ND Filters

[Colin Southern]

I didn't think it did but it was certainly inspirational. For me a zenith if you will.

Cheers

Meh - it was OK - done better, done worse!

[8ball]

Well there is an expression here in the States "I'll take your sloppy seconds". Just out of curiosity Colin how long have you been photographing and is there any formal training in your dossier or is all of this the 10,000 pictures before getting it right? Knowing the right mechanics is all important.

By the way I've gone back to your portrait semminar and have learned some interesting things. Thank you. Another expensive thing add to my it will never happen list was the Nikor 70-200mm f/2.8 lense that someone had suggested. Is the 80-200 f/3.8 a resonable alternative? Any suggestions? The photos of daughters #1 & #2 185mm vs 50mm which 185 lense did you use there?

Ciao.

[Colin Southern]

Well there is an expression here in the States "I'll take your sloppy seconds". Just out of curiosity Colin how long have you been photographing and is there any formal training in your dossier or is all of this the 10,000 pictures before getting it right? Knowing the right mechanics is all important.

By the way I've gone back to your portrait semminar and have learned some interesting things. Thank you. Another expensive thing add to my it will never happen list was the Nikor 70-200mm f/2.8 lense that someone had suggested. Is the 80-200 f/3.8 a resonable alternative? Any suggestions? The photos of daughters #1 & #2 185mm vs 50mm which 185 lense did you use there?

Ciao.

Hi Al,

"How long have I been photographing" is a difficult question to answer. My first camera was a Kodak instamatic circa 1970, but since then I've had years where I've been exceptionally involved and other years not so involved. I think my first digital was a Canon PowerShot Pro70, then a 350D - 20D - 1D3 - 1Ds3 - 1Dx. No, no "formal" training per se, but much "previous life" formal training (eg electronics and microelectronics) relates very well to the technical side of modern day photography. Artistically though, I'm still playing catch up, and am very much a "work in progress".

I'm not a Nikon shooter, but I understand that their 70-200/2.8 VR v2 is pretty much on par with Canon's, which I use. I think that few would argue that it's the workhorse of the industry, although it's little sister ( the F4 IS is a fantastic performer too, so if you'll never get the 2.8 version, perhaps Nikon have an equivalent F4 version?).

The lens used for the 185mm example was the Canon EF70-200mm F2.8L IS USM II, although the lady in question is Kayla -- the client, not my daughter (although she's a great girl too!).

[Manfred M]

Al - one comment on the 70-200mm; yes, this lens is a work horse for both Canon and Nikon on FULL FRAME cameras. You might find it a bit long for the short focal lengths on a crop-frame camera. You are starting with the equivalent of a 105mm lens, which may be a bit long.

The other thing that you will find with the fast, pro lenses (the f/2.8 24-7mm and the f/2.8 70-200mm) have less than 3x magnification (zoom factor) versus the DX and FX glass. This is done to minimize distortion and aberations; but may not be the best trade off for amateur shooters. There are a number of lenses that might be more suitable, depending on your budget. WHile is is an inexpensive "kit" lens, I did a fair bit of portraits with the 55-200mm on my D90.

[8ball]

Thanks for the info Grumpy. That was what I wanted to know. I understand the the more expensive and VERY expensive lenses not only open up wider but also eliminate distortion due to the number of segments required to eliminate distortion. I was just wondering if there was a mid-priced range lense that produces good results.

I take it you like the 55-200 and it produces good results for you? This D7000 is a great camera for what I do and knowing that the 55-200 works well on the D90 which is similar, is something I will look into. This is a nice pastime for me. I enjoy taking pictures and doing my best with the equipment I can afford right now. If this hobby allows me to make money, then I can go for the professional grade equipment.

I realize the the equipment is part of the equation and there is so much more (i.e. lighting; composition; timing and editing) that all must come together for great photos. That is why this site is such a great asset to all photographers. You can learn a lot. Not only from professionals but from amateurs and the mistakes they have made and the corrections they did, but you get great advise. Ansel Adams did not have the equipment available today, but his photographs are timeless due to great composition.

Grumpy, what flash do you have for the D90? What do you recommend?

[8ball]

Thank you Colin for the reply. I had a feeling you had an engineering background when you mentioned tweeking the ND filter for the airport shot. As you can see, Grumpy chimed in to answer my lense question also. I assumed Kayla was daughter#1. We've all seen daughter#2. I just assumed. My first camera was a Canon AE1 program from the 80's, actually I've had a Brownie box camera when I was 10. I'll check out both the 70-200 you mentioned and the 55-200 that Grumpy mentioned. Thank you all again.

