|
SoundMonkey posted:I was nothing but unhappy with the Nikon 70-300 VR I had (soft as poo poo) despite the features all working as advertised (reasonably fast focus, VR worked, etc). Mine is really sharp - maybe you got a particularly bad one? Or I got a particularly good one?
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 22:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 07:58 |
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Also am I crazy, or is the Tamron 1:1, whereas the 60mm tops out at 1:2?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 22:31
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:Mine is really sharp - maybe you got a particularly bad one? Or I got a particularly good one? That could easily be the case, I've just heard various similar reports from other people about how it's "a very nice 70-280mm lens". And having sold the lens long ago, didn't care to look too much deeper into it  evil_bunnY posted:The Tamron 60/2 I'm talking about is 1:1. Oh ok, that makes sense then. The 90 might still be better for really small bugs, I remember using a 35mm 1:1 macro lens on Olympus (before I used "good camera systems"), and half the time I'd hit the insect with the front element trying to focus.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 22:32
|
|
|
In general, Tamron's terminology works such that any lens that has a "II" on it, like what you would normally think means "version 2" or whatever, has the internal motor. Otherwise, no internal motor. I don't know if there are exceptions, but I'm guessing you can find the information you need on Tamron's website. I am almost positive that only the very latest version of the Tamron 90 f2.8 Macro has an internal motor, I couldn't find any other version that does, anyway. As far as I can tell the important thing is that the model number: AF272NII-700 has the II after the N. The f2.5 version definitely does not have a motor. Anyone who is coming from the 18-55 kit lens will be very happy with the 70-300 VR's sharpness, if they are looking for a long zoom. I don't know how it compares to things like the 70-200 f2.8 or the 300 f4, but of course the price also doesn't compare in that case. Note that there are a lot of versions of the 70-300 out there now, and the only one with VR is the best by far, even if it is a bit more expensive. Also, both of Nikon's 18-200 are optically identical. The second one has a slightly better VR system and a zoom lock so it doesn't slide out to 200mm if it's hanging off of your shoulder. It's also pretty much just as sharp as the kit lens, and can now be picked up for like $300 used. I personally wouldn't want one, but the lens will take good pictures if you want 18mm and 200mm without changing lenses. The 18-300 is supposed to be optically better, but it's massive and ridiculously expensive. There is no lens that goes wider than 18mm and also goes to 300mm. In any case, you can get the same/better optical quality than a superzoom for considerably less money. The only thing you gain is the convenience of not changing lenses, which is a pretty silly thing to worry about if you bought a DSLR. Her 18-55 kit lens should cover the wide end no problem outdoors. I agree that either a macro or long zoom is what you should be looking for. Watch out for zoom lenses that call themselves "macro" though, nowadays Sigma and Tamron will stick that name on anything. If you want to get a macro, look for the "1:1" on the spec list. Both the 90 f2.8 and 60 f2 macro lenses from Tamron are supposed to be great. The latter would also double as a good portrait lens, the former would be better for stuff like butterflies/insects. For stationary objects like flowers they should basically perform identically. For a long zoom at your budget, you pretty much only have the choice between Nikon's 70-300 VR and Tamron's 70-300 VC. They are basically the same lens in terms of performance. The Tamron is reasonably cheaper. I only own the Nikon, and I like it. I've heard equal accounts of people claiming the Tamron or the Nikon is better, so I'd probably just get the Tamron in that case since it's cheaper. After all those words, I'd get her the Tamron 90 f2.8 macro. It will be nicer than the 60 for bugs, it's super sharp, and if she ever wants to do portraits she can just take a few steps back compared to using the 60. Just be careful about the motor; Tamron makes it easy to buy the wrong thing. Fortunately, the non-motor version is discontinued, so if you buy new you are pretty much safe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 00:49
|
|
|
Thank you all so much. I am currently trying to decide between: Tamrom 70-300 http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-70-300...amron+70-300+vc and Tamron 90 http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-AF-90mm-2-8-Di/dp/B00021EEA4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1355693245&sr=8-1&keywords=Tamron+90mm+f%2F2.8 I am also vaguely understanding the issue with the motor. Just wanted to make sure that the above 90mm would work with her D5100. The 90mm looks better, more suited to be good at the one thing it does ("macro") versus the 70-300 may be better for zooming and being overall versatile but perhaps suffering a bit more from jack-of-all-trades? Is this fair? Anyone have last minute advice between deciding in between those two? Thank you all again very much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 00:56
|
|
|
Philemon posted:Tamron 90 I'd suggest that one, but CAREFUL! That one you're linking is for Canon cameras. Make sure you get one that fits Nikon! And make sure you get a model that has the internal focus motor. (Sometimes you'll just see them described as "compatible with <list of cameras>", make sure at least one of D40, D40x, D3000, D3100, D3200, D5000, D5100, D5200 is on that list.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 01:01
|
|
|
Philemon posted:The 90mm looks better, more suited to be good at the one thing it does ("macro") versus the 70-300 may be better for zooming and being overall versatile but perhaps suffering a bit more from jack-of-all-trades? Is this fair? The 90mm is a macro lens, but it can do anything any other 90mm lens can do - portraits, medium-telephoto, it's still pretty versatile for a fixed focal length. The 70-300's "macro" mode is absolute bullshit (in every case) and really just means "can focus kinda close, I guess". EDIT: In terms of portraits I think both the 60 and 90 would be great, most of the portrait stuff I do is at 110-150mm, so 90 is by no means too long (you might have to step back a couple steps, as someone else said).
