|
sporklift posted:I just found a Nikon pk-13 in a box. I imagine it is from the late 70's. Can I use this on a D7000? I already have a old Micro-Nikkor 55mm lens so would this tube even be useful? Yes, I have one that I've toyed around with on my D7000 and a 105mm f4 lens. I should break mine out and toy around with marco stuff while i'm waiting for hyper-winter to end.  Keys by Shrieking Muppet, on Flickr
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 13:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 23:14 |
|
|
Ezekiel_980 posted:Yes, I have one that I've toyed around with on my D7000 and a 105mm f4 lens. I should break mine out and toy around with marco stuff while i'm waiting for hyper-winter to end. Do it. Here's my Tokina 90mm with a set of manual extension tubes*:  * plus SB600 with Rayflash for diffused light.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
spookygonk posted:Do it. Here's my Tokina 90mm with a set of manual extension tubes*: I just got a SB800 with money I made selling some crap around the house might make this a lot easier.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
spookygonk posted:Do it. Here's my Tokina 90mm with a set of manual extension tubes*: How many shots are stacked in this? Or did you manage to get this without focus stacking?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
I'm very close to turning my D600 into a boat anchor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
toggle posted:I'm very close to turning my D600 into a boat anchor. After you throw it into the garbage could i have it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
toggle posted:I'm very close to turning my D600 into a boat anchor. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
I'm looking at picking up a Nikon 105/2.8 micro to use with my D5100. I expect to be using it only with manual focus, so I'm looking at used 105/2.8 AF lenses, which seem to be be in the $300s used (the new 105/2.8 with VR is not in my price range). I've noticed that AF-D versions of the lens run about $100 more used than the regular AF version. I know that neither of these will AF on my D5100 body, although they would if I upgrade to the 7100 at some point. Two questions: 1) Both these AF lenses will meter on my D5100, right? That is, I can set the camera to Aperture Priority mode and the camera will know what aperture I've set using the aperture ring on the lens, and the camera will therefore give me the proper shutter speed for a correct exposure. Is that right? I don't mind manual focus, but it would be nice to have the lens meter on my camera. 2) I'm going to be using this without a flash, at least for now. If I understand this correctly (and it's highly possible that I don't), the difference between AF and AF-D is that a lens with D reports distance back to the camera more accurately (or does the D lens report back distance and the non-D doesn't at all). Is the point of this to help the camera set the flash exposure more accurately, and so a D version of the lens doesn't provide any advantage if I'm not using a flash? Or is an AF-D version of the 105 going to be better in some way I'm not understanding (even without the flash)? Any advice would be appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
McCoy Pauley posted:I'm looking at picking up a Nikon 105/2.8 micro to use with my D5100. I expect to be using it only with manual focus, so I'm looking at used 105/2.8 AF lenses, which seem to be be in the $300s used (the new 105/2.8 with VR is not in my price range). I've noticed that AF-D versions of the lens run about $100 more used than the regular AF version. I know that neither of these will AF on my D5100 body, although they would if I upgrade to the 7100 at some point. Two questions: McCoy Pauley posted:2) I'm going to be using this without a flash, at least for now. If I understand this correctly (and it's highly possible that I don't), the difference between AF and AF-D is that a lens with D reports distance back to the camera more accurately (or does the D lens report back distance and the non-D doesn't at all). Is the point of this to help the camera set the flash exposure more accurately, and so a D version of the lens doesn't provide any advantage if I'm not using a flash? Or is an AF-D version of the 105 going to be better in some way I'm not understanding (even without the flash)? The D means that the lens has focus distance reporting, non-D has no distance reporting at all. I believe modern TTL flash with pre-flash metering requires distance reporting while the old TTL method single-flash with cutoff during exposure doesn't explicitly need distance reporting. If you want TTL flash to work you need an AF-D model, otherwise you'll have to use manual flash since D5100 can't use the old TTL method.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
nielsm posted:No, you set the aperture ring to smallest aperture (probably f/22) and lock it in place, then you control the aperture on the camera body. All lenses with CPU, which includes all AF lenses, use on-camera aperture control. (At least on models produced after 1996 or there about.) Thanks for the information. About the aperture ring, so I would just put the lens on my camera, set it to F/22 on the ring, and then forget about the ring and merely use the lens like I do any regular Nikon G lens, where I'm using the control dial to change aperture? When would you ever actually use the aperture ring on such lenses -- when you put them on tubes or bellows and therefore have no electrical connection to the camera?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
McCoy Pauley posted:About the aperture ring, so I would just put the lens on my camera, set it to F/22 on the ring, and then forget about the ring and merely use the lens like I do any regular Nikon G lens, where I'm using the control dial to change aperture? When would you ever actually use the aperture ring on such lenses -- when you put them on tubes or bellows and therefore have no electrical connection to the camera? Yeah, when you use a "dead" extension tube, or when you use the lens with an old camera body. My F90x (quite good camera) requires using the lens aperture ring in P and M modes, but that means it can't use G lenses properly in those modes, since those lack an aperture ring. Meanwhile my F50 (bad camera) does not use the aperture ring, but only meters with CPU lenses, so it can only use non-CPU lenses in M mode.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Yeah, when you use a "dead" extension tube, or when you use the lens with an old camera body. Thanks. I don't know why -- I guess I just assumed the ring would function for these CPU lenses like the ring on a old, fully manual lens, except sending aperture data back to the body. Sounds like basically using the 105/2.8 AF/AF-D will end up being just like using, say, the Tamron 90 that doesn't have a ring, in terms of I'll just be using the body to control aperture anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Thoughts on the 85mm f/1.8G? Seemed like a logical thing to get for a D600, but I don't know enough about sigma lenses to compare.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
