NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

That's my biggest problem too. Like any other skill, you have to use it, and use it often to improve. I might fire off only 5-8k frames per year, which is nowhere near enough to really learn from your errors or build upon good shots. A seasoned pro will shoot 5k frames in less than a week. I also need to force myself to actually plan more photography stuff. Currently and in the past, I'm nothing more than an opportunist and shoot whats around me or where I usually go anyway. Which leaves me with pretty boring shots with boring light. I also read something the other day that said to set yourself special projects. Like this guy wanted to shoot through arches, using them as a frame. So any time he saw an arch, he would shoot through it. Doing something like that really teaches you to see things you normally wouldn't.

Well, yeah. It looks fine. But it also looks like 90% of that image is way way right on the histogram, so of course the noise is minimal.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I wanted to bring my camera to work today to capture the sunrise over DC. I forgot and the washington monument would have been badass today, the sky was completely pink/purple.

here was friday:

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

Finally got around to ordering an M42 adapter so I can use my Super-Takumar 50mm 1.4 on my camera. I'm quite excited to see for myself how delicious this lens is. The bokeh is awesome, and it's optically one of the best lenses out there. It's also built like a tank, and handles like a dream. Creamy smooth focus and perfect aperture control ring. It is quite a sought after lens. This will be my fastest lens ever. Never had faster than 1.8

This lens has a bit of radioactivity going on though. Yellow tinted glass, and a surprisingly high dose of radiation from it. I might actually like the slightly yellow tint it will give images though, so I might just leave it alone. If I don't like it, I can fix it with a few weeks of UV treatment.



6hr/day for a month of close proximity (strapped around neck, side, or up to your face) is equal to a chest x-ray of exposure. Not anything to worry about, but I still find that surprising.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

you have what body?

old lenses and nikons dont work well together, best on a canon body or pentax.

I have the same useless lens with the same useless adapter:




unless you spend like $200 on an infinity focus adapter with REALLY good glass in it...


I took this with it back in 1999:


Joe Hitt in B&W (Film) by The Braineack, on Flickr

BTMiata

iTrader: (5)

What would you guys recommend as my first, all around good lens? I only have the shitty "kit" lenses that came with my Nikon

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

most like to start with the 35mm 1.8G, but I didn't really like it much. I'd much rather have a 50mm 1.8G or some sort of telephoto if you're going outside and taking pics.

what do you like to shoot?

BTMiata

iTrader: (5)

Honestly I have been attempting anything from the dog in the house, to snow covered scenery last week, to my car... My mom goes to this local spot that has a ton of bald eagles so it would be cool to tag along with her to see if I could get a shot of one...

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

The best zoom for the buck is the 70-300 f/5-5.6 VR.

Used it's around $300. But, the 55-300 is optically about the same (doesn't work on FX), but the auto focus is slower, it hunts a bit more, and there's no focus override. But used they are close to $150-200.

the 55-200 can be found for free. It's cheap and optically sub-par.


Or if you just want a better all around lens, i really did like my Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4. Really sharp lens and pretty good bokeh. Around $300 used.



I'm ordering the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 VC tomorrow.

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

I would agree with Brainy, Sigma 17-70 2.8-4, though I have no personal experience. The performance and price blows away pretty much anything else out there. Plus that focal range is very nice. Like a kit lens, just slightly wider, and a good bit longer, and definitely faster.

My first good lens was a 50mm 1.8D, and I don't regret it. I would recommend that as the perfect second good lens to have. Or I should say the 1.8G version, which I also have. Everybody should have a nifty fifty.

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

Don't say such things. Why exactly do you say it is useless? Only because of the no infinity focus? Or are there other problems that you have found? I have a D7000 body. I'm completely prepared for no infinity focus and all manual controls. I went with the cheap Fotodiox adapter, Type II without the crappy diopter element. How far will it focus? Does it get anywhere close to infinity? I've read as low as 3'-5'? Oh well, I got it mostly for close work. I also have a 49mm Nikon mount reverse ring, so I can use with for macro work, and use extension tubes for some really up close work. Anyway, for $12 for the adapter, $12 for the reverse ring, and $12 for the extension tube set... I'm not losing any sleep if they aren't perfect.

BTMiata

iTrader: (5)

Thanks for the input guys! Looks like I have some lens shopping to do! My Kit came with:

18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6G
55-200mm 1:4-5.6G

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

Are those the versions with or without the VR? If with VR, those are still very good lenses to have. The 18-55 VR is still one of my favorite lenses, even if it is just a kit lens. Might not be the sharpest or fastest, but it's a handy little thing. Of course having a 17-70 2.8-4 would completely render it obsolete.

BTMiata

iTrader: (5)

I guess thats a no on the VR... This is all it says

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

Yeah. that's the non VR. VR makes ALL the difference on a telephoto lens. Even my old 18-55 non VR kit lens that came with my D50 wasn't all that great. When I dropped the mere $100 on the updated 18-55 VR, it was night and day. Where I could only shoot at 1/60 handheld with the non VR, with the VR version I should shoot at the same focal length at something much much lower like 1/20 or even 1/15 and still get crisp images. I couldn't imagine shooting a 55-200 non VR. My 55-200 VR I was able to get sharp images handheld at 200mm at as low as 1/40. The rule of thumb for non VR, you would need ~1/300sec at 200mm on a crop camera to get the same results. 1/40>>>1/300.

