well.... I have just never seen one in a store. Another option would be renting both lenses and comparing them but they've been used by who knows how many people and I just don't have the money to rent a lens. The word renting makes me cringe in general.

The thing holding me back is monayy! Either spend 650 for the Tamron 17-50, which has a lot of good reviews, or 350 for a lens with no vr, less reviews, older model and save 300 bucks.

I LOVED the 18-55mm (non vr). It was the best lens I've ever owned in my opinion. Cheap, light, little, it was the perfect do it all lens (along with the 55-200).

I've read and heard that the Tamron is the worst wide-angle lens. Soft edges, bad sun spots, and blah blah. If I didn't want the Tokina (and the f/2.8) so much I would probably get the Sigma 10-20. I'm not sure how much it would cost in Canada though, maybe too expensive? The Tamron 10-24 costs 480 or less new here in the US, and in Canada it's 520 US dollars. Wtf?

Flar, that's weird. I used to have the 18-55 and I found the distortion very limited. Well, at least compared to the 18-105mm that I have now. This lens has horrible distortion, I can't wait to sell it and get a better lens (even if it means sacrificing zoomage).

[ue]

^Hey, no, they're not stupid posts, it's good to ask questions. Other than the extra f stops and the 1mm in wide, what is so special about a 17-50/17-55 focal range when you can get a cheap 18-55.

McBains seems to be the cheapest right now because of a holiday special, it's 579, but regular 619 w/o tax.

I've heard the lens is pretty good, and I've seen some good shots on Flickr, and ultimately I was looking for affordability. It seems the cheapest. The 10-20 by Sigma is 720...dunno how I could ever afford that, but that's Canada. I remember in Ritz the 55-200mm is about 220 back in summer, here it's 290 at cheapest, which is at Vistek. McBains doesn't sell it in VR, Best Buy, Future Shop, London Drugs are 300+. 220 vs 290 are not that big in difference, but as you can tell the differences can get bigger.

I told you it's because there is a much much larger consumer market in the United States, I forgot to mention it also has to do with the exchange rate. Both, in combination, make things more expensive in Canada. We also have higher quality of life, higher minimum wages, too. Things like milk is four dollars here for a litre...and a gallon in the United States is like a buck. Crazy. Also, no matter the exchange rate, it seems between Canadians and Americans, relative to whatever an object is and one's beliefs on priceyness, something costing $1, $100, or $2500 in the US or Can will mean the same thing either way though in value.

Another thing is Edmonton itself is A) farther from the coast, B) further from the US border. American products are more readily available in Vancouver or Toronto compared to Edmonton or St. John's. Even Calgary is in the same boat even though it is closer to the border, it's just on the other side it's quite unpopulated (MT, ND, WY).

[Doady]

Originally Posted by Kingofthehill

Hmm..I specified if those are the desired focal lengths for street photos that utilize shallow depth of field/"bokeh." I am very well aware that National Geographic/traditional street photography prefers wide angles and uses <50mm lenses (mated with film cameras, too, of course).

And, uh, the 85mm and 135mm are indeed quite used in the urban street photography world. Just take a peek over at flickr for yourself. And if they aren't used by photographers, they are what's preferred and what's on everybody's (well, not everybody) wishlist.

By chance, do you shoot film? If so, that explains why you mentioned those focal lengths. Getting into film is a whole different ballgame

I have seen street photos taken with telephoto lenses on a medium format camera, so anything is possible.

There is a new 20mm (equivalent 40mm) F1.7 lense for the micro Four Thirds system, and it does seem interesting to me. After all that is the "normal" focal length, very close to the 35mm that I use often. But of course I have to get a m4/3 body first. I suppose nobody here uses m4/3? You are all Canon and Nikon SLR people, I know. I don't think I will ever buy an SLR. SLRs will become obsolete eventually I think.

What I am thinking of getting is the Panasonic G1, but I also think I should try to push my current (point-and-shoot) camera to the limits and my photos are pretty bad. It can be too easy to get up in the equipment side of things. But still, my camera is over 4 years old now, so maybe a new cam is not such a bad idea. I've only been doing this for 5 years!

