|
Shrieking Muppet posted:Can you post a mini review after you've lived with it a bit? I'm thinking of getting a 70-200 and I am genuinely curious to how the tamron stacks up to sigmas offerings. Will do. I'll be shooting quite a bit with it this weekend as I work on portraits and stuff and probably pay a visit to the aquarium as well.
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 15:38 |
|
|
Thin Privilege posted:x-posting from canon thread, I hope this isn't offensive, I love my Nikon and its lenses but I need a full frame camera and since I'm more familiar w/ canon I have to go with that. Nikon to Canon adapters are a pain in the rear end to get off in my experience. But what everyone else said, those lenses aren't for full frame and aren't interesting at all anyway. I'm not sure why you're attempting to do this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Those lenses aren't worth adapting at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
So now that I have this lovely Tamron 70-200 G2, is there any good reason to keep my Nikkor 85 1.8G? Granted yes its a little bit faster but again is it worth keeping?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:these are all APS-C lenses btw, and will be mostly useless on a FF camera unless you feel like cropping half the photo away powderific posted:Nikon to Canon adapters are a pain in the rear end to get off in my experience. But what everyone else said, those lenses aren't for full frame and aren't interesting at all anyway. I'm not sure why you're attempting to do this. evil_bunnY posted:Those lenses aren't worth adapting at all. Thanks, I didn't know these lenses were APS-C. Also I don't 100% know what I'm doing, especially with Nikon, so I really appreciate your guys help.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
mAlfunkti0n posted:So now that I have this lovely Tamron 70-200 G2, is there any good reason to keep my Nikkor 85 1.8G? Granted yes its a little bit faster but again is it worth keeping?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
mAlfunkti0n posted:So now that I have this lovely Tamron 70-200 G2, is there any good reason to keep my Nikkor 85 1.8G? Granted yes its a little bit faster but again is it worth keeping? If you're going to need a lighter kit for whatever reason and can make do with the 85mm?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
85mm primes make good indoor sports lenses if you have a need for that and the AF is fast on that thing. (Kid in swimming , basketball, or gymnastics or something like that?)
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
Good reasons, I'll keep it in my kit. Resale looks rather low right now as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
Finding an issue with the Tamron @ 200mm. If I rack the focus and then try to focus on something say maybe 5-10 feet away the camera often cannot refocus and just gives the red "cant focus" indicator. I've tested with my D750 and D7100 and both have the issue. Bummer.. going to have to call B&H now, Tamron said they're happy to have it sent in but suggested B&H first.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
I'm also interested in seeing how good it is - I ended up going with the Nikon VR II version instead of the G1 tamron in the summer when my cats got too big for my other lens, and while I don't regret buying it at all because I got some great shots, timing wise it was terrible since it was a few months before the gen3 came out which killed the resale value of the VRII and the new tamron which is cheaper and possibly better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
Ika posted:I'm also interested in seeing how good it is - I ended up going with the Nikon VR II version instead of the G1 tamron in the summer when my cats got too big for my other lens, and while I don't regret buying it at all because I got some great shots, timing wise it was terrible since it was a few months before the gen3 came out which killed the resale value of the VRII and the new tamron which is cheaper and possibly better. I liked the IQ with what I was able to shoot, the issue is the focus was just worthless at times. It was weird, I double checked and when the focus would stop working it was always when it was at full zoom, pulling back through the range didn't help, only a reset of the camera did. I have it boxed and ready to go to B&H but I am a little concerned that I could get another one like this. Edit: Just did some further testing with it, the issue is when the lens pushes past infinity mark on the focus dial no matter the focal length. mAlfunkti0n fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Mar 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
mAlfunkti0n posted:I liked the IQ with what I was able to shoot, the issue is the focus was just worthless at times. It was weird, I double checked and when the focus would stop working it was always when it was at full zoom, pulling back through the range didn't help, only a reset of the camera did. send it back, there's probably something sticking in the focus mechanism. i had a canon macro lens that would do that when moving from the 1:1-1:5 range to the normal focus range. they replaced the AF assembly in it
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
Bought the 19mm PC last week, got to use it on a retail store shoot this morning. I uh, I can never go back now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
Yeast posted:Bought the 19mm PC last week, got to use it on a retail store shoot this morning. There's also an AIS 35mm one that's fairly cheap, I worked for an architecture photographer that adapted it for canon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
My Nikon D80 that I bought second hand about 6 years ago has stopped working and I'd like a replacement. (Cleaning the contacts didn't help. Google tells me I probably need a new Aperture Control Unit and the repair costs will probably be more than the value of the camera). The lenses I have are a 50mm f1.8 (that I use all the time) and a 70-200mm f4/5.6 (that I very rarely use). Both lenses date back to the 80s and I inherited them along with a film SLR. The 2 things I'd most like in a new camera are better low light performance and a wider FoV. I mostly take photos of my kids, both portrait and action shots. I can budget up to around $1000AUD. Cameras I'm considering are the D600 (around $800AUD), D610 (around $1200AUD), D700 (around $650AUD), D7100 (around $700AUD), and the D7200 (around $950AUD). Other than the D600, D610, and D700 being full frame (and thus helping the FoV issue without having to buy a lens) and the D700 not having HD video (which I assume is why it is the cheapest), is there reason to favour one of these cameras over the others?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
