Tupperware Photography & Red Ring Tinfoil (14)

hehehe

Togra4 wrote in post #7170756

flattering!

Ain't it though! I throw away all of the pictures I find of myself with out my tongue out. Luckily there aren't many. 98% of pictures of me are tongue out pictures...that's why I stay behind the camera.

YODA DUDE!! MOO!! and hi

Togra4 wrote in post #7169785
Ok Belmondo, you have convinced me. So I get the used 70-200 f/4, what IS the best lens for portrait work in your opinion, so I can start my lens wish list....(I love that I can have a lens wish list now instead of a camera and lens wish list:lol

I agree with this. When I was shooting wedding portraits I always had the 70-200 F4IS on one camera and something else on the other (it varied according to where I was shooting). It's sharp and has lovely bokeh. I do highly recommend either version (is or non-is) of this lens.

The absolute best portrait lenses (minus expense) are the 85 1.2L and the 135L & even the 200 2.8 L though it's probably too long on a crop body. imo

However, the lesser expensive and good quality options are the 70-200 and the 85 1.8.

The tamron is a very versatile lens for almost no money. It has pretty bokeh too. It's downside is that it's not fast focusing but it does have almost 1:1 macro capabilities which is very nice in a lightweight package.

Lightstream wrote in post #7170606
So PG went to the dark side about 2 weeks ago? Man I should have logged in earlier......

yeah you missed it. I debated and swore I wouldn't for almost a year. But I happened upon a deal to trade my M3 for a D700 package so I did. I was going to keep the Ds2 and the D700...but everything is completely opposite in the controls. That was frustrating. Then I happened upon another deal to trade my 16-35II which I never liked for a D300. Suddenly with 2 nikons I didn't really need the canon camera and Dan has always loved the Ds2 so I gave him that and the 24-70, 135L and the 70-200 and sold the rest and bought the nikon equivalents.

puddlepirate44 wrote in post #7170639
She just wanted to get the D700. She intended to use dual systems, but apparently the Dark Side is a slippery slope.

yeah...it is. I've got so much to learn. Their flash is way more complicated than the 580.

Permagrin wrote in post #7171019
YODA DUDE!! MOO!! and hi

I agree with this. When I was shooting wedding portraits I always had the 70-200 F4IS on one camera and something else on the other (it varied according to where I was shooting). It's sharp and has lovely bokeh. I do highly recommend either version (is or non-is) of this lens.

The absolute best portrait lenses (minus expense) are the 85 1.2L and the 135L & even the 200 2.8 L though it's probably too long on a crop body. imo

However, the lesser expensive and good quality options are the 70-200 and the 85 1.8.

The tamron is a very versatile lens for almost no money. It has pretty bokeh too. It's downside is that it's not fast focusing but it does have almost 1:1 macro capabilities which is very nice in a lightweight package.

yeah you missed it. I debated and swore I wouldn't for almost a year. But I happened upon a deal to trade my M3 for a D700 package so I did. I was going to keep the Ds2 and the D700...but everything is completely opposite in the controls. That was frustrating. Then I happened upon another deal to trade my 16-35II which I never liked for a D300. Suddenly with 2 nikons I didn't really need the canon camera and Dan has always loved the Ds2 so I gave him that and the 24-70, 135L and the 70-200 and sold the rest and bought the nikon equivalents.

yeah...it is. I've got so much to learn. Their flash is way more complicated than the 580.

Moo good to see you again too

There has actually been a time when I considered going D700, but the glass held me back. Not to say that Nikon has no good glass, but over the years I have come to love the specific lenses I use.

17-40: there is no 'affordable' f/4 version on the Nikon side, it is either full price for their 17-35 or bust. I ain't paying for a f/2.8 when I shoot this lens exclusively at f/8 on a tripod!
24-105/4 IS: The Nikon 24-120 doesn't have a constant aperture and even the Nikon folk are complaining a 6-8MP Nikon DSLR beats it to death. I love my f/4 and my IS.
70-200 f/4 IS: No equivalent. Their 80-200 is a 2.8, no VR, no SWM
35 f/1.4L: The Nikon AIS is dated and has no AF
135L: No equivalent
100-400: No equivalent. 200-400/4 VR SWM is fantastic - but not at 5X the price!


They have a much better 14-24, 24-70, and 17-50 DX though.

Lightstream wrote in post #7171096
Moo good to see you again too

There has actually been a time when I considered going D700, but the glass held me back. Not to say that Nikon has no good glass, but over the years I have come to love the specific lenses I use.