It's good but not great, but the nikon 1.4 isn't really better. If you want a light 85 go for it. What else do you have?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:It's good but not great, but the nikon 1.4 isn't really better. If you want a light 85 go for it. What else do you have? 50 D, 24-80 D, 90mm f/2.8 Tamron macro. Not the best, but I basically had to dump a whole system for work so I'm starting over completely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
Do you not like 35? I'd get a fast one before an 85, especially since you have that 90.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Do you not like 35? I'd get a fast one before an 85, especially since you have that 90. That 90 sucks rear end with a poo poo ton of CA and 90% of my work is product photography, not scenery or anything I'd use a wide for. e. Basically the autofocus is unusable, and that's fine for inanimate objects, but not video or the rare portrait. GonadTheBallbarian fucked around with this message at 06:05 on Jan 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
I like the 85 1.8g very much. I find it to be sharp and the autofocus to be decent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:How many shots are stacked in this? Or did you manage to get this without focus stacking? Single shot as the little buggers were moving so fast what with the small amount of pear tree in the viewfinder. Plus, the depth of field was so shallow, if the camera was focussed on the tree the ant body was out of focus. And finally that's an 87.5% crop. Everything was set to manual and this was the best out of 70 or so photos (most of those with only a part of an ant scurrying through). I have an 85mm f/1.8 D that's a real nice piece of glass. Don't get enough time to use it when taking portraits at work (28-105mm for run and gun, instead).
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 11:04
|
|
|
I'm getting taxes back soon and told myself I'd buy camera fun stuff with it, but now I'm torn. Current setup is a D600, 85mm 1.8G, 50mm 1.8G. Here's what I was considering: 1. Buy a 70-200 f2.8 VR1 since I enjoy shooting motorsports -- However, this will be too short for most tracks, and I wouldn't use it much elsewhere since I love using primes. And it's not very bokeh-y which I'm obsessed with. 2. Sell 85mm 1.8G and buy 85mm 1.4G (is the Sigma version decent? I've heard mixed things) but I've heard this is barely worth it. 3. Sell D600 (or use it as boat anchor as the above guy is doing) and buy D800 for ~1600. Save the rest. (or maybe a D750? The AF is attractive) 4. Stop overanalyzing and keep my current setup and pay off credit card. As much as I enjoy shooting motorsports as mentioned above, getting media credentials is next to impossible, so I'd probably have to go with something like the Tamron 150-600 instead so I'd have the necessary reach. Other than that, I've found myself gravitating towards portraits/still automotive work. I'd also potentially shoot some more weddings. I wish Nikon would make a 135mm f2 comparable to Canon's as I love the focal length. I'd almost switch just for that. emotive fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
Get a 35mm you nerd!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Get a 35mm you nerd! I'm not really a big fan of the wider lenses. I can't even remember the last time I used my 50mm. If I were to do that, I'd probably sell the 50mm since I have an 85.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
If you shoot weddings you need a 35 or wider, no excuses.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:If you shoot weddings you need a 35 or wider, no excuses. Weddings definitely aren't a priority. I've shot one for a friend, and I'm not sure I'd do it again... it was just a potential option. I also only have one body so swapping lenses wouldn't be very feasible. A 35mm definitely is not a bad idea, though, as it would open up my options. emotive fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Feb 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
In that case, the 85 1.4 would be a bad upgrade because it wouldn't really bring anything new to you, you don't need a new body, and credit cards are there to be used, so get the 70-200 and if you ever do another wedding rent a 35mm.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
emotive posted:Weddings definitely aren't a priority. I've shot one for a friend, and I'm not sure I'd do it again... it was just a potential option. I also only have one body so swapping lenses wouldn't be very feasible. Oh, hello!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
135f2dc
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
I have a D7100. I would like to take some pictures of some Amiibo figurines. Would the 40mm 2.8 DX micro be a decent choice?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:135f2dc Best portrait lens ever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Legdiian posted:I have a D7100. I would like to take some pictures of some Amiibo figurines. Would the 40mm 2.8 DX micro be a decent choice? Is the 40mm f/2.8 the top of your budget? If so, it's a fine lens for macro shooting, but it doesn't offer any working distance (the distance between the front of your lens and the subject at the minimum focusing distance). That can make stuff hard to light, especially small things like Amiibos, but there are ways around it. If you can spend a little more, the Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 D is as good a lens, and offers a lot more working distance at 1:1. The Tamron and Tokina 90-100mm macros are good bets, too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
