The Photography Thread

[IUbullets]

Originally Posted by springsteen87

How should i crop this? Any other advice on how to improve it, looking at doing some more mid-climb photos. Any suggestions on a mid-level (no more than $500) wide/semi-wide? I've got a Nikon D90 with an 18-55 kit, 50mm prime and 55-200 POS i still carry around for some reason but would really like to get a proper wide angle for my trip to Patagonia

I like the climbing photo, do you climb? could you shoot from alongside the climber and be much closer and get more facial expression and detail in the rocks?

a nice wide angle would be perfect, with your D90 a good option is the Nikon 10-24 DX which is a f/3.5-4.5 or the Nikon 12-24 f/4

the Nikon 16-85 is a nice wide/zoom to have for walking around on a trip, and super sharp!

[IUbullets]

Originally Posted by mikekelley

me
my camera
perched on a grad-all i rented for the shoot
connected to my laptop via usb for tethering
with about 20 doodads hanging off it (pocketwizards, remotes)

for a dusk exterior architectural shot


Untitled by mike kelley / mpkelley.com, on Flickr

awesome setup Mike, hopefully the shot came out well

[IUbullets]

got a new lens and wanted to do some macro shooting

All shots Nikon D5100 + Nikon Micro 40mm f/2.8G

[DoTheMath]

Originally Posted by springsteen87

Any suggestions on a mid-level (no more than $500) wide/semi-wide? I've got a Nikon D90 with an 18-55 kit, 50mm prime and 55-200 POS i still carry around for some reason but would really like to get a proper wide angle for my trip to Patagonia

Wider than 18 mm is ultra-wide, not semi-wide. There is no such thing as a mid-level wide lens under $500. It is very difficult to make wide-angle optics with low distortion/aberrations. That difficulty is even greater if you want it to cover a full frame.

Since you already have an 18-55, I presume that you will want something that can go wider than 18 mm. 16 mm and 17 mm aren't that much wider, so you are really looking for something as wide as 10 to 14 mm. Since you are shooting with a DX body, you will actually have a much broader set of choices than if you had a full frame body.


Nikon produces 5 lens that go wider than 16mm:

• AF-S DX NIKKOR 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED $900
• AF DX Fisheye-NIKKOR 10.5mm f/2.8G ED $750
• AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED $1,040
• AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED $1,950
• AF NIKKOR 14mm f/2.8D ED $1,700

It is no coincidence that the non-DX lenses are much more expensive and are not as wide.

Presuming you don't actually want fisheye distortion, you are really looking at a choice between the 10-24 and the 12-24. The 10-24 is newer, slightly less expensive, wider, and faster at the wide end. It has lower build quality, more distortion and is slower at the long end. It is front focussing, so there is a greater risk of damage or intrusion of foreign matter. The 10-24 is less likely to be discounted in the current market.

Either lens is a good choice. If the extra 2 mm of focal length is important, get the 10-24. If ruggedness is important, get the 12-24. I have the 12-24 and am very pleased with it.

You might also want to look at the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 for $650. The reviews of this lens have been all over the map. Some proclaim it better than the Nikons, other cite severe problems with softness and chromatic aberrations. Thre are reports of significant front and back focussing. There seems to be a major problem with quality control, as different copies on the same body produce wildly different results. It may also be a bit slower to focus, but that is rarely a problem for the sort of shots you take with an ultra-wide. It seems to be solidly built, and outperforms the other 3rd-party ultra-wides.

Sigma and Tamron also have products to consider if image quality and build quality are not important to you.

[kylephilly]

just bought a canon t2i rebel - upgraded lense 55-255mm

what the hell do i do with this thing lol? any references/materials appreciated going to skim this thread now but it's overwhelming!

[DoTheMath]

Originally Posted by IUbullets

got a new lens and wanted to do some macro shooting

All shots Nikon D5100 + Nikon Micro 40mm f/2.8G

With a fast macro lens, you will often see photographs where the depth of field is less than the depth of the subject. Wide open at a shooting distance of about 1 foot, you get a depth of field of only a few millimetres. All three of your photos show this.

In the case of the rose, it is a very pleasing effect.

For the moth, it is not successful. The blurring of the back of the wings and of the foreground flowerlets does not enhance the compostion. Stop down a lot more.

I am undecided about the bee. I think I'd want a bit more depth here too, but 1 stop might be enough.

[DoTheMath]

Originally Posted by kylephilly

just bought a canon t2i rebel - upgraded lense 55-255mm

what the hell do i do with this thing lol? any references/materials appreciated going to skim this thread now but it's overwhelming!

Second-hand lens? I don't think Canon sells this now. There is a 55-250.

Either lens is too narrow for a walk-around lens, too slow-focussing for sports or moving subjects, and too slow for indoors. Lightweight and relatively compact.

So you use it for static, distant, well-lit individual subjects, that you have to walk a long way to get to, I guess.

