wOOt -- got my new Nikkor lens

[eflat]

yeah that's right. f2, none of this 2.8 sh!t.

I'm taking photo's with my digicam at iso 640 at night in a dimly lit room and getting them crystal clear.

Why is Nikon the best? Because I can use any lens made in the last 40 years by Nikon. And hook it up to my digital camera and shoot at 8FPS!!

That same lens from Canon would have cost like $1800. I got this one for $200 on Ebay and it is every bit as good. You just have to fucus manually, which if you know anything about cameras autofocus on a wide angle is a waste of space anyways.

 

[virtuamike]

Heh, I use a 55/3.5 AIS for macro. The thing's older than I am and it's cheaper than my bag, got it for $70.

 

[FM2n]

You can use it, but not without losing your metering function. I use nikon too, but I hate them for not supporting AIS lens'.. Bastards!

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug
yeah that's right. f2, none of this 2.8 sh!t.

I'm taking photo's with my digicam at iso 640 at night in a dimly lit room and getting them crystal clear.

Why is Nikon the best? Because I can use any lens made in the last 40 years by Nikon. And hook it up to my digital camera and shoot at 8FPS!!

That same lens from Canon would have cost like $1800. I got this one for $200 on Ebay and it is every bit as good. You just have to fucus manually, which if you know anything about cameras autofocus on a wide angle is a waste of space anyways.

I'd take my 20D over any Nikon any day.

My 50mm is 1.4 so HAH!

And the 24mm Canon for $1089.95 is 1.4 as well...no 2.0 sh!t!!

The 24mm Nikon AIS is $819.95...not a huge difference in price....and it's only 2.0 not 1.4. Manual focus $589.95 so that is cheaper, but again only 2.0.

Also the regular non-L 24mm Canon is under $300.

So ..... stop smoking crack, kthx.



Oh...and post some crystal clear pics.

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: FM2n
You can use it, but not without losing your metering function. I use nikon too, but I hate them for not supporting AIS lens'.. Bastards!

D2h and D2x support TTL AIS metering. Wouldn't expect the D70 since it's not considered a pro quality body.

 

[CocoGdog]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug
yeah that's right. f2, none of this 2.8 sh!t.

I'm taking photo's with my digicam at iso 640 at night in a dimly lit room and getting them crystal clear.

Why is Nikon the best? Because I can use any lens made in the last 40 years by Nikon. And hook it up to my digital camera and shoot at 8FPS!!

That same lens from Canon would have cost like $1800. I got this one for $200 on Ebay and it is every bit as good. You just have to fucus manually, which if you know anything about cameras autofocus on a wide angle is a waste of space anyways.

I'd take my 20D over any Nikon any day.

My 50mm is 1.4 so HAH!

And the 24mm Canon for $1089.95 is 1.4 as well...no 2.0 sh!t!!

The 24mm Nikon AIS is $819.95...not a huge difference in price....and it's only 2.0 not 1.4. Manual focus $589.95 so that is cheaper, but again only 2.0.

Also the regular non-L 24mm Canon is under $300.

So ..... stop smoking crack, kthx.



Oh...and post some crystal clear pics.

children children...

I still take pictures with my Kodak 110 camera....

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: CocoGdog

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug
yeah that's right. f2, none of this 2.8 sh!t.

I'm taking photo's with my digicam at iso 640 at night in a dimly lit room and getting them crystal clear.

Why is Nikon the best? Because I can use any lens made in the last 40 years by Nikon. And hook it up to my digital camera and shoot at 8FPS!!

That same lens from Canon would have cost like $1800. I got this one for $200 on Ebay and it is every bit as good. You just have to fucus manually, which if you know anything about cameras autofocus on a wide angle is a waste of space anyways.

I'd take my 20D over any Nikon any day.

My 50mm is 1.4 so HAH!

And the 24mm Canon for $1089.95 is 1.4 as well...no 2.0 sh!t!!

The 24mm Nikon AIS is $819.95...not a huge difference in price....and it's only 2.0 not 1.4. Manual focus $589.95 so that is cheaper, but again only 2.0.