17-40: there is no 'affordable' f/4 version on the Nikon side, it is either full price for their 17-35 or bust.
24-105/4 IS: The Nikon 24-120 doesn't have a constant aperture and even the Nikon folk are complaining a 6-8MP Nikon DSLR beats it to death. I love my f/4 and my IS.
70-200 f/4 IS: No equivalent. Their 80-200 is a 2.8, no VR, no SWM
35 f/1.4L: The Nikon AIS is dated and has no AF
135L: No equivalent
100-400: No equivalent


They have a much better 14-24, 24-70, and 17-50 DX though.

yeah, I've found that there aren't equivalents in the current primes at all. As for the zooms, I'm so pleased with those that I purchased. I love the 14-24 and 24-70 especially. The 300 F4 is equal to my 300 F4IS but w/o IS. The 70-200 VR seems incredibly sharp too but I haven't tested it too much yet. I bought the old MF primes to have good glass in the primes but they aren't AF so that can be a drawback...but suuuuch nice glass. I like the way that the camera will confirm focus through the viewfinder too. so manually focusing isn't too hard.

The only lens I heard of issues was the 70-200/2.8. Even the Nikon faithful joke that it is their "Full Frame DX" because of the vignetting. What have your experiences been?

Nikon does have some nice primes - they have a good heritage. You will recall I had a Canon A-1 with nFD 28/2.8 - horribly soft. Now I have the Nikon 28/2.8 AIS for my FE2, it is a lot better.

A year away from full-time posting here has allowed me to take a step back and assess what is good for me. So much has been argued about IS and aperture, at the end of the day I find that my f/4 setup is what works for me - and that is the important thing. I can deliver results on that rig and I have discovered I wouldn't change a thing now. It's good to be able to stop buying

Lightstream wrote in post #7171185
The only lens I heard of issues was the 70-200/2.8. Even the Nikon faithful joke that it is their "Full Frame DX" because of the vignetting. What have your experiences been?

Nikon does have some nice primes - they have a good heritage. You will recall I had a Canon A-1 with nFD 28/2.8 - horribly soft. Now I have the Nikon 28/2.8 AIS for my FE2, it is a lot better.

A year away from full-time posting here has allowed me to take a step back and assess what is good for me. So much has been argued about IS and aperture, at the end of the day I find that my f/4 setup is what works for me - and that is the important thing. I can deliver results on that rig and I have discovered I wouldn't change a thing now. It's good to be able to stop buying

You know, I've read about the softness in the corners but again, I've not used it much. What I have used of it has not disappointed me (maybe it's a pixel peeping thing?) This is a shot with it (the vignette was added for effect...afraid I don't have any unproccessed shots at this time) both wide open. So with these results, I don't have any problems with how it's working. I mostly will use it for portraits anyway.

oh and that 28 2.8 does have a good reputation. Glad you are liking it.

Permagrin wrote in post #7171231
You know, I've read about the softness in the corners but again, I've not used it much. What I have used of it has not disappointed me (maybe it's a pixel peeping thing?) This is a shot with it (the vignette was added for effect...afraid I don't have any unproccessed shots at this time) both wide open. So with these results, I don't have any problems with how it's working. I mostly will use it for portraits anyway.

and I'm glad you are happy with your setup. I am as well...contentment is a great thing.

Shots look OK.. maybe it is the pixel peepers getting too carried away. We all know how they end up

There is basically only one transition left for my setup - I have decided at some point to give up crop cameras. I find that the x0D series cameras have just not delivered the reliability I need, they always seem to be experiencing one issue or another (usually an ERRxx issue), whereas the 5D just keeps on ticking. It ain't called the cookie cutter for nothing.

Even for my MBIF, the 5D2 is expected to yield massive pixels for cropping manually in LR anyway.

Oh yeah, this post brought to you by the aluminium 13" Macbook. It has a superb display: suddenly all my photos look SO much better than before!

Permagrin wrote in post #7171245
oh and that 28 2.8 does have a good reputation. Glad you are liking it.

errrrrrrrrp.....typo error. It's a 28/2.8 AI, not a AI-S (it lacks the floating system/CRC).

But it is still nice

OK........nap time! cya later

oh lol, I forgot to mention I was shocked at your mac purchase. Glad you are happy with it!


and really, if you saw the shots full size (web does them no justice) I think you'd see what I mean. Plus it's hard to tell with the added vignette but there was no vignette originally. I think it's likely that it will be slightly soft in the corners (it seems to be a general consensus) but for what I shoot, that's no issue.


and re: your 28, I'm glad you are liking it. I think it's fun to try and mf action Kona (the dog) really tests my skills (or lack thereof) and gives me a serious respect for people who used to mf all the time for sports!!

Permie, your puppy is pweety. So Sweet. I think it is technically lovely as well. It's a good thing the little one is napping or I would have even more lip prints to clean up.

thanks Tracy