HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Photography Forums > General Photography


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #121  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2012, 7:12 AM
i_am_hydrogen i_am_hydrogen is offline
tilted & shifted
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,601
35L
__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #122  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2012, 9:57 AM
Illithid Dude's Avatar
Illithid Dude Illithid Dude is offline
Paramoderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Santa Monica / New York City
Posts: 2,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by glowrock View Post
That and the fact that manual focus is nearly a necessity for the super shallow depth of field that f1.4 gives you, is it really worth it? For reference, I do have a 50mm f1.8 already.

Aaron (Glowrock)
I really don't think that manual focus is needed that much for a 1.4. Like I said, I have the Zeiss 1.4 35mm. I couldn't miss autofocus less. You get acclimated so quickly to a manual focus only environment that it being that type of environment becomes a non-issue.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #123  
Old Posted Jan 8, 2012, 10:26 PM
glowrock's Avatar
glowrock glowrock is offline
Becoming Chicago-fied!
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chicago (West Avondale)
Posts: 19,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illithid Dude View Post
I really don't think that manual focus is needed that much for a 1.4. Like I said, I have the Zeiss 1.4 35mm. I couldn't miss autofocus less. You get acclimated so quickly to a manual focus only environment that it being that type of environment becomes a non-issue.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you? So you don't think autofocus is necessary on a f1.4, is that right?

Aaron (Glowrock)
__________________
"My first day in Chicago, September 4, 1983. I set foot in this city, and just walking down the street, it was like roots, like the motherland. I knew I belonged here." -- Oprah Winfrey
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #124  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2012, 4:20 AM
Illithid Dude's Avatar
Illithid Dude Illithid Dude is offline
Paramoderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Santa Monica / New York City
Posts: 2,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by glowrock View Post
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you? So you don't think autofocus is necessary on a f1.4, is that right?

Aaron (Glowrock)
I don't think it is that necessary, correct. However, I do tend to stop down when shooting, which does make it easier to focus on the fly. I only normally shoot wide open when doing a portrait, or some food, which generally remain still, and allow me time to focus my shots.



Just an example of a picture I shot, manual focus, at 1.4. Easy as pie.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #125  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2012, 9:13 PM
diskojoe's Avatar
diskojoe diskojoe is offline
3rd Coast King
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Houston
Posts: 2,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by glowrock View Post
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you? So you don't think autofocus is necessary on a f1.4, is that right?

Aaron (Glowrock)
its not necessary on any lens. it just make it easier. but im sure you could handle turning the know aaron. When im at the club taking shot in low light conditions AF is virtually impossible.
__________________
Photo Threads
Flickr
Facebook

My Book
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #126  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2012, 9:15 PM
diskojoe's Avatar
diskojoe diskojoe is offline
3rd Coast King
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Houston
Posts: 2,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by glowrock View Post
I have been considering getting the Nikon/Sigma version of the 35mm f1.4 (I think the Sigma version is a 30mm f1.4), but I'm wondering if it's really such a huge difference between f1.8 and f1.4... That and the fact that manual focus is nearly a necessity for the super shallow depth of field that f1.4 gives you, is it really worth it? For reference, I do have a 50mm f1.8 already.

Aaron (Glowrock)
It not just the extra stop you are buying. The glass is nicer too on the top end lenses. definitely worth the money. I only got a 50mm f1.7 cause it was cheap or I would own a a sigma 50mm f1.4.
__________________
Photo Threads
Flickr
Facebook

My Book
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #127  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2012, 9:16 PM
diskojoe's Avatar
diskojoe diskojoe is offline
3rd Coast King
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Houston
Posts: 2,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr.John View Post
I have a bunch of old Minolta maxxum lenses I want to get rid of, I don't want to waste my time with crap-bay, if anyone is interested let me know. the lenses are all in decent condition and are in working order (I have no idea if these things are worth anything)
50mm f 1.7
70-210mm f 4
28mm f2.8
35-70mm f 4
ohh
__________________
Photo Threads
Flickr
Facebook

My Book
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #128  
Old Posted Jan 18, 2012, 6:17 PM
haux's Avatar
haux haux is offline
Rising into view
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Downtown Phoenix
Posts: 143
I just bought a Tamron 17-50 2.8. Goodbye, kit lens!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #129  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2012, 3:26 AM
glowrock's Avatar
glowrock glowrock is offline
Becoming Chicago-fied!
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chicago (West Avondale)
Posts: 19,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by haux View Post
I just bought a Tamron 17-50 2.8. Goodbye, kit lens!
Excellent choice. I got that lens (with the image stabilization) for my Nikon D5100 a few months ago, and I freaking love it!

