|
WugLyfe posted:Neat, grabbed one from Keh. I think I'm also going to pick up the Nikon version of my beloved Rokinon 85mm f/1.4, but I'm always in need of a good quality macro or portrait lens. I love the 85mm f1.8g. It's amazing.
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 05:43 |
|
|
The older 1.8D is great too if you have an AF screw
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
The 85mm f/1.4 is amazing if you like setting money on fire
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
 Jesus even the f/1.4D is over $1200I think I've got that covered in the Rokinon, though. Any good macros/lenses with a sub-6" minimum focus distance?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
I had the pleasure of using the G for about 2 weeks last year while borrowing it from a friend. I barely knew what I was doing with a camera back then and I was still able to take some shockingly good pictures.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:APS-Crop was *always* just a stopgap solution until full 35mm frame sensors got cheap and good enough to replace them, that's how the camera mfrs have always looked at the situation. Look how wrong this guy is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
Canon sells $20,000 APS-C cinema cameras, I doubt those are going away.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
35mm film was nothing more than a stop gap to 4x5 film 
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:Well, yeah, I'm most likely going to buy a D7100 fairly soon. I was just disappointed that they haven't announced a D7200 with the new autofocus tech. If you are not too invested in Nikon, you might want to check out the Pentax K3. It's sensor is seems to be on par with the 7100 but it has a ~25 shot RAW buffer, shoots 8fps on CH and has a fully weather sealed body. At least on paper it appears to be what people were hoping a D400 would be. Adorama has been selling K3 bundles with battery packs, plus one or two other cool accessories (lens, wireless card or flash) on Ebay at about a $1000 per bundle. It seems ideal for action type photography.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
iammeandsoareyou posted:If you are not too invested in Nikon, you might want to check out the Pentax K3. It's sensor is seems to be on par with the 7100 but it has a ~25 shot RAW buffer, shoots 8fps on CH and has a fully weather sealed body. At least on paper it appears to be what people were hoping a D400 would be. Adorama has been selling K3 bundles with battery packs, plus one or two other cool accessories (lens, wireless card or flash) on Ebay at about a $1000 per bundle. It seems ideal for action type photography. That said, Sigma and Tamron make long telephotos for Pentax mounts so I wouldn't be screwed or anything. (I like my Sigma telephoto quite a lot) Looks like the K3 is a similar price point to the D7100--I'd need to do a good analysis to see if it would be worth switching. Kenshin fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Oct 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
Musket posted:35mm film was nothing more than a stop gap to 4x5 film Same except unironically.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:I know, its been going on for a while. This is just the latest. Its super funny watching the camera version of climate change denialists go on internet screaming fits about how dynamic range doesn't matter and only bad photographers need better sensors etc. I've probably mentioned this before, but camera forum pro-posters lose their poo poo over the dumbest thing. There was one where they were pissed about 'banding in the shadows' trying to recover 5 stops over or under in lightroom 4, therefore LR4 was a ripoff and moneygrab by Adobe. You might think, "hey idiot, try exposing correctly," and you'd be right. But there are also 'Facebook Pro' wedding photographers who bitch about extra workload from customers call them out when they 'accidentally' leave the camera on +/- 3 stops of exposure. Or shoot JPG's and gently caress up the white balance. Kenshin posted:The 85mm f/1.4 is amazing if you like setting money on fire WugLyfe posted:
The AIS 85mm 1.4 is a gift from the gods and *only* costs around $600. red19fire fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
Hey guys, looking to put together a Nikon kit for weddings this season. I'm set on the D750, but need help with lens selections. All primes, and preferably in the following focal lengths; 24/35/50/85. Total budget is around $4300. Coming from Canon, all the lens choices are a bit confusing when it comes to determining the best. The body is right at $2,300, so I have about $2 to put towards the lenses. There are a ton of choices in the $400-$600 range, hence my confusion. Thanks.