[tclune]

,Snip> I understand the the more expensive and VERY expensive lenses not only open up wider but also eliminate distortion due to the number of segments required to eliminate distortion. I was just wondering if there was a mid-priced range lense that produces good results.

I take it you like the 55-200 and it produces good results for you?

<Snip>Grumpy, what flash do you have for the D90? What do you recommend?

Well. I'm not Grumpy, but I shoot a DX Nikon (D5000) and have pretty much settled on my kit. I can't bring myself (or, more accurately, my wife won't allow me) to spend more than about $500 on a lens. I know many people think that the right thing to do as far as focal ranges go is divide the usual FF ranges by 1.5 to get your DX range. I don't find that to fit me at all. I find the same range of focal lengths that folks use for FF fits me perfectly on DX. As always, YMMV. But, for me, I think quite differently when I'm using UWA lenses than when I'm using a standard lens or longer, and I find DX lenses shorter than about 20mm shoot a lot like WA lenses. So switching lenses when I go into that range gives me a gentle reminder to switch into "WA mode." As I'll explain below, I also use my tele quite differently than the other lenses, so it is helpful to have the memory-jog of switching lenses there, too.

My "budget" holy trinity is: Tokina 12-24 f/4, which is an absolutely marvellous UWA lens; Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, which is my default lens for all occasions -- it is great for everything from walking around to indoor event shooting; and Nikon 70-300 VR f/4.5-5.6, which is a decent lens, but clearly the weakest link in this trinity. The new Nikon 70-200 VR f/4 would probably be my ideal lens, weighing a reasonable amount for carrying around and being much crisper than the f/4.5-5.6, but it is more than twice my maximum budget. I find that the f/4.5-5.6 is quite acceptable if I shoot aperture priority and just set the aperture to f/7.1 and forget it. The problem I have with the lens otherwise is that it can be quite soft at larger apertures, especially at the long end. And I have enough problems thinking about a photo without worrying about specific limitations of a particular lens at specific ranges of focal length. Both the other lenses are terrific, even wide open, at all focal lengths. So the 70-300 is definitely the odd man out of this trio. Nonetheless, it is quite a decent lens when shot stopped down.

There's really no good answer on what flash to get. It depends very much on how you use flash. If you are a CLS shooter and use AWL off-camera, you should definitely bite the bullet and buy a Nikon flash -- a refurb SB-600 or better. But, if you prefer RF linkage, there's really no reason to limit yourself to Nikon's very pricey flash units. Yongnous are quite nice at good prices, with a range of products that fit most use models. Personally, I find that having two third-party flash units for off-camera work is worth a lot more to me than having one really expensive flash with a Nikon label on it. But to each his own.

[Nigel]

I can across this you tube video about Lee Filters the other day, well worth a look at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMu_m203YaY

and yes I do use Lee filter and can recommend them

Nigel

[Manfred M]

Al - I mentioned the 55-200mm just because of the focal length and the price; it and the f/2.8 70-200mm are really at the opposite spectrum of Nikon lenses. There are a couple of choices in the middle between the price ranges as well.

I went for the 18-55mm when I first got the D90, just because I was not sure where I would be going (I had been shooting a SLR for decades (with lenses from 19mm through to 400mm) and had gone through a couple of point & shoots and a crossover digital camera as well). I picked up the 55-200mm because it nicely complemented the other lens at a very low cost. I would likely not buy it again; but at the time I did so, it was the right choice at the time, as was the D90.

Optically, the lens is fairly good, but not great. Mechanically it is marginal as it has a plastic lens mount; one can see that a low selling price was the most important design requirement. The upside, on the other hand is that it is very light; so even today if I head off somewhere, I will use the D90 and the two kit lenses because they are so light.

From a flash standpoint, I have both an SB-600 and a SB-900. I would not recommend the SB-600 because it is a bit obtuse to use. One has to remember specific button sequences to set various modes. I pretty well use it exclusively as a slave unit for off-camera flash work. It has been replaced by the SB-700 that seems to have implemented more intuitive user controls. That being said, it is small and light. The SB-900 (which has been replaced by the SB-910) has a lot more features and comes with a built in flash card, which is quite handy. It also comes with a diffuser and a filter holder and four colour correction filters for use when shooting under tungsten and fluorescent lights. It is my go-to on camera flash because of the out power it has when I shoot with bounce light. The only weakness is that it is prone to overheating when used rapidly at full power (an issue that was fixed in the SB-910).

The main advantage of going with the pricey Nikon flash units is that they integrate with your camera when you use them on camera through direct connections or off camera using Commander Mode that you set up using your menus. This means you use through-the-lens metering when you use the integrated flash modes. The Commander Mode allows you to remotely control off camera flash using either your built-in flash or your on camera flash. Communication is optical, so the light from the flash units has to be read by the photo sensor in the camera and on the flash units when you use off-camera flash.