Also the regular non-L 24mm Canon is under $300.

So ..... stop smoking crack, kthx.



Oh...and post some crystal clear pics.

children children...

I still take pictures with my Kodak 110 camera....

He just needs to get his facts straight. I don't know where he got this "The Canon lens is $1800" crap from....

Yes the Canon is more expensive but it's better glass as well in the L series compared to the Nikon unless he got some steal of a price on one of their better lenses...then quality wise it would be close but the Canon would be faster.

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: CocoGdog

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug
yeah that's right. f2, none of this 2.8 sh!t.

I'm taking photo's with my digicam at iso 640 at night in a dimly lit room and getting them crystal clear.

Why is Nikon the best? Because I can use any lens made in the last 40 years by Nikon. And hook it up to my digital camera and shoot at 8FPS!!

That same lens from Canon would have cost like $1800. I got this one for $200 on Ebay and it is every bit as good. You just have to fucus manually, which if you know anything about cameras autofocus on a wide angle is a waste of space anyways.

I'd take my 20D over any Nikon any day.

My 50mm is 1.4 so HAH!

And the 24mm Canon for $1089.95 is 1.4 as well...no 2.0 sh!t!!

The 24mm Nikon AIS is $819.95...not a huge difference in price....and it's only 2.0 not 1.4. Manual focus $589.95 so that is cheaper, but again only 2.0.

Also the regular non-L 24mm Canon is under $300.

So ..... stop smoking crack, kthx.



Oh...and post some crystal clear pics.

children children...

I still take pictures with my Kodak 110 camera....

He just needs to get his facts straight. I don't know where he got this "The Canon lens is $1800" crap from....

Yes the Canon is more expensive but it's better glass as well in the L series compared to the Nikon unless he got some steal of a price on one of their better lenses...then quality wise it would be close but the Canon would be faster.

According to OP it only cost him $200 for his 24/2. Regardless of how nice the Canon is at $1089, he still has more than enough left over to buy something like an 85/1.4 or 105/2, or even a 35/1.4 to compliment it.

You should take some time to read up on the older Nikon wide angle lenses. They may not be all ED but there's a reason PJs went with Nikon wides for so long.

 

[eflat]

Originally posted by: FM2n
You can use it, but not without losing your metering function. I use nikon too, but I hate them for not supporting AIS lens'.. Bastards!

It's called a D2H. I suggest you look into is

(It's a little more expensive than your D70. But not only does it meter, it MATRIX meters)

The F5 couldn't do that.

 

[eflat]

Originally posted by: FM2n
You can use it, but not without losing your metering function. I use nikon too, but I hate them for not supporting AIS lens'.. Bastards!

Again they do, you just have to step up the the professional line of cameras. Not only do they support them, they support them with MATRIX metering, unhead of since the F4.

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug

Originally posted by: FM2n
You can use it, but not without losing your metering function. I use nikon too, but I hate them for not supporting AIS lens'.. Bastards!

It's called a D2H. I suggest you look into is

(It's a little more expensive than your D70. But not only does it meter, it MATRIX meters)

The F5 couldn't do that.

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug

Originally posted by: FM2n
You can use it, but not without losing your metering function. I use nikon too, but I hate them for not supporting AIS lens'.. Bastards!

Again they do, you just have to step up the the professional line of cameras. Not only do they support them, they support them with MATRIX metering, unhead of since the F4.

 

[eflat]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: CocoGdog

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug
yeah that's right. f2, none of this 2.8 sh!t.

I'm taking photo's with my digicam at iso 640 at night in a dimly lit room and getting them crystal clear.

Why is Nikon the best? Because I can use any lens made in the last 40 years by Nikon. And hook it up to my digital camera and shoot at 8FPS!!

That same lens from Canon would have cost like $1800. I got this one for $200 on Ebay and it is every bit as good. You just have to fucus manually, which if you know anything about cameras autofocus on a wide angle is a waste of space anyways.

I'd take my 20D over any Nikon any day.

My 50mm is 1.4 so HAH!

And the 24mm Canon for $1089.95 is 1.4 as well...no 2.0 sh!t!!