[Gazillion]

Originally Posted by DoTheMath

You might also want to look at the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 for $650. The reviews of this lens have been all over the map. Some proclaim it better than the Nikons, other cite severe problems with softness and chromatic aberrations. Thre are reports of significant front and back focussing. There seems to be a major problem with quality control, as different copies on the same body produce wildly different results. It may also be a bit slower to focus, but that is rarely a problem for the sort of shots you take with an ultra-wide. It seems to be solidly built, and outperforms the other 3rd-party ultra-wides.

FWIW I own one of these lenses and mine is incredibly sharp with no front or back focussing issues. Colour reproduction and contrast are also excellent. I don't even consider the CA an issue because it's so trivially easy to get rid of in post.

I honestly haven't seen many bad reviews - most of the feedback I got before buying was this was probably the best ultrawide available. I haven't had the opportunity to compare it to the more expensive Nikon lenses, but I've seen it compared incredibly favourably to them.

Gah, if there quality control has slipped that would be a real shame because the build quality is really high, and if buying this lens is now a gamble that would really suck. TBH that's the first I've heard of this issue though. Got any links?

Some samples, taken with my 11-16:


Smeaton's Tower by Mike Quayle, on Flickr


Telescope offers a view from the promenade by Mike Quayle, on Flickr

[DoTheMath]

Originally Posted by Gazillion

FWIW I own one of these lenses and mine is incredibly sharp with no front or back focussing issues. Colour reproduction and contrast are also excellent. I don't even consider the CA an issue because it's so trivially easy to get rid of in post.

Not everybody is comfortable with post-processing for CA, and not everybody can afford to buy both this lens and good postprocessing software.

Originally Posted by Gazillion

I honestly haven't seen many bad reviews - most of the feedback I got before buying was this was probably the best ultrawide available. I haven't had the opportunity to compare it to the more expensive Nikon lenses, but I've seen it compared incredibly favourably to them.

Not sure I would go as far as "incredibly favorably", but yes, many reviews put it ahead of Nikon or Canon (it is available for both, but has no internal focus motor for the Nikon version, so will not work with D40, D60, D5000, etc.).

This lens is definitely worth considering. A potential buyer needs to ask whether they need f/2.8 on an UWA (most landscapes are shot at f/11 or narrower) and whether the relatively short zoom range will be an issue for them. It is also larger and heavier than the Nikon lenses. IQ for the price cannot be beat.

Originally Posted by Gazillion

Gah, if there quality control has slipped that would be a real shame because the build quality is really high, and if buying this lens is now a gamble that would really suck. TBH that's the first I've heard of this issue though.

Seems just as likely to me that QC was off early, but has picked up now. Apparent build quality is on a par with the Nikon 12-24 and ahead of the 10-24, IMO, though neither Nikon product is reported to exhibit the sample-to-sample variability of the Tokina.

Originally Posted by Gazillion

Got any links?

Can't find them all now, but here's a few:

User comments 3, 9, 10, 11 and 16 after this review in SLR Gear.

After the photo.net review, check the comments by:
Peter Hamm , February 18, 2009
John Svoboda , May 18, 2009
Amiram Stark , May 18, 2009

The first two posts and the final post by LightRules on this page

Ken Rockwell liked this lens when it came out, but read his more recent Nikon 10-24 review, especially his detailed UWA comparison tests carefully.

Originally Posted by Gazillion

Some samples, taken with my 11-16:

Is it just me, or does the upper left-hand corner of the telescope photo look a little soft? (The bottom corners are soft because they are out of focus.)

[Gazillion]

Yeah upper left is very soft - it's out of focus. Shot at f2.8 and focussed on the coin slot. The eyepiece was maybe 5cm from the front of the lens when I took the photo.

And yep, my bad - I forgot about the lack of focus motor. It wasn't an issue for me on my body so I neglected to think that this might actually be a pretty important consideration.

[jtvjon]

A lot of fantastic photos taken ITT. I have a Nikon D5000 and still learning how to use it. Can anyone recommend a lens upgrade from the kit lens that came along with it, wide angle preferably, that won't break the bank?

[Freakin]

Originally Posted by jtvjon

A lot of fantastic photos taken ITT. I have a Nikon D5000 and still learning how to use it. Can anyone recommend a lens upgrade from the kit lens that came along with it, wide angle preferably, that won't break the bank?

50mm f/1.8. <$150.

Keep nothing but that on your camera for a month or two

[Freakin]

Recent fireworks pic that turned out decent


And here was my first attempt at astral photography, with a sky that was not nearly dark enough. Had to push ISO to 6400 to avoid motion blur. This was about 30"

[jtvjon]

Originally Posted by Freakin

50mm f/1.8. <$150.

Keep nothing but that on your camera for a month or two

Thanks, gonna order it and see how it is. I'll post some follow up pics.

[TheRealIABoomer]

Originally Posted by jtvjon

Thanks, gonna order it and see how it is. I'll post some follow up pics.

If you wanted something "wide" 50mm on a crop body isn't quite what you're looking for. The 35mm f/1.8 for about $200 would be wider and more flexible, IMHO. Unless, of course, you're shooting with your 18-55 kit lens mostly maxed out.

Before dropping money on a new lens, I'd set my kit lens at 35mm and 50mm and try shooting for a while with both focal lengths first.