Aaron (Glowrock)
__________________
"My first day in Chicago, September 4, 1983. I set foot in this city, and just walking down the street, it was like roots, like the motherland. I knew I belonged here." -- Oprah Winfrey
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #130  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2012, 4:46 AM
photoLith's Avatar
photoLith photoLith is offline
Ex Houstonian
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Carnegie, Pittsburgh
Posts: 12,827
I just bought the Nikon 14-24 2.8 lens a few days ago. I sold my Tokina 11-16, but it was worth it. I took some pics of it tonight, with my also new R1C1 flash unit.





Ive only gone out to take pictures with it once but heres one from the Rice Lofts in downtown Houston.

__________________
The Greater Good
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #131  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2012, 3:03 PM
glowrock's Avatar
glowrock glowrock is offline
Becoming Chicago-fied!
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chicago (West Avondale)
Posts: 19,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by photoLith View Post
I just bought the Nikon 14-24 2.8 lens a few days ago. I sold my Tokina 11-16, but it was worth it. I took some pics of it tonight, with my also new R1C1 flash unit.





Ive only gone out to take pictures with it once but heres one from the Rice Lofts in downtown Houston.

Damn, that's some impressive gear, photoLith!

Anyhow, I've got another question for the gang. I've decided against picking up that 85mm 1.4 prime I was thinking of (pretty limited use, honestly), at least for the time being, but I'm looking into picking up a nice macro lens. I definitely like photographing bugs, flowers, other small objects (my mineral collection as well), and I think it would serve me well. The one I'm looking into right now is the Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro, given its pretty reasonable pricepoint of about $400. Only thing I'm not quite sure about is the fact that the lens extends greatly when focusing for macro, since it's not an internal focus mechanism. Might be a bit difficult in terms of working distance when taking photos of, well, living creatures!

I'd love that Nikkor 105mm f2.8 with the VR, but I simply can't justify the cost (more than double the Tamron) right now, even though I'm sure it's a better lens.

I'm open to any and all suggestions from you guys as far as a good macro for my D5100, though. Seems like I'm a bit limited because of the fact I need a lens with an autofocus motor as opposed to my camera having it...

Aaron (Glowrock)
__________________
"My first day in Chicago, September 4, 1983. I set foot in this city, and just walking down the street, it was like roots, like the motherland. I knew I belonged here." -- Oprah Winfrey
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #132  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2012, 4:11 PM
photoLith's Avatar
photoLith photoLith is offline
Ex Houstonian
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Carnegie, Pittsburgh
Posts: 12,827
Nikon just came out with their cheapest but yet very good micro lens. The 40mm 2.8 micro lens. I'd get that one if I were you. The 105 is around 1100 bucks, the 40mm is I think around 300. I don't really like tamron. Sigma lenses are usually better than tamron. Tokina makes very good lenses, sometimes better than Nikon but I'm not sure if they have a macro. The 40mm Nikon should work on the d5100 with autofocus but i don't know much about the d5100. But if it does work is go for the 40mm micro. The only problem with anything less than a 105 macro lens is that for insects you have to get very very close to them and may spook them. With a 200mm or 105mm macro you can get further back from insects but the Nikon 200mm micro is around 1300 bucks I believe. But for photographing minerals and other such things the 40mm is hard to beat for the price.

I had the Sigma 105mm macro many years ago and it was a very good lens. It's around 5oo bucks now. But again I don't know if it would work on the 5100 but I can't believe that that many lenses wouldn't work on a brand new Nikon dslr. So to recap, go with either the sigma 105 or Nikon 40 micro. The sigma although extends forward while focusing so yeah, that scares bugs. But if you can afford it, I'd get either the Nikon 200mm micro f2.8 or the 105 2.8.
__________________
The Greater Good

Last edited by photoLith; Jan 19, 2012 at 4:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #133  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2012, 4:54 PM
diskojoe's Avatar
diskojoe diskojoe is offline
3rd Coast King
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Houston
Posts: 2,671
if you look on ebay you might find a deal on a 105mm. Those are handy cause you could do your macro and still take portraits and such too cause its a nice focal length. I know people that have used the tamron 90mm before. Decent lens for the price.

i saw that 40mm photolith is talking about. Good price on that thing.
__________________
Photo Threads
Flickr
Facebook

My Book
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #134  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2012, 4:56 PM
diskojoe's Avatar
diskojoe diskojoe is offline
3rd Coast King
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Houston
Posts: 2,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by haux View Post
I just bought a Tamron 17-50 2.8. Goodbye, kit lens!
Still dreaming about the day I can buy one of those.
__________________
Photo Threads
Flickr
Facebook

My Book
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #135  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2012, 6:00 PM
flar's Avatar
flar flar is offline
..........
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 13,320
Glowrock: If you have the D version of the 50mm (with an aperture ring) you can buy a reversing ring for like ten bucks and start doing macro right away.


