Nice barrelling there. Also very slow. Do not want.

it was cheap, I bought it used. solid fwiw.

So I have been getting better acquainted with my 10-20 Sigma, the flashes, and boom. Any input?

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1340592747

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1340592747

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1340592747


On another note can anybody make any suggestions for replacement lens for an 18-55mm Nikkor (the kit lens) and the 55-200mm Nikkor? I feel I am needing more than these lenses can provide me, like less dof. I find myself shooting as far away as possible all the time to get the shots I am seeking.

You need a faster lens than f/3.5 and still want 18-200mm range? Good luck, and break open the wallet. But really, you won't find much, if anything that will give you zoom and a lower f-number than the 18-55 and the 55-200. You will have to give up zoom. I'd suggest a 35mm 1.8G or 50mm 1.8D, anything longer than those and faster, will run into the thousands of dollars. Also look into Tokina, great glass. 16-28mm f/2.8 and they have a 100mm 2.8 that are both great lenses from what I hear. I really want the 100 f/2.8 Tokina.

I was thinking something along the lines of fixed aperture to replace the 18-55mm an if I loose a little flexibility with the replacement lens I would be ok with that. My 55-200mm always is a challenge for me to get a sharp shot out of tripod or not at the ends of its reach (manual or auto focus). I have a 50mm f1.8 that I use and love, so maybe I'll just look into scooping up another prime lens or two.

That's what I would do. Get a good collection of primes. Maybe 4 total to fill out the range between 10 or 12, up to 200, depending on your needs I guess. Get a wide lens, maybe a tokino 11-16, a 35mm 1.8, the Tokino 100mm, and for me, that would be good enough. Might need something to fill the void between 35 and 100, but in reality you can probably just move closer or further and not worry about it.

Yeah, I was thinking either a 24mm or 35mm. Gotta get into a camera shop and try em out to see which would suit my needs best. Still though fixed aperture is where it's at imo.

yes, and the faster the better. I'd love for all my lenses to have at least f/2.8, but I'm not made of money.


the nikon 35mm f/1.8 is a great lens for the price. I own that, pretty sure I dumped a few shots from it a few posts back.

Not even just for the price, the 35mm 1.8 is a great lens period. It just happens to be really affordable. Same for the 18-55 kit lens, one of their best. At least the VR model. When I bought my D50 the 18-55 VR hadn't been thought up yet. Goddamn I want my 5100!!!

dad just got the d5100. was funny, he ended up getting it into some mode where the shutter was delayed by a second or two. we were at the track and couldn't manage 1 shot of a car in frame. i eventually had to go back to all default settings for him so he could use it. but it's a nice camera non-the-less...the screen alone is words above the one in my d3100...my is nearly usless in determining if a shot came out correctly...let alone even beings able to view it in daylight.

Placed my preorder for the 650D with 18-135 STM lens.


Lol at getting into 2second delay mode. If it's anything like the d40 it only takes like 2 button presses to set that accidentally.

The 3100 display has to be better than the D50's. I'm like Ray Charles trying to determine if my pictures are good. I just take a ---- ton in doubt, and hope I got usable ones when I get them on the computer. They will look great on the screen, but in actuality they can be slightly out of focus or terribly over or under exposed.

sounds exactly like my screen; it's really not great.

I dont know man, the 50mm f/1.8 might be the new hotness. And barely more money.

I say this because really, for a low light portrait lens, you want a little longer focal length so your subjects dont look so distorted.

The 50mm 1.8 is pretty slick as a portrait lens, but I'd rather have the 35mm for general use.

yeah i have to walk far back already enough with the 35mm, I couldnt imagine doing shots with a 50mm. heck a lot of times i use the 55-300 for portraits at work, but i gotta stand halfway across the damn room even at 55mm.

and i thought the 50mm was manual focus?

and pasting links is easier than explaining.

http://www.mcpactions.com/blog/2010/...rs-experiment/

basically you get:

better shapes of faces and proper ratio of nose to ear

and you get more detailed backgrounds instead of the "she's standing 2 miles in front of stuff" look.

i know this already bro. thats why i shoot with the zoom at around 125mm :)


shooting my nieces 1-yr birthday party this weekend.

The 50mm is manual if there is no in body focusing motor.

125 mm on an asp-c sensor is a bit long for portraits.