The 24mm Nikon AIS is $819.95...not a huge difference in price....and it's only 2.0 not 1.4. Manual focus $589.95 so that is cheaper, but again only 2.0.

Also the regular non-L 24mm Canon is under $300.

So ..... stop smoking crack, kthx.



Oh...and post some crystal clear pics.

children children...

I still take pictures with my Kodak 110 camera....

He just needs to get his facts straight. I don't know where he got this "The Canon lens is $1800" crap from....

Yes the Canon is more expensive but it's better glass as well in the L series compared to the Nikon unless he got some steal of a price on one of their better lenses...then quality wise it would be close but the Canon would be faster.

Ok $1200. I admit Canon does have the upper hand on things for most professionals.

But for an ameteur like myself, being able to use old manual focus gems that are given for free with a top of the line professional digital SLR is just too beautiful for words.

But yeah, if you have the money Canon is better. If you are on a budget though, you can't beat the Nikon D2H. You can get them used for like $1500 now. That is truly a professional camera that shoots at 8FPS and is such a steal at that price.

 

[eflat]

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: CocoGdog

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug
yeah that's right. f2, none of this 2.8 sh!t.

I'm taking photo's with my digicam at iso 640 at night in a dimly lit room and getting them crystal clear.

Why is Nikon the best? Because I can use any lens made in the last 40 years by Nikon. And hook it up to my digital camera and shoot at 8FPS!!

That same lens from Canon would have cost like $1800. I got this one for $200 on Ebay and it is every bit as good. You just have to fucus manually, which if you know anything about cameras autofocus on a wide angle is a waste of space anyways.

I'd take my 20D over any Nikon any day.

My 50mm is 1.4 so HAH!

And the 24mm Canon for $1089.95 is 1.4 as well...no 2.0 sh!t!!

The 24mm Nikon AIS is $819.95...not a huge difference in price....and it's only 2.0 not 1.4. Manual focus $589.95 so that is cheaper, but again only 2.0.

Also the regular non-L 24mm Canon is under $300.

So ..... stop smoking crack, kthx.



Oh...and post some crystal clear pics.

children children...

I still take pictures with my Kodak 110 camera....

He just needs to get his facts straight. I don't know where he got this "The Canon lens is $1800" crap from....

Yes the Canon is more expensive but it's better glass as well in the L series compared to the Nikon unless he got some steal of a price on one of their better lenses...then quality wise it would be close but the Canon would be faster.

According to OP it only cost him $200 for his 24/2. Regardless of how nice the Canon is at $1089, he still has more than enough left over to buy something like an 85/1.4 or 105/2, or even a 35/1.4 to compliment it.

You should take some time to read up on the older Nikon wide angle lenses. They may not be all ED but there's a reason PJs went with Nikon wides for so long.

Yeah I am trying to decide what to get next. I am leaning towards a fast telephoto. Maybe 135mm?

I only like prime lenses (although I am considering the famous 75-150mm series E zoom) and am pretty happy with my wide angle coverage with that 24mm. Evem though it is like a 32mm with the crop factor I really don't like to shoot too wide. I can't figure out what to do with that much space.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: CocoGdog

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug
yeah that's right. f2, none of this 2.8 sh!t.

I'm taking photo's with my digicam at iso 640 at night in a dimly lit room and getting them crystal clear.

Why is Nikon the best? Because I can use any lens made in the last 40 years by Nikon. And hook it up to my digital camera and shoot at 8FPS!!

That same lens from Canon would have cost like $1800. I got this one for $200 on Ebay and it is every bit as good. You just have to fucus manually, which if you know anything about cameras autofocus on a wide angle is a waste of space anyways.

I'd take my 20D over any Nikon any day.

My 50mm is 1.4 so HAH!

And the 24mm Canon for $1089.95 is 1.4 as well...no 2.0 sh!t!!

The 24mm Nikon AIS is $819.95...not a huge difference in price....and it's only 2.0 not 1.4. Manual focus $589.95 so that is cheaper, but again only 2.0.

Also the regular non-L 24mm Canon is under $300.

