Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Photo of the Day: August 2010
- Thread starter heron88
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I did that with the kits lens on the T2i. I've got some rental gear coming toda. 5DMK2, 100mm MacroL, 16-35L, and Sigma's 50mm 1.4 all for a shoot I'm doing next week. I'll try to do as much of my personal stuff as possible.
Another image from my trusty, old AF Nikkor 300f/4 (the non-AF-S version) that I'm posting mainly to show how thin the plane of focus is wide open with this lens. The fence wire on the right is perhaps 1/2 inch further away from me, and is completely out of focus.
D300, 300mmf/4.0, 1/800, f/4.0, ISO200
Phil, is this on a tripod or hand held?
Regardless, how do you feel that lens handels hand held? From everything i've seen one this ol' interwebs that is one of the best bargins in glass when speaking about quality/price going. I have the 2 ring 80-200 AF-D and of course sometimes want just a bit longer reach. How would you compare the two as far as manageablility and focusing speed/accuracy?
Everything I've posted so far with this lens (300f/4) has been handheld. I find it handles real well hand-held because it's solid, and the barrel feels like a nice weight, so it feels steady. Of course, it's 300mm, and that translates into 450mm equivalent, so you do have to spend time practicing steadying techniques. Compared to the 80-200... it's a bit slower focusing and slightly noisier, and has that huge 82mm front element but if you set the focus limits that can reduce the end-to-end "hunt" when you go off focus, but I seldom bother with the limit. Once you get comfortable with it's capabilities and limitations AF speed wise, it's more a matter of managing the AF via the camera. I often use continuous focus, dynamic focus where I initially focus on the subject with the center focus point, then let the camera track. I'll use the AF button on the back of the camera to keep it tracking instead of the shutter button, but it all depends on whether you're dealing with moving things or not... It's not AF-S, but the image quality is really good, and the lens has that certain vintage Nikkor look and feel. The only limitation that I'd almost see myself trading up because of... is the nearest focus distance. The newer AF-S version can focus about twice as close... And, the old lens would need to use Kenko teleconverters (which I've seen examples of that are really excellent) where the newer one can use the Nikon teleconverters.
As far as manageability between the 300 and the 80-200... not much difference, really. The 300 is slightly longer, but not as "thick." It's actually more comfortable for me to hold/shoot with, and it doesn't have that AF-Manual focus ring that can slide off AF at times with the 80-200. It's a simpler lens, and the built-in lens hood is a nice touch. It uses 39mm drop-in filters if you don't want to get 82mm filters. I don't use filters with it, although there is a UV filter that is part of the lens formula which is normally installed at all times. It's the way the big Nikon big glass (300f/2.8, 400f/2.8) did things. One last note: it normally comes with a leather-type lens hood/cover and not a regular lens cap. I bought a Tamron 82mm lens cap from B+H which is probably the best quality "normal" lens cap you'll find in that size.
It is definitely a bargain. And I love the personality of the lens... it just feels old-school, which to me is good!
I've shot nature and bicycle racing with it. I'm keeping mine, I think it's a classic piece of glass. Here's a link to some shots a guy in Japan did with it as a "street photography" lens. Some of his other stuff is worth checking out as well.http://blog.alfiegoodrich.com/index.php?showimage=476
http://bit.ly/aNOKwM
Sweet pic! Looks like it goes on forever!I took a trip down the south coast today with the sole intention of taking photos.
This is Boscombe Pier.
Again, I feel uneasy about your caption: 'Breaking down'. Is this woman actually having a breakdown? Or has she just put her shopping bags down, to have a rest? Suggesting that a recognisable person is suffering a mental collapse could have unfortunate repercussions... both for her and for the photographer who made this particular leap of the imagination. Every time you describe, in words, what you think is happening in your pictures, as you post them over the internet, you're increasing the chances of getting 'into hot water'.
Ever wondered what it might be like to live in the shadow of a shipyard where nuclear submarines are made? Well, wonder no more...
I think this is no longer the outlet for me to post photos. I'll take down the offending photo from the board.
Erm... your photo doesn't offend me (or anyone else, I imagine), and my comments are just my personal opinion. But a pic posted in an online forum is considered to be 'published' just as if it made the cover of the National Geographic, and an inappropriate caption is the quickest way to find yourself at the wrong end of a defamation suit. I work in publishing, and this is one aspect of the business that keeps the lawyers busy.
Random attack of the photo re-size police...
I always have to wonder what compels certain mods here to once in a blue moon swoop into our little POTD thread and randomly do a batch resize of some displayed images, converting them from img tags to timg tags. It makes no sense whatsoever, and is just randomly applied to a group of images. We've been down this road numerous times in the past, usually every 3 to 4 months, like some weird recurring virus... and this has been addressed in specific threads involving several mods here in the past. Once you think it's been resolved, bang! Here it comes again.
We here on this forum have spent considerable time and discussion between ourselves and moderators to find a generally acceptable consensus on displaying photos here. This forum is fairly well self-policed, and every attempt is made to keep folks who post here abreast of the generally accepted guidelines, with reminders when someone "goofs."
Once again, it's like a drive-by "re-sizing." Just randomly hit a few, leave your mark, and come back and do it again in a couple months...
I'm calling for a serious explanation... there has never been one that made sense as long as photos remain within certain pixel dimensions... yet complying images are resized anyway. Give us a reason... one that has some technical merit. Otherwise... please leave things as they are. Thank you!!
I always have to wonder what compels certain mods here to once in a blue moon swoop into our little POTD thread and randomly do a batch resize of some displayed images, converting them from img tags to timg tags.
It makes no sense whatsoever, and is just randomly applied to a group of images. We've been down this road numerous times in the past, usually every 3 to 4 months, like some weird recurring virus... and this has been addressed in specific threads involving several mods here in the past. Once you think it's been resolved, bang! Here it comes again.We here on this forum have spent considerable time and discussion between ourselves and moderators to find a generally acceptable consensus on displaying photos here. This forum is fairly well self-policed, and every attempt is made to keep folks who post here abreast of the generally accepted guidelines, with reminders when someone "goofs."
Once again, it's like a drive-by "re-sizing." Just randomly hit a few, leave your mark, and come back and do it again in a couple months...
I'm calling for a serious explanation... there has never been one that made sense as long as photos remain within certain pixel dimensions... yet complying images are resized anyway. Give us a reason... one that has some technical merit. Otherwise... please leave things as they are. Thank you!!
One of the many fruit sellers at Pike Place Market in Seattle...
Nikon D90
1/90s
f/6.7
ISO 640
Nikkor AF-S 16-85mm VR @ 30mm
Nikon D90
1/90s
f/6.7
ISO 640
Nikkor AF-S 16-85mm VR @ 30mm
Nice shot. I envy you the ISO640. My D60 jumps from 400 to 800. Is this where the original Starbucks store opened?One of the many fruit sellers at Pike Place Market in Seattle...
Nikon D90
1/90s
f/6.7
ISO 640
Nikkor AF-S 16-85mm VR @ 30mm
Mine for today. I really liked the 50mm lens when I got it, but it is manual focus on my camera, and I have a lot of trouble with that:
Greg
Attachments
One of the many fruit sellers at Pike Place Market in Seattle...
Nikon D90
1/90s
f/6.7
ISO 640
Nikkor AF-S 16-85mm VR @ 30mm
Gah, was out there in June, want to go back sooo bad.
And yes to the person that asked if this was where the first starbucks was open.
A shame really. You should have left the picture up and simply changed the caption (or deleted it). It was an interesting photograph