[8ball]

Grumpy - OK that being said, let me pick your bain a little how would you rate the 70-300 f/4-5.6 G? What about other non-Nikon lenses. Are any well recieved or are Nikon/Canon lenses the standard?

I was looking at the SP-800 flash. I had heard that the SP-900 had overheating issues and that the SP-910 just added a different thermistor to the circuit. I'm not a rapid shooter, so that being said would the SP-800 be sufficient given that it can work as both a slave and master or just say the hell with it and get the 910?

[8ball]

Thanks TC- Again like everything else in life it's all about balance.

[Manfred M]

Al - I've never used the 70-300mm, so can't comment on it. Non-Nikon lenses (I own a three) are a bit hit and miss. At this point on Sigma, Tokina and Tamron make lenses that integrate with the camera's CPU, have autofocus motors and certain models are image stabilized. Other third party lenses by companies like Samyang and Zeiss are manual focus only and depending on your camera model may or may not integrate with your metering system.

Of the three, Tokina is reputed to have the best build quality, rivaling that of Nikon and Canon; I have a f/2.8 11-16mm Tokina and it is highly regarded. There is one company that rebuilds this lens as a high-end video lens; it is that good and competes with their Angenieus, Cooke, Schneider, Zeiss, etc offerings. http://www.ducloslenses.com/collecti...duclos-11-16mm. We do have a Sigma 150-500mm and based on our experience with that lens, we will not buy another Sigma made lens (returned to Sigma twice within 6 months of buying it with onboard electronics and focusing motor failures). I have read that Sigma has recently made a major push to increase quality, especially with their shorter focal length lenses, but I have not used these, so cannot comment. I've never shot with a Tamron, and I know some people that love some of their Tamron lenses, but the general consensus is, they have the lowest build quality of the three.

As for the SB-900; I am not a rapid shooter either, but obviously too fast at low ISO, as the thermal cutoff activated.

[Polar01]

Al I have that 70-300mm and I find it a very capable lens, it is very fast focusing on your target at f/4 at the 70mm end not a good as the 70-200mm f/2.8 but than again only 1/4 the price. It is a good solid build not having a lot of plastic, it came out I believe 2006 however it is still a very good lens for the money.

Cheers:

Allan

[8ball]

Yeah that is about what I heard about Sigma but only heard, that is why I asked. And yeah it looks like the SP-910 is the one. Thanks again Grumpy.

[8ball]

Thank you Allan for you input. Sounds like a capable lense for my current budget.

Cheers:

Al

[Colin Southern]

Al - one comment on the 70-200mm; yes, this lens is a work horse for both Canon and Nikon on FULL FRAME cameras. You might find it a bit long for the short focal lengths on a crop-frame camera. You are starting with the equivalent of a 105mm lens, which may be a bit long.

I think crop shooters are going to be committed to a wider lens anyway, but for what the 70-200 lacks at the wide-angle end for them I think it more than makes up for at the equivalent 320mm end.

[Colin Southern]

Thank you Colin for the reply. I had a feeling you had an engineering background when you mentioned tweeking the ND filter for the airport shot. As you can see, Grumpy chimed in to answer my lense question also. I assumed Kayla was daughter#1. We've all seen daughter#2. I just assumed. My first camera was a Canon AE1 program from the 80's, actually I've had a Brownie box camera when I was 10. I'll check out both the 70-200 you mentioned and the 55-200 that Grumpy mentioned. Thank you all again.

No worries Al,

I was wondering who this "Grumpy" guy was, then realised you're meaning Manfred.

"AJ" is my #1 daughter, but she likes to avoid cameras as much as possible, but just for the record ...

[Manfred M]

I think crop shooters are going to be committed to a wider lens anyway, but for what the 70-200 lacks at the wide-angle end for them I think it more than makes up for at the equivalent 320mm end.

As well as making up with additional weight and cost. I personally find the 70-200mm is not ideal for shooting in a small studio on a crop frame sensor (I can't get back far enough without hitting a wall)

[8ball]

Sorry for the confusion on the "Grumpy" handle Manfred as Colin said. I don't mind being called Al or 8Ball, both are my handle so to speak. I have "RACKM" on my license plate. Yeah I guess I'll try something in the middle on my DX body. With our health care system really kicking in in January, I'm not sure how much it will hit me in the wallet, so lenses and such will be looked at cautiously.

AL / 8ball (whatever)

[8ball]

Colin- AJ is very pretty and photogenic. She looks to be around 15 or 16? At that age they don't like their looks anyway. Nice shot. White board used as fill or straight out of the camera?