So ..... stop smoking crack, kthx.



Oh...and post some crystal clear pics.

children children...

I still take pictures with my Kodak 110 camera....

He just needs to get his facts straight. I don't know where he got this "The Canon lens is $1800" crap from....

Yes the Canon is more expensive but it's better glass as well in the L series compared to the Nikon unless he got some steal of a price on one of their better lenses...then quality wise it would be close but the Canon would be faster.

According to OP it only cost him $200 for his 24/2. Regardless of how nice the Canon is at $1089, he still has more than enough left over to buy something like an 85/1.4 or 105/2, or even a 35/1.4 to compliment it.

You should take some time to read up on the older Nikon wide angle lenses. They may not be all ED but there's a reason PJs went with Nikon wides for so long.

I never said it was a bad lens - Nikon makes great lenses. Generally yes the Nikons are also a little cheaper, but not by a huge amount. He did get a good deal at $200 and can't fault him for jumping on that....just feel that if he's going to bash something about it's price that he should get the price right.

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: CocoGdog

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug
yeah that's right. f2, none of this 2.8 sh!t.

I'm taking photo's with my digicam at iso 640 at night in a dimly lit room and getting them crystal clear.

Why is Nikon the best? Because I can use any lens made in the last 40 years by Nikon. And hook it up to my digital camera and shoot at 8FPS!!

That same lens from Canon would have cost like $1800. I got this one for $200 on Ebay and it is every bit as good. You just have to fucus manually, which if you know anything about cameras autofocus on a wide angle is a waste of space anyways.

I'd take my 20D over any Nikon any day.

My 50mm is 1.4 so HAH!

And the 24mm Canon for $1089.95 is 1.4 as well...no 2.0 sh!t!!

The 24mm Nikon AIS is $819.95...not a huge difference in price....and it's only 2.0 not 1.4. Manual focus $589.95 so that is cheaper, but again only 2.0.

Also the regular non-L 24mm Canon is under $300.

So ..... stop smoking crack, kthx.



Oh...and post some crystal clear pics.

children children...

I still take pictures with my Kodak 110 camera....

He just needs to get his facts straight. I don't know where he got this "The Canon lens is $1800" crap from....

Yes the Canon is more expensive but it's better glass as well in the L series compared to the Nikon unless he got some steal of a price on one of their better lenses...then quality wise it would be close but the Canon would be faster.

According to OP it only cost him $200 for his 24/2. Regardless of how nice the Canon is at $1089, he still has more than enough left over to buy something like an 85/1.4 or 105/2, or even a 35/1.4 to compliment it.

You should take some time to read up on the older Nikon wide angle lenses. They may not be all ED but there's a reason PJs went with Nikon wides for so long.

Yeah I am trying to decide what to get next. I am leaning towards a fast telephoto. Maybe 135mm?

I only like prime lenses (although I am considering the famous 75-150mm series E zoom) and am pretty happy with my wide angle coverage with that 24mm. Evem though it is like a 32mm with the crop factor I really don't like to shoot too wide. I can't figure out what to do with that much space.

105/1.8 AIS. I wouldn't pay more than $350 for it though, any higher and I'd make the jump to 105/2 DC. 180/2.8 is a great lens too, seen AF versions for under $400. The 135 stuff is a little iffy for me, seems like Nikon did a much better job with the 105's.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug


Yeah I am trying to decide what to get next. I am leaning towards a fast telephoto. Maybe 135mm?

I only like prime lenses (although I am considering the famous 75-150mm series E zoom) and am pretty happy with my wide angle coverage with that 24mm. Evem though it is like a 32mm with the crop factor I really don't like to shoot too wide. I can't figure out what to do with that much space.

Depends on your subject and what you will do most. If you are doing portraits then a 135mm will be an excellent lens for head-shot close ups, but also an 85mm might be better with your crop factor. I think everyone should have a normal 50mm prime, 24mm is decent wide angle, 85mm and 135mm maybe 100mm would be the others I would recommend.

