Lenses thread | Page 8 | FerrariChat

Lenses thread

Discussion in 'Creative Arts' started by Cozmic_Kid, Apr 2, 2012.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

  1. blackwood

    blackwood Formula 3

    Dec 15, 2005
    1,822
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Full Name:
    Marc
    Damn, that is crazy range!
     
  2. tifosi12

    tifosi12 Four Time F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa Owner

    Oct 3, 2002
    48,581
    @ the wheel
    Full Name:
    Andreas
  3. Pars

    Pars Formula Junior

    Sep 25, 2006
    414
    KY
    Full Name:
    Brian
    Yeah, great shot dinodan! That one really pops.

    That is a great range. Supposedly Nikon should be releasing an 18-300 lens soon to compete with that Tamron lens. I am anxious to hear more about that one.
     
  4. Crawler

    Crawler F1 Veteran

    Jul 2, 2006
    5,018
    Thanks. I should have tried taking one with a modern zoom lens at the same settings just for comparison. I'll bet the contrast would have been noticeably less.

    You can be pretty sure that if Nikon comes out with their own, it will cost about twice as much as the Tamron. ;)
     
  5. tifosi12

    tifosi12 Four Time F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa Owner

    Oct 3, 2002
    48,581
    @ the wheel
    Full Name:
    Andreas
    I'm guessing more like 3 times as much.

    The Tamron wasn't cheap at under $ 700 but worth every penny. I'm no longer using any of my other lenses, including the Nikon glass. Actually gave some of that stuff away.

    Travel has never been so easy and you don't waste your and your companion's time with changing lenses every five minutes.
     
  6. blackwood

    blackwood Formula 3

    Dec 15, 2005
    1,822
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Full Name:
    Marc
    Not bad at all, really.
     
  7. tifosi12

    tifosi12 Four Time F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa Owner

    Oct 3, 2002
    48,581
    @ the wheel
    Full Name:
    Andreas
    Thanks, I like to think so as well.

    Trick is to keep the lens in the middle of its aperture range then the glass is really quite good.

    Also on the D200 I have slightly adjust the exposure by underexposing by 1 stop.

    It was funny at the Monaco Historic GP: Thanks to a press pass I was with the pros on "photographers' hill" right in St. Devote (turn 1). There were guys with huge lenses (the white ones :)) and I arrived with my Tamron all rolled up looking like it is a 50 mm. But my "inferiority complex" quickly went away at the first glances on the LCD display. Things were quite good.

    I do have a 600 mm at home, but won't shlepp that along on a trip like this anymore.
     
  8. blackwood

    blackwood Formula 3

    Dec 15, 2005
    1,822
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Full Name:
    Marc
    Yah, lens envy is a real thing, but easily treated by a good take :D
     
  9. 4REphotographer

    4REphotographer F1 Veteran

    Oct 22, 2006
    6,197
    Arlington, VA
    Full Name:
    Chris
    #184 4REphotographer, Jun 19, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
    Yes! I finally have my hands on one of the major reasons I went back to Canon, 100mm f2. Such an under appreciated lens, most people have never heard of it and all my favorite shots have come from it. Now I just need to put together a photoshoot for this weekend and try her out.
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
     
  10. blackwood

    blackwood Formula 3

    Dec 15, 2005
    1,822
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Full Name:
    Marc
    Nice. That's on my short list for new glass. Reportedly Canon's sharpest offering.
     
  11. 4REphotographer

    4REphotographer F1 Veteran

    Oct 22, 2006
    6,197
    Arlington, VA
    Full Name:
    Chris
    Yup, both of the ones I've had needed focus adjustment but after you get that sorted they are incredibly sharp, even wide open. I ended getting mine for $325 which is a steal.
     
  12. dozzina

    dozzina F1 Veteran
    Silver Subscribed

    Aug 14, 2005
    9,152
    In a vortex
    Full Name:
    Dave
    Not really, but it is a nice lens. Either of the macros are sharper at this focal length, plus a host of others at differing lengths. Still, a keeper lens. :)
     
  13. 4REphotographer

    4REphotographer F1 Veteran

    Oct 22, 2006
    6,197
    Arlington, VA
    Full Name:
    Chris
    It may not be THE sharpest, but I think it's the best lens for the money, hardly anything short of Ls are this good wide open.
     
  14. blackwood

    blackwood Formula 3

    Dec 15, 2005
    1,822
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Full Name:
    Marc
    My bad, I was thinking of the 135mm f/2, not the 100mm.
     
  15. 4REphotographer

    4REphotographer F1 Veteran

    Oct 22, 2006
    6,197
    Arlington, VA
    Full Name:
    Chris
    I took your advice and just picked up a 70-300mm, hopefully it will be here by Friday. I'm also hoping it will fill the telephoto gap for me without breaking the bank, got one in like new condition for $300 including shipping.

    If you have the money its cheaper to buy used and then sell than it is to rent. I had the 70-200 2.8 for almost two months for a total cost of $50. I think I'll end up keeping the 70-300 for awhile if I like the quality simply because of the cheap price, if not, I'll sell and probably won't lose a cent.
     
