D750 Owners Group!

Cropped a lot: 24-120mm ISO50

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/EWko​V6

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/FRBD​vR

Just some news shots from my D750.

What do you think of pairing the 24-120 with a Nikkor 70-200 F4. The other day I found out that some times with 120mm I am a bit short and, hence the willing of buying this lens.

I think it's a decent pairing. They may not be quite as good in fading light as the f/2.8 pairing but will be lighter and (IMO) almost as good IQ

I struggled with which lens to pair with the 24-120. The 70-200 f/4 is a good choice but with some obvious overlap in both focal length and aperture. However, sometimes some overlap is a good thing, so having two very nice f/4 zooms to cover 24-200 makes sense.

I tried the Tamron 70-300 VC to extend the range, but then decided for my type of shooting (mainly portraits) the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC would be the best choice for me. This lens is in the same price range as the Nikon f/4 zoom, but with an extra stop (and a bit of extra weight if that is concern). Prior to owning a Nikon system, I used a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II for a while, and I can honestly say the Tamron is right up there with it in AF speed, accuracy and IQ.

Thank you guys for your kind replies.
You talked into buying the Nikkor 70-200 F4.
Actually, I also glanced the Sigma and Tamron version of this kind of lens, both F2.8, but the Nikkor is lighter and my back will be happier.
Happy Sunday.

Nere are some other shots from our trip to Annecy (France):

some recent birds

Photo from ptcanon3ti's gallery.

Photo from ptcanon3ti's gallery.

Photo from ptcanon3ti's gallery.

Photo from ptcanon3ti's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (787498)

Had to bring wife to catch bus at 4am so brought my camera. Used my old 35-70mm f2.8 @8000 ISO. The metadata below should read 8000 iso as noted at flickr's site shown below picture.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/FzBZ​sQ

Ravages of time in a humid environment. Old but still useful.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/GF2N​ae

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/FL5d​i6

Tern and Laughing Gull

My daughter was performing at the local Arts festival (no the little girl in the picture is not my daughter, she was off in a corner being pouty lol) and I had the opportunity to take some candids of the dancers interacting prior to showtime. Here are just two of various shots I had the chance to take, love taking candids because the moments are so fleeting and it removes any opportunity to think, you just act and work on feeling (I always do better when I take my over-analyzing brain out of the equation!)

Here was my pouty child and the younger wild child lol. I have to repeat I LOVE how malleable the D750 files are, plenty of room to play with, especially for those times I miss the exposure for whatever reason... I am amazed at how many useable shots I get... also I am so happy that my Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC is decently sharp... I wouldn't say it is the sharpest lens I have but it does well enough wide open. The second shot is my youngest, the wild child, she was hugging on my leg laying on my foot, tried to grab a quick snap before she moved but unfortunately I did not have my AF point to center and missed focus just before she scampered off...managed to get this one though!

Image hosted by forum (790409) © werds THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff.

trancerem wrote in post #17529014
so...for events shooters, reading weddings , what profile do u use ?
adobe standard - way too much orange. i hate orange
camera standard - very good for outdoor, adds a lil contrast, colours are nice
camera portrait - best for trash the dress, where u post-process alot the images.
but, for now, i could not find a good indoor profile. when only 1 main light source avaible, the skin is nice with camera landscape, but when i add a flash, or some dj's coloured lights, it gets tricky and i have to work more with saturation levels, shadows calibration, etc.

what suit u better ?

for the record, i always shoot raw.

Not sure if this was ever answered but I tried camera standard and portrait and the other "camera" profiles in Lightroom and while test driving it I kept telling myself, "that's nice, but there is something I am not happy about." I was much happier with my older files that were processed starting with Adobe Standard and then doing multiple tweaks.. but then again I was trying to make my worflow more efficient by starting at a nicer base position... I finally figured out what I wasn't happy with. When I went back to some old dance pictures I noticed I had done them in Adobe Standard and needed to finish some of them and figured I could start at Camera Standard.... ugh!!! The smudging and loss of fine color detail was extremely noticeable to me in these pictures! After checking out several different sets I kept noticing the same, if I was unaware of the fine grain details I might be ok with those settings but I have gone back to starting at Adobe Standard and merely created my own Presets that best come close to mimicking Portrait, Standard, Vivid etc. and then just use them as needed, I said mimicked because I had to spend time massaging them so as not to lose much of the fine grain detail I had seen disappearing in pictures when I used the Camara presets in LR...

It is always possible I am doing or seeing something wrong but just my experience so far and preference (but then again I claim no crown towards being a genius at LR and feel rather noobish at times!)

werds wrote in post #17991167
Not sure if this was ever answered but I tried camera standard and portrait and the other "camera" profiles in Lightroom and while test driving it I kept telling myself, "that's nice, but there is something I am not happy about." I was much happier with my older files that were processed starting with Adobe Standard and then doing multiple tweaks.. but then again I was trying to make my worflow more efficient by starting at a nicer base position... I finally figured out what I wasn't happy with. When I went back to some old dance pictures I noticed I had done them in Adobe Standard and needed to finish some of them and figured I could start at Camera Standard.... ugh!!! The smudging and loss of fine color detail was extremely noticeable to me in these pictures! After checking out several different sets I kept noticing the same, if I was unaware of the fine grain details I might be ok with those settings but I have gone back to starting at Adobe Standard and merely created my own Presets that best come close to mimicking Portrait, Standard, Vivid etc. and then just use them as needed, I said mimicked because I had to spend time massaging them so as not to lose much of the fine grain detail I had seen disappearing in pictures when I used the Camara presets in LR...

It is always possible I am doing or seeing something wrong but just my experience so far and preference (but then again I claim no crown towards being a genius at LR and feel rather noobish at times!)

Sorry for bothering but I'd like to have an opinion about a lens.
I see you've got the 70-200 F2.8 with a 24-70; I own 24-120 and would like to buy the Sigma 70-200 F2.8, it has a good price. In your opinion, is it worth the money or would I use just a little?
I thought I could use it, e.g., for my son's shows at school; low light and so F2.8 is ok, distance and so the zoom 70-200 comes in handy.
Am I right?
Thanks in advance,
Fabrizio

my two daughters enjoying their lazy sunday morning with their new housebuddy Ozzy