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 01:21
|
|
|
http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-AF-90mm-2-8-Di/dp/B00021EE4U/ Here's the proper link for that lens. I wouldn't exactly call the 70-300 a "Jack of all trades." 70mm is already quite long on a crop camera, so the lens is pretty much specifically for either "stuff that's far away" or "small stuff that is kind of far away." Basically, birds and other wildlife, or distant landscapes/cityscapes. That being said, I would definitely expect sharper images from the macro lens. Macro lenses tend to be designed for sharpness over anything else. Being a prime lens makes it easier to design it that way, too. The 90mm would be fairly inconvenient for anything other than macro photography, but if you know for sure that she enjoys that, then it is definitely worth it. It's a lens that she could easily use for the rest of her life and be happy with it, although that's a dangerous statement; anyone who gets into photography will always want more/new gear, and there are definitely macro lenses out there that offer more, and are more expensive :P. In a pinch you could probably get decent shots of large wildlife with it, like deer, or a bear that's about to eat you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 01:38
|
|
|
ShadeofBlue posted:The 90mm would be fairly inconvenient for anything other than macro photography, but if you know for sure that she enjoys that, then it is definitely worth it. To that I'll just add that I can walk around with just a 135mm on a film camera (same field of view as 90mm on a DX crop camera) taking landscape, architecture etc., so it's certainly not that it's useless for anything but a few niche things. Sure, it might be best suited for macro and portrait, but it can be used for anything. It will just force you to take "a different kind of pictures", which I would argue is a good thing. (Limitations increase creativity, or something.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 01:59
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:The 90mm is a macro lens, but it can do anything any other 90mm lens can do - portraits, medium-telephoto, it's still pretty versatile for a fixed focal length. The tamron 70-300 that everyone's been talking about (the VC model) doesn't have a macro mode, you're thinking of the cheaper one they make (which is pretty eh although not terrible I suppose). Wouldn't consider it if you can afford the VC model though. I mean it's not a fast lens, but hell, the VC works well enough that you can handhold 1/20 shots at 300mm:  DSC_0513.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 02:15
|
|
|
nielsm posted:To that I'll just add that I can walk around with just a 135mm on a film camera (same field of view as 90mm on a DX crop camera) taking landscape, architecture etc., so it's certainly not that it's useless for anything but a few niche things. Sure, it might be best suited for macro and portrait, but it can be used for anything. It will just force you to take "a different kind of pictures", which I would argue is a good thing. (Limitations increase creativity, or something.) Yah, you are totally right. In fact, I have always been meaning to make more use of my 85, which is feeling rather unloved by this point, I'm sure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 03:47
|
|
|
I just got a Nikon D600 and although I haven't had much of a chance to use it, I'm really liking it as the first DSLR I've owned. As is customary, here is a picture of my cat: I'm wondering what is the easiest/fastest way to change ISO settings in manual mode. It seems like there's a button that should be dedicated to it, but it's more or less unresponsive. I'll be checking this out in the manual. I think that one of the slide wheels that handle f-stop would be better suited to ISO, but who am I.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 03:57
|
|
|
Dorkopotamis posted:I'm wondering what is the easiest/fastest way to change ISO settings in manual mode. It seems like there's a button that should be dedicated to it, but it's more or less unresponsive. I'll be checking this out in the manual. I think you hold the ISO button on the bottom-left and spin the dial on the top-right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 04:23
|
|
|
My Nikon's not a D600, but I just assigned the function button next to the lens mount to ISO, which makes changing it plenty fast. EDIT: Or use the button already assigned to it. That's probably better. a foolish pianist fucked around with this message at 04:25 on Dec 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 04:23
|
|
|
Have you ever owned a (Nikon) slr before? Because it seems a lot of your questions could be answered by spending some quality time with your user manual.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 04:26
|
|
|
Dorkopotamis posted:I just got a Nikon D600 and although I haven't had much of a chance to use it, I'm really liking it as the first DSLR I've owned. As is customary, here is a picture of my cat: Seconding the 'read the manual' people but I gotta say man, your cat looks a lot like a dog. Like some kind of crazy cat schnauzer or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 04:35
|
|
|