Personally I need wider angle for my landscape work (with the 20D) and I have a 17-40L and a 24-70L for most of the needed range in L series. Then a 28-135mm IS which is good for weddings and a 50mm prime. I couldn't get by with 24mm wide especially with the 1.6X crop of a 20D. That makes my 17mm a 27mm roughly. Wider would be nice and I'm looking into the new 5D as a second camera and then use the 20D for backup. The 5D's full frame sensor is what appeals to me. I just can't justify the $12,000 for a top end EOS 1 series at this point, but the 5D I think I might be able to squeeze into my budget.

 

[Ketteringo]

nikkor treat!

 

[eflat]

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: CocoGdog

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug
yeah that's right. f2, none of this 2.8 sh!t.

I'm taking photo's with my digicam at iso 640 at night in a dimly lit room and getting them crystal clear.

Why is Nikon the best? Because I can use any lens made in the last 40 years by Nikon. And hook it up to my digital camera and shoot at 8FPS!!

That same lens from Canon would have cost like $1800. I got this one for $200 on Ebay and it is every bit as good. You just have to fucus manually, which if you know anything about cameras autofocus on a wide angle is a waste of space anyways.

I'd take my 20D over any Nikon any day.

My 50mm is 1.4 so HAH!

And the 24mm Canon for $1089.95 is 1.4 as well...no 2.0 sh!t!!

The 24mm Nikon AIS is $819.95...not a huge difference in price....and it's only 2.0 not 1.4. Manual focus $589.95 so that is cheaper, but again only 2.0.

Also the regular non-L 24mm Canon is under $300.

So ..... stop smoking crack, kthx.



Oh...and post some crystal clear pics.

children children...

I still take pictures with my Kodak 110 camera....

He just needs to get his facts straight. I don't know where he got this "The Canon lens is $1800" crap from....

Yes the Canon is more expensive but it's better glass as well in the L series compared to the Nikon unless he got some steal of a price on one of their better lenses...then quality wise it would be close but the Canon would be faster.

According to OP it only cost him $200 for his 24/2. Regardless of how nice the Canon is at $1089, he still has more than enough left over to buy something like an 85/1.4 or 105/2, or even a 35/1.4 to compliment it.

You should take some time to read up on the older Nikon wide angle lenses. They may not be all ED but there's a reason PJs went with Nikon wides for so long.

Yeah I am trying to decide what to get next. I am leaning towards a fast telephoto. Maybe 135mm?

I only like prime lenses (although I am considering the famous 75-150mm series E zoom) and am pretty happy with my wide angle coverage with that 24mm. Evem though it is like a 32mm with the crop factor I really don't like to shoot too wide. I can't figure out what to do with that much space.

105/1.8 AIS. I wouldn't pay more than $350 for it though, any higher and I'd make the jump to 105/2 DC. 180/2.8 is a great lens too, seen AF versions for under $400. The 135 stuff is a little iffy for me, seems like Nikon did a much better job with the 105's.

Does that take 52mm filters? That would be a sweet lens if it did. The 180mm that is.

 

[eflat]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug


Yeah I am trying to decide what to get next. I am leaning towards a fast telephoto. Maybe 135mm?

I only like prime lenses (although I am considering the famous 75-150mm series E zoom) and am pretty happy with my wide angle coverage with that 24mm. Evem though it is like a 32mm with the crop factor I really don't like to shoot too wide. I can't figure out what to do with that much space.

Depends on your subject and what you will do most. If you are doing portraits then a 135mm will be an excellent lens for head-shot close ups, but also an 85mm might be better with your crop factor. I think everyone should have a normal 50mm prime, 24mm is decent wide angle, 85mm and 135mm maybe 100mm would be the others I would recommend.

Personally I need wider angle for my landscape work (with the 20D) and I have a 17-40L and a 24-70L for most of the needed range in L series. Then a 28-135mm IS which is good for weddings and a 50mm prime. I couldn't get by with 24mm wide especially with the 1.6X crop of a 20D. That makes my 17mm a 27mm roughly. Wider would be nice and I'm looking into the new 5D as a second camera and then use the 20D for backup. The 5D's full frame sensor is what appeals to me. I just can't justify the $12,000 for a top end EOS 1 series at this point, but the 5D I think I might be able to squeeze into my budget.

