General Photography Chat - Page 15

flar · #**281** Posted **Nov 23, 2009, 9:19 PM**

I would personally look for a different focal length if I were buying a prime lens. Doing mostly urban photography, I barely take any shots around the 50mm focal length. I actually have teh 50mm f1.8 manual but don't find many occasions to use it, despite its excellent quality.

Kingofthehill · #**282** Posted **Nov 23, 2009, 10:02 PM**

Word. 85mm and 135mm are the way to go if it is super shallow dof and "true" urban (street) photography one seeks.

Doady · #**283** Posted **Nov 25, 2009, 12:55 AM**

"True" street photography is usually done at focal lengths 28mm, 35mm, 40mm, and 50mm, assuming the camera has a 35mm size sensor or film.

If you use 85mm and 135mm focal lengths, you have to worry more about focusing, and therefore potentially miss "the moment." Photos taken at longer focal lengths have a different look as well. But still, I'm not saying 85mm and 135mm are wrong, just saying they are not commonly used for street photography.

To never waste time focusing for street photography, I set my camera so that it automatically to use the hyperfocal focus distance at four different focal lengths that can easily switch between: 28mm, 35mm, 55mm, and 80mm. I have found that with my (admittedly poor) attempts at street photography, the most common focal lengths used were 35mm and 55mm (35mm equivalent). Some 28mm too. 80mm is very rare.

Kingofthehill · #**284** Posted **Nov 25, 2009, 1:22 AM**

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

toyota74 · #**285** Posted **Nov 28, 2009, 10:23 PM**

Any views on the nikkor 18-200 vr lense,Isaw it on
ebay ,used for under 400euros (think 600 dollars).

I want that scope....good lense/not good??

bulliver · #**286** Posted **Nov 28, 2009, 10:35 PM**

^ Hard to tell...I was looking at it but didn't get it because a few of my flickr contacts told me it was soft...however...I have since heard from just as many people that it is great! Don't know what to think anymore...

toyota74 · #**287** Posted **Nov 28, 2009, 11:03 PM**

Maybe its a good lense for me as I know
very little about lenses and am new to dslrs.I dont
even know what you mean by soft.....and maybe
people who are seriously into photography could
find some faults with the lenses...if you know
what I mean plus Im in alot of windy and sometimes
wet conditions and I dont wanna change lenses all
the time....is there an alternative

bulliver · #**288** Posted **Nov 28, 2009, 11:25 PM**

^ 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....

Aleks · #**289** Posted **Nov 29, 2009, 12:54 AM**

I wanted to get the 18-200vr but I couldn't afford it so I didn't Good think I didn't! Because of that now I'm looking more into different lenses, third party specifically.

I did some research and now I want the...
-Tamron-17-50 f/2.8
-Tokina 11-16 f/2.8
-Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 (although I'm not sure since I heard vr us a major advantage even if the lens is 2.8 so I'll have to test them out)

I want to sell my 18-105. I love the convenience but I'm not happy with the picture quality.

toyota74 · #**290** Posted **Nov 29, 2009, 9:36 PM**

well just bought the 18-200 on ebay
so just have to wait for it to be
posted from the u.k

Kingofthehill · #**291** Posted **Nov 30, 2009, 4:25 AM**

Jack of all trade lenses..hmm. Generally, they aren't too good at any one thing, but on the flip side, they aren't too bad at any one thing.

toyota74 · #**292** Posted **Nov 30, 2009, 7:51 PM**

there seems to be mixed feelings about
this lense..but I think Iwill be happy with it,
besides there is so many more lenses
to buy diwn the line

Aleks · #**293** Posted **Dec 1, 2009, 12:02 AM**

Okay, so I decided that I'll get the SB-600 with a diffuser instead of the 50mm 1.4d. I figured that I could get some money back if I took some shots at weddings or parties.

I went to my moms friends house and they paid 250 bucks for 6 pictures that were the worst 'professional' crap I've eve seen. I figured that if I can take good pictures, I can charge like 100 bucks and get recommended to other people. In no time I'll have the SB-600 money back and some extra.

Plus this stupid hoe still has to pay me 50 bucks for taking her senior pictures.

ue · #**294** Posted **Dec 1, 2009, 2:59 AM**

^You change your mind lots

.

Anyways, that sounds like a good idea. I have little use for flash personally, but I am starting to find uses for the basic on cam flash as long as it's not at full. A wedding would be a really cool way to make some money. I'd be worried about ruining the memories of someone's special day, dunno if I'd have the guts to do it (yet!).

I'd go for it. Good luck, let us know how it is when you get it and if you get it.

Tony · #**295** Posted **Dec 1, 2009, 3:21 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aleks

Okay, so I decided that I'll get the SB-600 with a diffuser instead of the 50mm 1.4d. I figured that I could get some money back if I took some shots at weddings or parties.

I went to my moms friends house and they paid 250 bucks for 6 pictures that were the worst 'professional' crap I've eve seen. I figured that if I can take good pictures, I can charge like 100 bucks and get recommended to other people. In no time I'll have the SB-600 money back and some extra.

Plus this stupid hoe still has to pay me 50 bucks for taking her senior pictures.

Order the diffuser on e-bay, mine cost all of $3 and works great.

Aleks · #**296** Posted **Dec 2, 2009, 7:13 AM**

Thats just it, I dont know which diffuser to order

I want one that works, one that will offer good, natural tones. I saw this but it's 30 bucks, and I could just get an omni-bounce diffuser instead for less than 10 bucks. So far the Demb Diffuser looks really good, look at some examples! I especially like the ones from moissipy! And here's the flickr pool.

I wonder how it works indoors, and at parties, where light is usually very dim.

Also! I changed my mind again

I don't want the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Instead I want the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8 Macro. Or I think I do? If I get the Tamron I'll have to buy the VC version because I've read its far superior than the old one, but with the Sigma I get more range and 2.8 throughout the zoom. I'll see. I guess my Tokina will have to wait for another year

Tony · #**297** Posted **Dec 2, 2009, 1:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aleks

I want one that works, one that will offer good, natural tones. I saw this but it's 30 bucks, and I could just get an omni-bounce diffuser instead for less than 10 bucks. So far the Demb Diffuser looks really good, look at some examples! I especially like the ones from moissipy! And here's the flickr pool.

I wonder how it works indoors, and at parties, where light is usually very dim.

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.

ue · #**298** Posted **Dec 2, 2009, 7:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aleks

(...)

Also! I changed my mind again

I don't want the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Instead I want the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8 Macro. Or I think I do? If I get the Tamron I'll have to buy the VC version because I've read its far superior than the old one, but with the Sigma I get more range and 2.8 throughout the zoom. I'll see. I guess my Tokina will have to wait for another year

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.

Ayreonaut · #**299** Posted **Dec 2, 2009, 8:13 PM**

I haven't been using my camera much since I got my 55-250mm because of work. Though whenever I do start taking pictures again I imagine I'll still use the kit lens on occasion, especially if I find myself downtown.

flar · #**300** Posted **Dec 2, 2009, 8:16 PM**

I use my 18-55 kit lens most of the time.

The major annoyance with it is the barrel distortion at the wide end, which I correct in software if it's too noticeable in the photo.