Dorkopotamis posted:I think that one of the slide wheels that handle f-stop would be better suited to ISO, but who am I. Hold down the ISO button and simultaneously slide one of those command dials (I forgot which one in particular). Those dials normally control your f-stop and shutter speed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 06:04
|
|
|
This is a bit late, but my Tamron 90mm 2.8 definitely requires a screw drive. It's a few models old from KEH—the new ones should have focus motors. I specifically had to look for an older one to get the screw drive (which I wanted for reasons I can't remember.) It's a great lens on the D800 though. Can't believe how nice it is considering the price.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 18:13
|
|
|
Got a nice little surprise today. I remembered my dad had some lenses that he didn't use anymore and that my brother had usurped. He ended up breaking his camera and they've been sitting in storage for a year so he just mailed them to me for my D600. There's the 70-210 AF D, a 24/2.8 AF D and a 18-35 IF ED 3.5. All lenses I can use! Only they are pretty drat gross as he clearly hasn't kept them in high regard. Are there any specific tips for cleaning the lenses external housings? Things specifically not to use, etc? I hope the optics are fine, but if not at least I didn't pay for any of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 20:29
|
|
|
Post pics. I just use a lightly damp cloth for the ergos/bodies, and a microfiber + prescription glass cleAning fluid I thieve from my wife for the glass. Works a treat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 21:00
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Post pics. I just use a lightly damp cloth for the ergos/bodies, and a microfiber + prescription glass cleAning fluid I thieve from my wife for the glass. Works a treat. Good to know, thanks! I'll post pics when I get home. Totally excited about the wides.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2012 21:15
|
|
|
Harsher chemicals might take the printed labeling of of the lens barrels but as long as you don't soak them anything that is safe to clean plastics with is fine. Don't be to excited about the 18-35mm it's kinda meh, I used to have a 24mm AFD and it was nice though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 04:25
|
|
|
If anybody has a Costco membership this is pretty drat good. http://www.costco.com/Nikon-D600-Full-Frame-DSLR-Camera-2-Lens-Bundle.product.100012382.html D600, 24-85, 70-300, wireless adapter, cheap bag, and a 32gb SD card all for under $2,400 before tax. I know it's better to support a local camera store, but drat if that isn't a good deal. It's available in store in my area too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 06:57
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Harsher chemicals might take the printed labeling of of the lens barrels but as long as you don't soak them anything that is safe to clean plastics with is fine. Don't be to excited about the 18-35mm it's kinda meh, I used to have a 24mm AFD and it was nice though. If you can find it (which ain't that easy) Sigma of all people made a bitchin' screw-drive Nikon mount 24 2.8 (it's an older one), and shockingly, it's actually a loving awesome lens, at least on crop. For less than $100, when I bought it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 07:06
|
|
|
D600 + 24-85mm for $1999 starting tomorrow in Canada.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 07:32
|
|
|
Legitimate Pape posted:If anybody has a Costco membership this is pretty drat good. Goddammit why did I pre-order this when it was announced?  On a side note, I see that B&H has some chinese D600 grips - I took the plunge and ordered one, hopefully the finish and buttons have the same feel as the D600 proper.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 07:35
|
|
|
Dear Nikon, Please design your grips with charging circuitry built in, such that they can simultaneously or successively charge both the battery in the camera and the grip rechargeable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 13:07
|
|
|
krooj posted:Please design your grips with charging circuitry built in, such that they can simultaneously or successively charge both the battery in the camera and the grip rechargeable. If you didn't know, the way you currently power a D800 with AC is with this adapter, which replaces the internal battery. It would be nice if you could plug in the AC power block directly into the body, and charge any battery in the body/grip that way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 14:06
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:How do you supposed that will work? If you mean putting the power transforming board and an AC input in the grip, you can gently caress right off, poo poo's heavy enough as it is. Yeah, on second thought, I wouldn't want the rectifier in the grip itself, but being able to plug a DC charger into the grip and have that charge both the internal battery and rechargeable in the grip would save the butthurt of removing the grip. Dunno how heavy that poo poo is, cause I haven't bought one yet. Canon seems to have a different (better?) design, in that the grip goes right into the body's main battery compartment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 14:52
|
|
|