Bottom Liner fucked around with this message at 04:49 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
Nikon's lacking in cheap primes. There's no cheap modern 24mm or 35mm; there's the old 24mm f2.8D, and the newish 35mm f1.8G for $600 (the $200 version is for crop) 50mm f1.8D: $100 50mm 1.8G: $200 85mm f1.8G: $450 For just over your budget though you could probably pick up a 24-70 f2.8 and the 85mm f1.8g.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:
These are the 3 I'm looking at. Why did you bold the D in the old 24? The reviews look solid. Also, I'm looking at the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G SIC SW Prime AF-S for my 50, but what's with the weird name? That is the FX 50 1.4 right? Bottom Liner fucked around with this message at 05:45 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:These are the 3 I'm looking at. Why did you bold the D in the old 24? The reviews look solid. Also, I'm looking at the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G SIC SW Prime AF-S for my 50, but what's with the weird name? That is the FX 50 1.4 right? The 28 2.8D is the middlin tier one, the 24mm is pretty good, so I hear.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
Sigmas next A prime is supposed to be a 24. So soon you'll be able to do 24/35/50/85 all Sigma, all f1.4.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
If that was my lens budget, I'd go with the Sigma 35mm Art and Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 and spend most of my time shooting with those, then pick up a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 and Nikkor 24mm f/2.8D to fill in the gaps.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:These are the 3 I'm looking at. Why did you bold the D in the old 24? The reviews look solid. Also, I'm looking at the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G SIC SW Prime AF-S for my 50, but what's with the weird name? That is the FX 50 1.4 right? Yup the 50 1.4g is a full frame 50. In fact all the nikon 50's are, whether it's 1.8d, 1.4d, 1.8g, 1.4g, 58mm, etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 07:54
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:Yup the 50 1.4g is a full frame 50. In fact all the nikon 50's are, whether it's 1.8d, 1.4d, 1.8g, 1.4g, 58mm, etc. Will the AF-S 50mm 1.8 work on a d3100? I want a prime next but I thought* full frame lenses don't work on crop bodies? *i might well be wrong, I'm new to dslrs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 08:04
|
|
|
Fraction posted:Will the AF-S 50mm 1.8 work on a d3100? I want a prime next but I thought* full frame lenses don't work on crop bodies? It will work fine. All AF-S lenses will work on all recent Nikon bodies. Edit: except DX lenses won't cover FF35 sensors. Some FX cameras autodetect crop lenses and set themselves to DX mode when appropriate, though. Moon Potato fucked around with this message at 08:33 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 08:11
|
|
|
Yes all lenses will fit on all bodies. however, AFS-D and a few early G lenses will not have autofocus on your d3100 body. Those use the screw drive autofocus, while the newer G lenses use a built in motor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 09:34
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:Yes all lenses will fit on all bodies. AF-S models have some iteration of the "Silent Wave Motor" which doesn't depend on a screw drive. That (and it's predecessor, the AF-I internal motor) were introduced in some of the later higher-end D lenses, then were present in all of the G lenses except for a handful of very early budget models. Nikon's lens alphabet soup is fun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 09:47
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:Nikon's lacking in cheap primes. There's no cheap modern 24mm or 35mm; there's the old 24mm f2.8D, and the newish 35mm f1.8G for $600 (the $200 version is for crop) The 50 and 85/1.8G are cheap/great, and if you feel the 35/1.8G is too much it's not too hard to find a used 35/2D. Or go all out and get a sigma 35/1.4 Fraction posted:Will the AF-S 50mm 1.8 work on a d3100? I want a prime next but I thought* full frame lenses don't work on crop bodies? If you don't have one yet I'd get a 35/1.8G DX before a 50. evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 10:24 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 10:21
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Hey guys, looking to put together a Nikon kit for weddings this season. I'm set on the D750, but need help with lens selections. All primes, and preferably in the following focal lengths; 24/35/50/85. Total budget is around $4300. Coming from Canon, all the lens choices are a bit confusing when it comes to determining the best. The body is right at $2,300, so I have about $2 to put towards the lenses. There are a ton of choices in the $400-$600 range, hence my confusion. Thanks. No second body? Shooting all primes with one body at a wedding can be a little rough, was this they way you worked with Canons? I have been using primes exclusively for a long time and I wouldn't consider that unless it was a free gig or an emergency.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 10:29