[giallo]

Originally Posted by Robert Pence

That was me. I got the Nikkor VR lens with a D200 in a kit, and didn't expect much from a lens with that range. I got pleasantly surprised and got excellent results with it, and the guys at the camera shop echoed my sentiments.

I used the 18-200mm with a D200 for three years and loved it as well. It's a great all around lens. It's true that it's a nit soft, but that's what photoshop is for. Just crank up the sharpness a bit.

Here are some of my urban shots with it. Some are fully zoomed out at 18mm while others are fully zoomed in at 200mm:



















A great value at $600 in my opinion (although it was $900 three years ago when I bought it).

[Ayreonaut]

Holy mother of god Lightroom is incredible!

[Tony]

Originally Posted by Aleks

Yup, I thought about that too. I wanted to try something cheap first and move up from there but the flip-diffuser definitely showed better, more natural skin tones. Another option (the least likely option) is to make my own diffuser but I'm too clumsy to do that and I would probably poke my eye out in one way or another. I'll definitely compare flip-diffusers to omni-bounce ones because I want to order it along with the SB-600 for Christmas. Spring time will come along and many people will begin to get married, have parties, and just random stuff in general.

But yeah, the reason why I would rather get something better (even if it is more expensive) is because I want to provide as much quality as I can for my costumer (if I find any!). I mean, I'm certainly not a pro (or even close), but that doesn't mean I won't try my hardest to make good pictures.

But that's just the thing Aleks, I'm not convinced it's the "quality" of the diffuser that creates the more natural skin tones. AFAIK, any diffuser, when used properly and bounced properly can produce what you're looking for. Only once at the many weddings I've been to did the professional photographer have a special diffuser, every one else uses a standard plastic cap and the results are just fine.

[toyota74]

Its been a week now since I bid for
my 18-200 lense from ebay and
still nothing in the post...booo
I say booo!........

[toyota74]

well it came today
in the post,it a heavy one but
no time to play with it.

[ue]

Let us know how it is when you get to use it!

[toyota74]

will do Ed.

[mr.John]

Any of you guys come across the hardcore images some nutcase keeps posting on flickr, they're usually accompanied with vulgar anti jewish and American comments, this moron doesn't give up he does this every week using different accounts

[Aleks]

nope, post links so we can report his ass!

[Ayreonaut]

Flickr is much more of a networking tool than I ever expected. And unlike SSP, women are on Flickr too!

But seriously, it's more than just the photo-hosting site I thought I was going to use it as.

[Ayreonaut]

I'm finally ready to post my Milan thread. After this one, everything from me will be Lightroom Photothreads.

[Aleks]

Ordered my SB-600 but it wont ship till the 21. I hope it makes it before Christmas!

Can't wait to tryy it outt!

[toyota74]

Ive been learning about the nikon d70
on Ken Rockwells site and Im just wondering
what people think of him.....he says a lot of
'I dont bother with this and that' etc.....
..so Im wondering if his reviews and techniques
are bible.And I do know I have to go out and try
things for myself but just want to know your
opinions.......

[flar]

Originally Posted by toyota74

Ive been learning about the nikon d70
on Ken Rockwells site and Im just wondering
what people think of him.....he says a lot of
'I dont bother with this and that' etc.....
..so Im wondering if his reviews and techniques
are bible.And I do know I have to go out and try
things for myself but just want to know your
opinions.......

Nothing is bible in photography, you use the techniques that you like and develop your own style. Look for photographs you like and find out more about the photographer's techniques and equipment. If you like Ken Rockwell's photography, then listen to him. If you like someone else's photography, listen to them too. Always best to learn things from a few different sources.

[bulliver]

^^ Ha ha! Rockwell.

I like him actually. He's got good practical common sense advice and such. A lot of folks hate on him because he 'tells it like it is' and pisses off all the gear wankers.

My opinion: I've found his info to be solid, and used both his D40 and D90 users guides as a starting point to figuring out my own thing. You just need to take him with a grain of salt as he is a joker at times...