Yeah I am not a fan of landscapes. Not vast ones anyhow. More urban landscapes, I guess. And photojournalism.

I'm hoping to be able to get good enough to be a freelance photographer for some small magazines and newspapers so I've been working at shooting events.

Actually I have only picked up a real camera for the first time a few months ago but I'm learning pretty quick. I think I'll have stuff good enough to be published in a year or so.

You can check out some pics I took with my new camera here: pbase photo galleries

The farmers market one is the direction I am headed with my photograhy. Those aren't very good pics and it was my first time out trying to shoot an event.. but I think I got a couple good ones.

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: CocoGdog

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug
yeah that's right. f2, none of this 2.8 sh!t.

I'm taking photo's with my digicam at iso 640 at night in a dimly lit room and getting them crystal clear.

Why is Nikon the best? Because I can use any lens made in the last 40 years by Nikon. And hook it up to my digital camera and shoot at 8FPS!!

That same lens from Canon would have cost like $1800. I got this one for $200 on Ebay and it is every bit as good. You just have to fucus manually, which if you know anything about cameras autofocus on a wide angle is a waste of space anyways.

I'd take my 20D over any Nikon any day.

My 50mm is 1.4 so HAH!

And the 24mm Canon for $1089.95 is 1.4 as well...no 2.0 sh!t!!

The 24mm Nikon AIS is $819.95...not a huge difference in price....and it's only 2.0 not 1.4. Manual focus $589.95 so that is cheaper, but again only 2.0.

Also the regular non-L 24mm Canon is under $300.

So ..... stop smoking crack, kthx.



Oh...and post some crystal clear pics.

children children...

I still take pictures with my Kodak 110 camera....

He just needs to get his facts straight. I don't know where he got this "The Canon lens is $1800" crap from....

Yes the Canon is more expensive but it's better glass as well in the L series compared to the Nikon unless he got some steal of a price on one of their better lenses...then quality wise it would be close but the Canon would be faster.

According to OP it only cost him $200 for his 24/2. Regardless of how nice the Canon is at $1089, he still has more than enough left over to buy something like an 85/1.4 or 105/2, or even a 35/1.4 to compliment it.

You should take some time to read up on the older Nikon wide angle lenses. They may not be all ED but there's a reason PJs went with Nikon wides for so long.

Yeah I am trying to decide what to get next. I am leaning towards a fast telephoto. Maybe 135mm?

I only like prime lenses (although I am considering the famous 75-150mm series E zoom) and am pretty happy with my wide angle coverage with that 24mm. Evem though it is like a 32mm with the crop factor I really don't like to shoot too wide. I can't figure out what to do with that much space.

105/1.8 AIS. I wouldn't pay more than $350 for it though, any higher and I'd make the jump to 105/2 DC. 180/2.8 is a great lens too, seen AF versions for under $400. The 135 stuff is a little iffy for me, seems like Nikon did a much better job with the 105's.

Does that take 52mm filters? That would be a sweet lens if it did. The 180mm that is.

72mm. It's a 2.8, gotta be big.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug
Yeah I am not a fan of landscapes. Not vast ones anyhow. More urban landscapes, I guess. And photojournalism.

I'm hoping to be able to get good enough to be a freelance photographer for some small magazines and newspapers so I've been working at shooting events.

Actually I have only picked up a real camera for the first time a few months ago but I'm learning pretty quick. I think I'll have stuff good enough to be published in a year or so.

You can check out some pics I took with my new camera here: pbase photo galleries

The farmers market one is the direction I am headed with my photograhy. Those aren't very good pics and it was my first time out trying to shoot an event.. but I think I got a couple good ones.

Yeah some good ones in there...you are doing well with DOF for only picking up the camera a few months ago...that isn't my type of thing...though I do end up doing candids for weddings of course. Landscapes are my true passion. Here are some examples:

Moon Over Mountains

Panamint Mountains

Fireworks

Meadow

Mt. Shasta

Merced River

Vernal Rainbow

I also am a huge B&W fan.