It would be cheaper and better to buy a wider lens. The crop sensor lens to have is the nikon 35mm f1.8g dx, and for about $250, you have a really good wider lens. D700 is very old by now. The D600 had some oil spot issues. The D7100 has a small buffer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 07:03
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:It would be cheaper and better to buy a wider lens. The crop sensor lens to have is the nikon 35mm f1.8g dx, and for about $250, you have a really good wider lens. I need a new camera anyway and the cost of the lens is about the difference between a full frame and a cropped camera. Would I be better with a crop body plus 35mm lens instead of a full frame body with my existing 50mm lens?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 10:50
|
|
|
One thing to consider there is if you use the 50 all the time and go full frame, you might wind up wanting an 85 too so you can have that FOV again. In that longer play scenario it'd be cheaper to have a dx sensor camera plus the dx 35. edit: and if you were cool with the D80 even the D7100 is gonna seem amazing, I'd think.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
powderific posted:One thing to consider there is if you use the 50 all the time and go full frame, you might wind up wanting an 85 too so you can have that FOV again. In that longer play scenario it'd be cheaper to have a dx sensor camera plus the dx 35. The 70-200 should cover that need. Looks like I'm choosing between saving money and buying more camera than I really need. I'm leaning towards the D600 because I like owning nice things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
Given you like to do action shots of kids, I think you're in kind of a weird position in the market - kids move fast, so fast AF and fast shutter speed are the big things that will make it work well for you. In that vein - the D600 is going to give you better ISO performance, meaning you can (edit: raise) your shutter speed. (I'm not sure how much better - the D7200 will perform well at ISO 3200, and very usable at 6400, but the D600 should work at least at those levels, if not a bit higher.) On the flip side, the D7200 has a newer/better AF system, which will make a big difference as well. These exact thoughts (with a different budget) lead me to the D500, not that that helps. I think I'd probably go D7200, given those options. There have been big gains in AF systems over the years, as well as useful ISO ranges - I'd wager the D600 does a little better than the D7200 at high ISO, but not a whole lot. Krakkles fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Mar 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
I don't know if I'm just too picky or my camera is bad but I've heard several people talk about using the D7200 at like 3200 ISO and it being fairly good whereas I can't accept the results at like 400 ISO at most. Sure I have a high DPI display to view it on (full screen is half size) but it seems quite bad? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
Magog posted:I don't know if I'm just too picky or my camera is bad but I've heard several people talk about using the D7200 at like 3200 ISO and it being fairly good whereas I can't accept the results at like 400 ISO at most. Sure I have a high DPI display to view it on (full screen is half size) but it seems quite bad? I can get better-than-acceptable photos of birds at 3200 with my Nikon 200-500 (while I obviously prefer sub-800), but those shots are still at 1000th/sec or faster shutter speeds, eliminating blur from motion on all but the smallest/fastest birds. That said, it works better with more colorful subjects. On more drab birds, it just starts washing them out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
Magog posted:I don't know if I'm just too picky or my camera is bad but I've heard several people talk about using the D7200 at like 3200 ISO and it being fairly good whereas I can't accept the results at like 400 ISO at most. Sure I have a high DPI display to view it on (full screen is half size) but it seems quite bad? The difference and the reason people talk about it - 3200 is still more than acceptable for a non-professional print, or Facebook, or Flickr, which let's be honest, is what most people are probably doing. It bothers me when I forget to flip the ISO down for a shot I could've and I get a 3200 ISO shot out of my D500 - and people talk about that being fine at 12800.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
This is tangentally related to the thread, because I'm switching over to fuji, but I don't know how to even respond to this email for a pair of d750's I listed on craigslist:quote:I saw your posting for the d750s and I wanted to respond. I understand why you are asking what you are asking for it, and I think it's a totally fair price. I am not sure what kind of interest you've gotten on it, but in the rare event that you are indifferent to money, or just really can't have it taking up space in your house anymore, I am emailing to offer you $550 for one of the cameras. I don't mean to insult you in any way. I recently started a photography business and am definitely still an amateur, but I am getting really stressed and turning no profit because I rent a D750 every time. I own a d3200 and it just cannot perform on an even semi professional level. I am getting married in May and money is just so tight. I have been stalking craigslist and letgo for any decent price on a full frame camera. I wish I had the full amount to offer, and I completely do not expect you to sell it for this price, but I figured I would give it a shot in case you recently won the lottery
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 02:44
|
|
either way, good luck!