TheJeffers posted:Is the 40mm f/2.8 the top of your budget? If so, it's a fine lens for macro shooting, but it doesn't offer any working distance (the distance between the front of your lens and the subject at the minimum focusing distance). That can make stuff hard to light, especially small things like Amiibos, but there are ways around it. Thanks for the info! Am I ever going to notice the difference between the one you posted (~$450 used) and something like this ?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
Legdiian posted:Thanks for the info! Am I ever going to notice the difference between the one you posted (~$450 used) and something like this ? Is vibration reduction important to you? If you're not planning on shooting with a tripod, and you don't have any kind of studio lighting (strobes or a speedlight), VR might be handy. Otherwise, it's rather pointless on a macro lens, since most macro shooters do shoot on a tripod, and they use some kind of studio lighting. From my product shooting experience, I would pocket the $400 and put it toward an Alienbees strobe or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
Also worth mentioning that midway between the 40 and the 105 is the 85. Nikon 85mm f/3.5G AF-S DX ED VR Micro Nikkor Lens, which gets you VR for the price of the non-VR 105. Goons in this thread recommended it back when I was asking about macro options. e. at f/3.5 obviously is it a substantially slower lens, but if you're doing still photography under controlled lighting conditions that shouldn't matter much, right? Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 02:51 on Feb 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
Going to back up what's already being said - if you're shooting macro, a fast lens and VR don't matter all that much, so you can easily save money there. Fast lenses aren't so useful because in macro you generally want to stop down lots to get reasonable depth of field. If you're stopping down for depth of field, you generally need to use a tripod and/or pummel your subject with lots of light (ideally flash) to get a decent exposure - which is why VR isn't a necessity. These things are luxuries that can be nice to have for versatility, but I wouldn't pay big bux for them unless you know what you want them for. Just to confuse things, an alternative to a dedicated macro lens is just to use a normal lens with extension tubes. I did that for a while and it's a much cheaper option if you don't plan on shooting a ton of macro. Jimlad fucked around with this message at 03:20 on Feb 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
Jimlad posted:Going to back up what's already being said - if you're shooting macro, a fast lens and VR don't matter all that much, so you can easily save money there. Fast lenses aren't so useful because in macro you generally want to stop down lots to get reasonable depth of field. If you're stopping down for depth of field, you generally need to use a tripod and/or pummel your subject with lots of light (ideally flash) to get a decent exposure - which is why VR isn't a necessity. These things are luxuries that can be nice to have for versatility, but I wouldn't pay big bux for them unless you know what you want them for. It sounds like the lens TheJeffers suggested is a decent starting point? Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 D I'm just looking for a reason to take these silly Amiibo out of their packaging and I figure taking cool pics of them is a good enough reason as any! e- All I have is the 35 1.8 and 70-300 5.6 Would either of these work ok with extension tubes? e2 - Looks like maybe extensions tubes won't work well with my lenses as I don't have manual aperture control on them? Legdiian fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Feb 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
Legdiian posted:It sounds like the lens TheJeffers suggested is a decent starting point? Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 D Yep, the 105mm 2.8D will work great. If you're trying out extension tubes, you'll probably have more luck with the 35mm. The length of extension you'll need is related to the focal length of the lens, so I suspect you'll struggle to get enough length for the 70-300 to be practical. Extension tubes are cheap since they're just dumb bits of black tubing, so play around and see what works. Edit: oh - yeah, if you don't have manual aperture control you'll struggle with extension tubes unless you get ones that can communicate with the lens, which are going to be more expensive. Oh well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
If you have a 3D printer there are designs for 35mm 1.8 G extension tubes that can lock the aperture on thingverse Haven't used them but I saw they existed
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
Grr, sold an F80 on eBay, buyer insists that the film loading mechanism is broken and comes up with an "Err" error when she closes the back door. I google the error code and send the link and ask her to try all the suggestions, if it doesn't work I'll refund her. She gives it a shot and insists it's still a problem so I refund her, no problems. Camera arrives back, just put a roll in. Loads perfectly first attempt. Looks like I'm shooting an expired roll of Fuji Superia 1600 while hiking tomorrow!
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
Hey guys. I'm looking for a wide zoom for my D7000, probably 10-24mm or something similar. Not really looking to spend $2000 on a nikon f2.8, budget is more in the <$1000 range. I've heard good things about other manufacturers like Sigma and Tamron but don't have any direct experience with them, and I find customer reviews on B&H to be very contradictory at times. Looking to use this for interior/real-estate type stuff but also looking for a wide angle to shoot concerts with. Do you guys have any recommendations?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 07:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 23:14 |
|
|
thevoiceofdog posted:Hey guys. I'm looking for a wide zoom for my D7000, probably 10-24mm or something similar. Not really looking to spend $2000 on a nikon f2.8, budget is more in the <$1000 range. I've heard good things about other manufacturers like Sigma and Tamron but don't have any direct experience with them, and I find customer reviews on B&H to be very contradictory at times. Looking to use this for interior/real-estate type stuff but also looking for a wide angle to shoot concerts with. Do you guys have any recommendations? The Tokina 11-20/2.8 is almost out: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1084644-REG/tokina_at_x_11_20mm_f_2_8_pro.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 09:46
|
|