 

[eflat]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug
Yeah I am not a fan of landscapes. Not vast ones anyhow. More urban landscapes, I guess. And photojournalism.

I'm hoping to be able to get good enough to be a freelance photographer for some small magazines and newspapers so I've been working at shooting events.

Actually I have only picked up a real camera for the first time a few months ago but I'm learning pretty quick. I think I'll have stuff good enough to be published in a year or so.

You can check out some pics I took with my new camera here: pbase photo galleries

The farmers market one is the direction I am headed with my photograhy. Those aren't very good pics and it was my first time out trying to shoot an event.. but I think I got a couple good ones.

Yeah some good ones in there...you are doing well with DOF for only picking up the camera a few months ago...that isn't my type of thing...though I do end up doing candids for weddings of course. Landscapes are my true passion. Here are some examples:

Moon Over Mountains

Panamint Mountains

Fireworks

Meadow

Mt. Shasta

Merced River

Vernal Rainbow

I also am a huge B&W fan.

Those are actually quite impressive. I could never master that.

Did you use a graduated ND filter for some of those shots? If so it's a nice application of it.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug
Yeah I am not a fan of landscapes. Not vast ones anyhow. More urban landscapes, I guess. And photojournalism.

I'm hoping to be able to get good enough to be a freelance photographer for some small magazines and newspapers so I've been working at shooting events.

Actually I have only picked up a real camera for the first time a few months ago but I'm learning pretty quick. I think I'll have stuff good enough to be published in a year or so.

You can check out some pics I took with my new camera here: pbase photo galleries

The farmers market one is the direction I am headed with my photograhy. Those aren't very good pics and it was my first time out trying to shoot an event.. but I think I got a couple good ones.

Yeah some good ones in there...you are doing well with DOF for only picking up the camera a few months ago...that isn't my type of thing...though I do end up doing candids for weddings of course. Landscapes are my true passion. Here are some examples:

Moon Over Mountains

Panamint Mountains

Fireworks

Meadow

Mt. Shasta

Merced River

Vernal Rainbow

I also am a huge B&W fan.

Those are actually quite impressive. I could never master that.

Did you use a graduated ND filter for some of those shots? If so it's a nice application of it.

Thanks for the compliment.

I used a Grad ND for the first one, and also two exposures to get the moon not over exposed while the rest exposed normally. For the Meadow I believe I also used 2 exposures blended in photoshop. Photoshop is great for this. When doing landscapes I typically expose two identical shots - one for the sky and one or the foreground, depending on conditions and then dgitally blend the shots to get what it actually looked like to the eyes.

Everything else was just one shot..the river and waterfall ones used a regular ND filter. Shot of Mt. Shasta and Panamints used a Polarizer.

I just got a cokin setup and some Grad ND cokins that can be moved up/down to get the horizon line in the right spot which you can't do with a screw-on filter and retain the compositon that you want...not always.

Don't say you couldn't master landscapes...I'm nowhere close to being a "master" of it myself...while I have done a lot of work I could never compare myself to someone like Ansel Adams or Galen Rowell...someday though I may come close I hope.

The technical side of these shots isn't that hard...the hardest part is having an eye for what will make a good shot, making a good composition...and having the determination to get out and get things done. For the Moon/Mountains shot I left where I live at midnight and drove for about 5 hours so I could get there (Death Valley) at sunrise with the moon still out. I didn't intend on getting this shot, but it presented itself and I was there early eough to prepare.

 

[Anubis]

IDK WTF is going on here however ill agree that old nikkors > *, especially because certian new cameras can use them and use them well

i still have 2 Nikkon -Q lenses floating roudn here that i use on anold Nikkormat, theres no way that im aware of to port them over to be used on anything more modern, have a 50 1.4 and a 200 f/4, and they are tanks, all metal construction, and after 30+ years they still take some of the sharpest pics ever

 

[paulney]

Can anyone explain to me the benefit of having a lens with an f < 2.8? HTF do you focus on anything with the aperture that wide?
Exactly what are you shooting at f1.4?