|
I think there's a goon Flickr group called something like: "Sell your camera and kill yourself" Try that. A little more serious: I have an acquaintance who is a professional photographer - like, it's her business, she's been published in fairly major publications, she's taught classes on photography at the Apple Store in a big city. I've seen multiple Facebook posts from her over the last few years with a message approximating "Hey, feeling like doing a photo shoot, does anyone have a camera I can borrow?" If it were once, ok, maybe she just sold her cameras to make room for another. No. It's consistent over a few years. Krakkles fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Mar 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
red19fire posted:This is tangentally related to the thread, because I'm switching over to fuji, but I don't know how to even respond to this email for a pair of d750's I listed on craigslist: You'll get a polite but begging sob story on craigslist for anything useful and moderately expensive you try to sell, but especially cars. Sometimes there's a heavy religious slant, too. I'm sure many of the requests are genuine, but people have picked up on it enough that many are bullshit, too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
Yeah, people straight up scam on Craigslist and the like. If you look over in Automotive Insanity, there are several posters proudly discussing how they'll lowball sellers from different fake accounts to make the initial lowball offer seem reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 03:04
|
|
|
I have been using Nikon for the last 7 years but now I'm in a job where I can get around 25% or more off all Canon products including the mk4 and L lenses. Should I sell my d750 and all associated gear and dehumanize myself to face to bloodshed?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
red19fire posted:This is tangentally related to the thread, because I'm switching over to fuji, but I don't know how to even respond to this email for a pair of d750's I listed on craigslist: just ignore them, or at best send a polite "no thanks"
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 13:57
|
|
|
Oh yes, they joys of Craigslist. It's really just a game of "spot the scumbag" anymore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 15:05
|
|
|
I only used Craigslist once, but the guy who bought my camera was almost too easy-going. He was just going to take the camera sight unseen, before I even took it out of the box to show it was fine. As soon as we said our hellos, he handed over the cash and then was all "... thanks." I asked him if he wanted to see it or anything, and he said nah, it was fine. Fine by me, but I told him just to be more careful in the future, someone could just be handing over a box with a brick in it or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
I've sold more camera gear on craigslist than anywhere else. It takes a while and you have to deal with possible scams, but I've always gotten better prices than online and you don't have any fees or shipping or whatever to deal with. Just maybe getting robbed or murdered.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
powderific posted:robbed or murdered. A small price to pay, surely!
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
I've been out of the photography game for a few years now, but due to an upcoming trip to Europe I want to get a decent prosumer body to replace my ancient D60. Is there really much reason to spend $1000 on a new D7200 when you can get a new D7100 for $6-700? It looks like the primary improvements are in the buffer speed (I won't he shooting any sports) and built-in wifi (I probably won't use this). Am I missing any other big differences?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Rock My Socks! posted:I've been out of the photography game for a few years now, but due to an upcoming trip to Europe I want to get a decent prosumer body to replace my ancient D60. Is there really much reason to spend $1000 on a new D7200 when you can get a new D7100 for $6-700? I didn't go with the 7200 for that reason alone and my 7100 just went for $475 on eBay. Really good deals to be had.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
You get another 100 on the model number. I'm probably selling my d7100 soon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
Rock My Socks! posted:I've been out of the photography game for a few years now, but due to an upcoming trip to Europe I want to get a decent prosumer body to replace my ancient D60. Is there really much reason to spend $1000 on a new D7200 when you can get a new D7100 for $6-700?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2017 10:43
|
|
|
I used to have a Sony A55, I sold all my gear and switched to an RX100. Now I'd like to get a DSLR again. I've been eyeing up the D5300 and thinking of getting the Tamron SP Auto Focus 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II LD SP Aspherical (IF) Zoom Lens to go with it. Is there a better starting lens/body I should be looking at for this price range? Should I be considering perhaps a prime and a different zoom lens? huhu fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Apr 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 15:38 |
|
|
huhu posted:I used to have a Sony A55, I sold all my gear and switched to an RX100. Now I'd like to get a DSLR again. I've been eyeing up the D5300 and thinking of getting the Tamron SP Auto Focus 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II LD SP Aspherical (IF) Zoom Lens to go with it. It was recommended to me awhile back to avoid the D3xxx and D5xxx series if you want a less "fiddly" body as it has only one dial and the D7xxx has two (adjust aperture and shutter) whereas you have to get into buttons to adjust on the 3xxx and 5xxxx. So it all depends on how okay you are with not having the dials for direct access.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 19:17
|
|