BTMiata

iTrader: (5)

Well damn.... Now I REALLY want to get a new lens! Lol

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

The 55-200 VR is about $250, but if you can swing $450, the Tamron 70-300 VC is a pretty amazing lens. That's about $150 cheaper than the Nikon 70-300 VR, and some of the reviews I have read say the Tamron VC works better than the VR on the Nikon.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Don't buy new.

Yeah I think there was a VERY limited range for focus AND DOF, I'll have to try it again.

I was sad cause I have all this:



and I really couldn't make any of it work.

Here was an example from it:



I'll dig it back out of the box and try it again.


This entire gallery is with the 17-70 2.8-4 Sigma on my D3100.

One thing to keep in mind is that it's a LOT larger and heavier. Although nothing like my 24-70 f/2.8.

https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/1...CLicr7rx1qXbYw

I'd believe it. I'm damn impressed with the Tamron VC. It's quieter too; you don't hear it engage or shake the frame.

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

One thing that concerns me about the Tamron VC, which I have no verifiable information on, is that it works so well that small and slow hand movements to adjust composition are cancelled out. That seems like it would become annoying. Again, that might be bullshit, and I'm guessing that only would be noticeable on longer lenses.

I wouldn't think an adapter would have any effect on DoF. I am guessing however, if the long focus is effected, the adapter is acting as a small extension tube, and moving the lens away from the sensor. So in fact it probably increases the focal length slightly. Probably not much though.

Or am I wrong? Doesn't DoF only depend on focal length, aperture and subject distance? Moving the lens should only effect the range of focus, not the DoF? Maybe it's a perceived change in DoF because of the perception of a slight focal length change?

For the sake of actually contributing an image, found this one I took a few years ago after just getting the D5100 with 50mm 1.8G. I considered it unusable with my old knowledge of post processing. A little BW and some adjustments and it's now usable.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

The focus issue has more to do with where the rear element of the lens ends up in relation to the sensor. The extra 2.5mm between a Nikon and Canon (in regrads to mount distance to sensor) makes all the difference when adapting these lenses.

It's pretty much like using an extension tube, the more you stack, the more you make your lens a macro lens. This changes the DOF. Since the rear element is moved further away from the focal plane (sensor), that makes the DOF shallower and the min. focus distance is moved a bit.

Something like this:



That lens normally has a min focus distance of 17in with a .15x magnification. With a 5mm extension over normal (estimated flange size), you move the min. focus distance to a 12in min focus distance and a 0.25x magnification (An extension tube increases lens magnification by an amount equal to the extension distance divided by the lens focal length.).

I'm not sure the distance between the film/sensors and rear element natively between the old pentax/canons and new Nikon DLSRs, but I know that's different as well. I think that the adapter, plus the difference in sensor to element is significant enough where you can't really focus on anything very far. So it pretty much only works as a short focus, or very weak macro, lens.


Moves the min. focus THAT much closer so only part of the subject is now in focus. Magnification will increase as well.

If the issue was that they were too close now, the adapter could be used to space it further away and correct the focus, but that's not the case, it's too far away and optics are needed to really correct it, but there's no good optics you can buy. The one adapter I got (PK Mount) was pretty much plastic "glass" and gave me the IQ of shooting through the bottom of a beer mug.

I suggested an old Canon or Pentax because they kept the same distance to sensor and they are both backwards compatible. It IS a shame because I've seen shots of that lens on Pentax DLSRs and it's great.

Like I said, I'll dig the lenses and adapter back out to see what I can come up with, but I don't think that's anything useable.

EDIT: looks like the pentax is 1mm closer than that Nikon, so that puts the lens roughly 6mm further away. So roughly 11.5 min focus distance, and 0.27x magnification if my 5mm distance increase in the adapter was correct.

I found the max distance formula online, let's see if I can do this correctly:

D' = F [ (F / X) +1 ]

F = focal length (mm)
D = distance (mm)
X = extension (mm)

So we'll do F=50, X= 6

D' = 50 [ 50/6+1 ] = 466mm

So min focus is 298mm and and infinity is 466mm. That a working range between 11.7ft. to 18.4ft; not very useful at such low magnification.

I'll try to remember to pull it out tonight when I'm home and try to focus on a measuring tape and see how close I get to that.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Get Silver Efex 2 for LR. It's awesome for B&W conversions.



I think you can improve on yours a bit by increasing the contrast, it's just all gray right now. In most B&W shots I like to see full DR between whites and blacks. I'd probably lighten his skin and get the white shirt looking closer to white without blowning out, and then darken the BG.

B&W conversations really save images. This one looked bad in color, but the B&W saved it:


Julia staring up (no crop) by The Braineack, on Flickr