Photolith: you're killing me with your awesome equipment. 14mm on full frame is wider than 11mm on DX, so you won't miss your Tokina at all with an FX camera.
__________________
RECENT PHOTOS:
TORONTOSAN FRANCISCO ROCHESTER, NYHAMILTONGODERICH, ON WHEATLEY, ONCOBOURG, ONLAS VEGASLOS ANGELES
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #136  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2012, 6:21 PM
photoLith's Avatar
photoLith photoLith is offline
Ex Houstonian
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Carnegie, Pittsburgh
Posts: 12,827
^
Thanks man, I tried that lens on the D3X to see just how freakin wide it is on a full frame and the difference just 2.5mm makes compared to the Tokina 11-16 on a DX which is at 11, really 16.5, is just amazing. On a full frame you get a 114 degree angle of view. It will be a few months though before I get a full frame as Im waiting for the D800 to replace the D700. You have the 11-16 right? It was an awesome lens, beat out the competition when compared to the equivalent DX Nikon lens and was 500 bucks cheaper than the Nikon 10-24.
__________________
The Greater Good
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #137  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2012, 8:34 PM
glowrock's Avatar
glowrock glowrock is offline
Becoming Chicago-fied!
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chicago (West Avondale)
Posts: 19,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by flar View Post
Glowrock: If you have the D version of the 50mm (with an aperture ring) you can buy a reversing ring for like ten bucks and start doing macro right away.


Photolith: you're killing me with your awesome equipment. 14mm on full frame is wider than 11mm on DX, so you won't miss your Tokina at all with an FX camera.
I've got the g lens, flar... so no-go on that idea. As for the 40mm, I think i want something more like a 70-100mm range. 40 just seems too wide to have much room to work with in macro...

Aaron (Glowrock )
__________________
"My first day in Chicago, September 4, 1983. I set foot in this city, and just walking down the street, it was like roots, like the motherland. I knew I belonged here." -- Oprah Winfrey
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #138  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2012, 3:10 PM
photoLith's Avatar
photoLith photoLith is offline
Ex Houstonian
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Carnegie, Pittsburgh
Posts: 12,827
^
I was going to also recommend then the Tokina 100 macro, it's about 450 but its autofocus doesn't work on the 5100. I bought the Nikon 105mm used for about 700, you should try and find one used. My 105 came from some lady whose husband bought the 105 for her but she didn't want it so returned it right away, nice gesture to the husband, but it got me a brand new lens basically for 400 bucks less. Go to some camera stores in Pitt and see if they don't have used macros.
__________________
The Greater Good
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #139  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2012, 7:53 PM
diskojoe's Avatar
diskojoe diskojoe is offline
3rd Coast King
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Houston
Posts: 2,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by photoLith View Post
^
I was going to also recommend then the Tokina 100 macro, it's about 450 but its autofocus doesn't work on the 5100. I bought the Nikon 105mm used for about 700, you should try and find one used. My 105 came from some lady whose husband bought the 105 for her but she didn't want it so returned it right away, nice gesture to the husband, but it got me a brand new lens basically for 400 bucks less. Go to some camera stores in Pitt and see if they don't have used macros.
Or Houston camera exchange when you are back in town.
__________________
Photo Threads
Flickr
Facebook

My Book
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #140  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2012, 8:32 PM
glowrock's Avatar
glowrock glowrock is offline
Becoming Chicago-fied!
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chicago (West Avondale)
Posts: 19,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by photoLith View Post
^
I was going to also recommend then the Tokina 100 macro, it's about 450 but its autofocus doesn't work on the 5100. I bought the Nikon 105mm used for about 700, you should try and find one used. My 105 came from some lady whose husband bought the 105 for her but she didn't want it so returned it right away, nice gesture to the husband, but it got me a brand new lens basically for 400 bucks less. Go to some camera stores in Pitt and see if they don't have used macros.
You really think the Nikon 105 micro is worth $300 (used) to $500 (new) more than the Tamron 90mm macro? Hmm...

Just not sure if I want to shell out that large of an amount on a lens for relatively limited use... I'll definitely be on the lookout for a good price on one, though!

Aaron (Glowrock)
__________________
"My first day in Chicago, September 4, 1983. I set foot in this city, and just walking down the street, it was like roots, like the motherland. I knew I belonged here." -- Oprah Winfrey
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Photography Forums > General Photography
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:40 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.