Set your body to deplete the grip batt first, that'll save you at least some trouble when you don't use both up. The cheaper Nikon bodies/ grips have a bracket that interfaces with the battery contacts in the body, but that's a shitton harder to weatherproof. I don't think having a DC interface on the grip is too much to ask TBH.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 15:08
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:If you can find it (which ain't that easy) Sigma of all people made a bitchin' screw-drive Nikon mount 24 2.8 (it's an older one), and shockingly, it's actually a loving awesome lens, at least on crop. For less than $100, when I bought it. The AF Super Wide? They seem to have those pretty consistently on keh for $150-200. I've only done one roll of grainy B&W through mine (and a half dozen shots on my D7000) so I have no idea how it performs though. And focusing sounds like ball bearings chattering if you have to go through a big chunk of the focus range, but infinity to 1m is short enough not to be loud.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 15:55
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:
I started out with a D70, and then a few years ago I sold it and put the money towards a D300. I haven't even looked at the lineups since then, but I have started pondering selling the D300 and putting the money towards a newer camera. More megapixels doesn't mean much to me, but the D300 came out in March of '08 and I figure that the 4+ years between then and something like the D600 should make a big difference to noise and dynamic range. So how's the DX mode on the full-frame sensors work? Is there a different grid in the viewfinder to let you composite if you have a DX lens, or do you just have to guesstimate? I only have one DX lens I use a lot, the 18-200mm VR one, and that's been my sticking point with going full frame. But if I can still use that lens with a full-frame camera that might change my feelings on the matter. I also have a 35mm DX but I could easily sell that, I also have a 50/1.8 and I got the 35/1.8 just because 50mm isn't the most useful focal length on an APS-C camera.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 20:14
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I started out with a D70, and then a few years ago I sold it and put the money towards a D300. I haven't even looked at the lineups since then, but I have started pondering selling the D300 and putting the money towards a newer camera. More megapixels doesn't mean much to me, but the D300 came out in March of '08 and I figure that the 4+ years between then and something like the D600 should make a big difference to noise and dynamic range. Can't speak for the D600, but my D800 does give a visual indication of the reduced FOV in the finder. It's a black box, outlining the frame area when you attach a DX lens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 20:29
|
|
|
krooj posted:Can't speak for the D600, but my D800 does give a visual indication of the reduced FOV in the finder. It's a black box, outlining the frame area when you attach a DX lens. It's the same on the D600.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 20:39
|
|
|
Thank you. Also I think that that Costco link up there on the page might have just made my decision for me and made the whole DX-lens-with-FX-camera issue a moot point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 20:51
|
|
|
The dx00's have framelines, dx's blackout the unused sensor area I think? In any case framelines are better: lets you see what's coming into the frame as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 21:13
|
|
|
I just got myself an FM2 and before having finished my first roll I'm already entirely in love with it. It's plain simple: A basic to-the-point control and the body's weight is perfect. (Compared to the Canon A-1 which weighs far too little.) I should probably get an MF 50mm now, the AF 50/1.8 is terrible for that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2012 12:51
|
|
|
1.8's are super cheap so yeah. FM2's pretty close to perfect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2012 18:27
|
|
|
Got a battery grip and the cineskates + joby gorillapod for Christmas. Pretty excited! Also got my first opportunity to really try to take some photos. It's interesting, aka "hard as hell" to try to follow a baby around with a manual lens. Jesus. Babbe Pics!   And yes a hand swooped in a fraction of a second later to yank that light out of her mouth. Those were straight out of the camera. Haven't touched the RAW files and my white balance was off (a friend had borrowed the camera the day before and I took a few pics before I realized I needed to reset my settings). edit: Also I finally got some serious spots on my sensor from the oil or whatever that problem is. Took a couple hundred photos over the Christmas break and didn't really realize it until I looked at these two, the last two I took just as I was on my way out of North Carolina. It's really really apparent now. 
BonoMan fucked around with this message at 01:47 on Dec 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2012 18:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 07:58 |
|
|
Had my first experience with an fEE error last night. Took some fumbling until I remembered it needed to be set to the smallest aperture. I thank the title of the old thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2013 20:52
|
|