  16. F430GB

    F430GB F1 Veteran

    May 5, 2008
    6,286
    Reno, NV
    Full Name:
    Gil Folk
    Anyone have any experience with the Sigma 50-500mm telephoto lens? I'm looking at picking one up. I'm looking through example photos and it seems to be pretty sharp; any other lenses that are comparable? Any that are sharper? This is for a Nikon. Thanks!

    -Gil
     
  17. 4REphotographer

    4REphotographer F1 Veteran

    Oct 22, 2006
    6,197
    Arlington, VA
    Full Name:
    Chris
    I'm not a big Sigma fan, but I've heard some good things about them lately.
     
  18. vincent355

    vincent355 F1 Veteran
    Rossa Subscribed

    Apr 8, 2003
    6,321
    Wine Country
    Full Name:
    Vincent
    I have a few sigma lenses and some are quite good. the 14mm comes to mind right away.

    Personally not a fan of the large range zooms. I like the wides and the teles as zooms, mid range seems to always be better served by a prime and your feet.

    I have the sigma 135-400, it was a good lens when it came out.
     
  19. F430GB

    F430GB F1 Veteran

    May 5, 2008
    6,286
    Reno, NV
    Full Name:
    Gil Folk
    I have a Sigma 10-20mm and it's been absolutely phenomenal, but it's the only Sigma lens I've tried. Reviews are good for the 50-500, but seem to be a bit mixed.

    This would be used mainly for portrait and motorsport photography. Maybe even for detail shots with automotive photography. As stated in my reply to Chris, I have a Sigma 10-20mm and I almost never take if off my camera. I have a Nikon 50-200mm kit lens, but it's absolutely horrid so I'm looking for a replacement that has a greater focal length. My main thing is sharpness and a long focal length with a large (at least 77mm) filter size.

    Thanks!
    -Gil
     
  20. Pars

    Pars Formula Junior

    Sep 25, 2006
    414
    KY
    Full Name:
    Brian
    #195 Pars, Jul 16, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
    I own the Sigma 50-500 OS lens. I was skeptical of a lens that long with that much range and I have been very impressed with its performance. The biggest drawback is that it is slow. It is at f/6.3 for much of its zoom range. The image quality is pretty good at f/6.3 but if you stop down to f/8 through f/11, that is where it really shines. Here are a few samples I took at the local zoo and the links are for the full size images if you are interested in pixel peeping. I took all of these shots handheld. In my opinion, the Sigma 50-500 is great because it is reasonably priced (compared to the Nikon 200-400 f/4 or long primes), it gets to 500mm, focuses fast (see polar bear shot below) and produces quality images. I looked at the Nikkor 80-400 as a possibility, but it is not an AF-S lens and its autofocus is slow. I also looked at the Sigma 150-500 but everything I read said that the 50-500 was a better lens despite having a longer range. I have also used both ends of the zoom range, so having it go down to 50mm is a benefit. Hope this helps.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/slapshots/7228114890/sizes/l/in/photostream/

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/slapshots/7228099062/sizes/l/in/photostream/

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/slapshots/6865439840/sizes/l/in/photostream/
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
     
  21. 4REphotographer

    4REphotographer F1 Veteran

    Oct 22, 2006
    6,197
    Arlington, VA
    Full Name:
    Chris
    #196 4REphotographer, Jul 16, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
    I had the 20mm f1.8 for about a week, hated it, horrible image quality. I highly recommend the Nikon 70-300m VR for motorsports, the shots below are from years ago with a D40. Also, if you'll be doing portrait work you'll want something with a much large aperture, like the 85mm f1.8.
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
     
  22. F430GB

    F430GB F1 Veteran

    May 5, 2008
    6,286
    Reno, NV
    Full Name:
    Gil Folk
    Thank you! Just the review I was looking for. Great shots.

    Thanks. I have been thinking about this and reconsidered the lens. I go to the track a total of once a year, so I didn't think that would justify spending $800+ on a lens that I would mostly use at shorter focal lengths except at the track. It's main purpose would be for portrait work as I am getting quite a few requests for portraits. I just came back from the photo store and picked up a Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G. I've done a couple of tests shots and it's great! For just over $200, it's a steal. Love the DoF it can produce and it's great for low-light situations as well. Plus I saved about $700! I will be looking for a telephoto lens in the future, but for what I do right now, this was the better choice.

    -Gil
     
  23. 4REphotographer

    4REphotographer F1 Veteran

    Oct 22, 2006
    6,197
    Arlington, VA
    Full Name:
    Chris
    There you go, I've heard that's a fantastic lens as well. For portraits you really don't want to go any smaller than f1.8. If you only go to the track once a year just rent a 70-200. :)
     
  24. F430GB

    F430GB F1 Veteran

    May 5, 2008
    6,286
    Reno, NV
    Full Name:
    Gil Folk
    Renting is a good idea. I will consider that when I go to the track. :) Thanks!

    -Gil
     
  25. Photog

    Photog Formula 3

    Sep 24, 2009
    1,643
    Kansas City, Mo
    Full Name:
    Matt
    May I recommend www.LensRentals.com I have used them over twenty times for lenses for the race track. I cannot speak more highly of them.

    Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2
     

Share This Page