Jump to content

steven_pink

Members
  • Posts

    59
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. <p>I ended up buying the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/633038-REG/Giottos_MML3290B_MML_3290B_5_Section_Aluminum.html">Giottos 3290B</a> from B&H today for the height and weight capabilities. What would be my best option for a cheap head? (Under $40)</p>
  2. I'm pretty positive there is only one non-art 30mm f/1.4 for Nikon. I bought one on recommendation of some people here on photo.net and I absolutely love mine. It's tack sharp in the center, but the corners are extremely soft wide open and don't improve a whole lot more as you stop down. I got mine for one $110 (the paint was scratched up and far from beautoful), so I can't complain at all. I have tested the ART version, and while I will say it's better in the corners when you stop down, I wouldn't pay the $390 more than I did for the improvement.
  3. I really don't need a head. I don't necessarily want the extra cost or the added features. I'm willing to shove a screw in a stick if all else fails. As long as it can hold my camera+lens and it's tall, I'm happy.
  4. <blockquote> <p>The problem is that the smallish plate, about 1.5" square, allows some fore-aft flexing when a particularly long lens is being held. <br> One other caution - do a little online research on the Manfrotto pistol grips - mine failed after about 2 years by not holding the weight any longer, and I've read of others with the same experience. I read that the drooping could be solved with a tension adjustment on the head, but that did not work for mine.</p> </blockquote> <p>Thank you for pointing that out. I would much rather have a tall monopod with no head than a short one with a head that could cause instability and possibly fail down the road. I feel that for my price range, just a monopod would be the best option and possibly save some money in the process. As far as portrait orientation goes, I typically end up using the lens collar or just hand holding if I need to switch back and forth rapidly, so the head isn't a major selling feature for me. </p>
  5. How much did your monopod+head cost?
  6. <p>I really like <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/463064-REG/Giottos_MM9780_MM_9780_5_Section_Monopod.html">this Giottos</a>, but price is a lot lower than similar monopods. It seems that Giottos is a decent brand, but is $55 for a 70" 15kg tripod too good to be true? </p>
  7. I really like the Giottos you recommended for the height. I'd looked at it earlier today. Do you have personal experience with any of them?
  8. <p>I'm into sports and portrait photography and I really need a solid monopod that can hold decently heavy glass without slipping (collapsing down). I have an older cheap monopod that I use sometimes, but even semi-heavy lenses like a 70-200mm f/2.8 and my D7000+Battery grip are too much weight for it. My biggest request aside from weight load is height... I'm 6' 4" and my 62" monopod gives me a back ache when I lean over using it all day. So, to summarize, I want a monopod that can hold a decent amount of weight, is semi-tall, and costs under $100. I don't need anything fancy like carbon fiber or a head. </p> <p>Thanks!</p>
  9. <p>It's a bit late, but I wanted to thank everyone for their input! I ended up finding a D7000 a few weeks ago at a camera shop for $465 with a battery grip and couldn't pass up the deal. I also ended up winning a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 with the paint scratched off and a small scratch in the front element for only $100 on eBay. I absolutely love the new body and lens! Your recommendations were unbelievably helpful!</p>
  10. <p>I have to agree with the other recommendations of the D7100. It has similar low light autofocus to the D750. If you plan on using crop mode on the D750, you're better off to just buy a D7100 because it's higher quality than the D750 when cropped down to give the same "reach". I'm a sports photographer and the folks here on photo.net talked me out of going full frame not to long ago and I'm SO glad I didn't make the switch. For wildlife photography, I would say a DX D7100 is the way to go. It's a lot cheaper, will yield better image quality than a D750 in crop mode, and it's lighter which is a <strong>huge</strong> plus for hiking and long walks.</p>
  11. <p>Personally, I'm not sure if I would make a change with the 70-200mm f/2.8. If you sold it and bought a new 70-200mm f/4, you're basically paying extra to lose a stop of light in exchange for a lighter lens. Seeing the photos you have on Flickr, I feel like you have the best lens combo possible for your situation. I typically use my 70-200mm f/2.8 and 300mm f/4 on a D7000 to shoot sporting events. Although they start weighing me down by the end of the day, I wouldn't trade the one stop of low light performance for a lighter lens. Also, considering you take pictures of moving kids, that one stop of light from your f/2.8 lens is very helpful when you need to capture motion.<br> I would recommend keeping your current lenses (as they're both some of the finest lenses in their focal ranges) until later on if you decide to go full frame.</p>
  12. Sigma's modern quality lenses are pretty phenomenal. It makes me sad that their previous bad reputation hurts them so badly. I used a friend's Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (Not even the new Art version) and was blown out of the water.
  13. <blockquote> <p> I do recommend the 70-200mm f 4.0 FX lens if you need that much reach.</p> </blockquote> <p>I already own the 70-200mm f/2.8. I mentioned the gear I travel with most in my original post. </p> <blockquote> <p>The distortion of lenses such as the 18-70 is easily corrected these days with software. PS and ACR both have easy to use built in corrections for this lens. It should not be an obstacle.</p> </blockquote> <p>I'm really not too concerned about distortion. As I said, this is just a walk around lens. When I need to do wide angle shots at events (I mainly do event/sport photography), I usually use my DJI drone for an aerial view.</p>
  14. That's some serious distortion... Where in the zoom range is it most/least distorted? Also, does anyone have experience with the sigma/tamron 18-50 f/2.8 lenses? There's quite a few options there that can be had around $150- $200 used.
  15. Thank you so much for all your input! I feel like the 18-70 is the way to go from what you've said. About the 18-140mm... I see they're around $200 used. Is it worth the extra $100+? If I'm going over 50mm I would typically use my 50mm f/1.8 or 70- 200mm f/2.8, so the extra reach isn't a big deal for me. What else makes the 18-140 better?
×
×
  • Create New...