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Any AF-S lens will autofocus on your body. Full frame lenses (aka Not DX) just project a larger image circle, they'll work just fine on any sensor. I've heard the 50mm recommended as a good starter macro lens. I just want something that'll let me get up close photos (preferably with bokeh); I think 35mm would force me too close to insects etc for macro as they'd just fly away before I got near enough? vOv
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 13:09
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:No second body? Shooting all primes with one body at a wedding can be a little rough, was this they way you worked with Canons? I have been using primes exclusively for a long time and I wouldn't consider that unless it was a free gig or an emergency. Oh no I have 5 Canon bodies and a host of lenses. This is just a foray into Nikon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 14:44
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Oh no I have 5 Canon bodies and a host of lenses. This is just a foray into Nikon. Ok, your post made it sound like you were switching over completely. If I was me I would get an 85mm and either a 28mm or 35mm to start. Then fill in gaps as needed later since you already have another system. I shot my first wedding in years a couple of weeks ago and 80% of my shots were 27mm and 84mm but it depends on your style.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
Fraction posted:I've heard the 50mm recommended as a good starter macro lens. I just want something that'll let me get up close photos (preferably with bokeh); I think 35mm would force me too close to insects etc for macro as they'd just fly away before I got near enough? vOv
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
Tamron 90mm SP, KEH has got a BGN one for $175 right now, regular is ~$250. Tough to beat at any price.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
Startyde posted:Tamron 90mm SP, KEH has got a BGN one for $175 right now, regular is ~$250. Tough to beat at any price. Ain't anymore 
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:No second body? Shooting all primes with one body at a wedding can be a little rough, was this they way you worked with Canons? I have been using primes exclusively for a long time and I wouldn't consider that unless it was a free gig or an emergency. I've shot a wedding with only a 50mm on a d7000. It sucks, but it's possible. Granted it was a small wedding for a friend, a larger wedding would be nightmarish. I have a 50mm 1.4D and 35mm 2D that I could be convinced to throw up on the sales forum 
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
Ok, bought the following; D750 35 1.8g 50 1.8g 85 1.8g And I preordered the excellent looking 20 1.8g. 1.8 is the sweet spot for me, using a 50 1.2 in the past was just too shallow, and I almost always stopped down to ~2 on the 1.4s as well, so these lenses look great for me. Excited to have actual good focusing and raw files I can push as much as I want.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
Yeah I think 1.4 on a 35 can be useful, but 50 and up just aren't reliable enough.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:It's the 60 that's macro. Or you can get a cheap used macro lens around 100mm, but make sure it has a motor if you want autofocus. Macro thread recommended 50mm and a reversing ring?  100mm prime would be super expensive though, wouldn't it? My budgets pretty small.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Fraction posted:Macro thread recommended 50mm and a reversing ring?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
58mm Noct 1.2 owns on crop bodies, its trash on fx
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Fraction posted:Macro thread recommended 50mm and a reversing ring? Ive done this, its fun. but remember your stuck at your min aperture, so for me its f/22 on my 50mm f1.4 G. get plenty of light. * i own a few other 50mms they just dont work with the reversal ring i have* Musket fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Musket posted:Ive done this, its fun. but remember your stuck at your min aperture, so for me its f/22 on my 50mm f2 AI. get plenty of light. You could get an AIS or Series E 50mm, manual aperture ring.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 05:43 |
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Ok, bought the following; Keep in mind the Nikkor AF-S 35mm f/1.8 G is a DX format lens, i.e. intended for crop format cameras. If you use it on full frame you'll get some amount of vignetting at almost any focus distance/aperture combination. It's not that bad, but it is there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 20:58
|
|
