medium telephoto questions...

[hnl_imaging]

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=1110391">E. J.</a><br>

At the risk of being offensive...<br>

1) I admitted that I wasn't the best photographer in the world. I try, when I can, and I enjoy it. I have been doing it for a while, not 50+ yrs or whatever... I do it because I enjoy it. Occasionally, rarely, some one else likes what I do as well. <br>

2) I know gear has its place, I also have had experience with good and bad gear. If possible, I like gear that does what I like it to. In general, I can make do with an iphone, p&s camera (which was all I have had for long periods of time), a full frame digital, medium format film, 35mm, aps-c, whatever. It is about knowing what you want. I don't usually have the ability to plan for days for a shot. I don't have the time and freedom to do so sir. <br>

3) I do think about, at least most of the time, my shots. Usually that time is short for two reasons, 2 year olds dont have the most predictable behavior all the time... but if I can watch something happen MAYBE it will sort of repeat itself. Or maybe I will be able to get it to happen again, but you may not have any idea how hard it is to get a 2 yr old to cooperate... (don't know if you have ever dealt with kids... ). The places I have visited on deployment in the military or on vacation are not always places that I have a lot of time with or can readily plan my time at. I can get an idea of what I want... but that is about it. its limited. More like a photojournalist, some times you get what you get because that is what is there when you are. <br>

4) I agree with the pinhole camera thing, I have actually stated that a couple of times. It is something that I have thought about trying actually. For more practical everyday stuff, it isn't what I want... I know some people do, and they make great stuff with that vision in mind. It isn't me. You know, my wife is great with stippling, I myself am a bit better with realism and colored pencil drawing. My wife hears the bass line and therefor plays bass; I don't, I play violin and viola. That isn't to say I cant play bass, I don't play bass (very much...) and I wouldn't buy one for myself. <br>

As far as your Ansel Adams references, believe it I am actually familiar with Ansel's work and some of his writing about it. Ansel a) had great tools capable of great resolution and that gave him a certain aesthetic quality that he was after. He spent much time perfecting the process and the tools. You cannot deny that his tools and technical ability are very much a part of his work. That he thought about what he wanted and was an artist is primary, but his gear and methods were, at least by reading about them, pretty important as well. You knew the man, so maybe I am wrong... I only know what I've read...<br>

Lastly, you seem to be acting like I am one who can never be content with my gear and just work on my photography. Believe it or not... this is far from the case. The gear that I was happiest with I used ALOT for quite a few years. I was very happy with it. I ended up having to take a break from it and that stuff was sitting around my house for a number of years rotting. I sold it so that some one else might get a bit of use out of it. I regret that... then I tried something else, when it broke, I heard so much about reliability problems and customer service issues that I didn't want to keep going in that direction, though I was generally happy there. SO I decided to go back to one of the big two => nikon. I had always thought nikon was great from the outside. Not so sure about some things now that I am here. But the point is, I am with nikon (probably to stay here) and I have to work out the quirks until I am content with it. I don't have money to waste on gear I don't like and cant be happy with. I hate that. I dont have money to wast on stuff that doesn't work or isn't going to be compatible later. I wont buy sigma lenses, as much as I like many of them, for that reason. All of it is a step above pinhole... but, only in some ways. <br>

You are getting to the point were you are being offensive. As you continually attack me about the same topic, though, I have already stated that I believe you are correct. To some large extent, I believe you are trying to say that the problems I have with the 85D are completely irrelevant, and I agree with you... to a point. I am willing to save up for someting that suits me better, but I came here to ask for advise on something that would perform mor along the lines with what I want. I <em>want, </em>better micro contrast because I like to see my daughters eyelashes like I could with any of the pentax or canon gear i've used, or my cell phone for that matter. Some of my best photography has been done on a cell phone or a point and shoot. Mainly because I could SEE what it was that I was shooting and get the composition a little better than through one of the little dark findered DSLRs. But, I am occasionally very disappointed with the end result => the print, and wish it wouldn't been done on better gear. My wife just asked for a 20x30 this morning for her office of a photograph I took, with my little point and shoot, that only really really prints up to 8x10 well (11x17 if you were able to be really careful). Going back to the music analogy, Pearlman wont necessarily play a 200 Chinese violin better than his Strad... but, the strad sounds better and projects better!<br>

The gear does matter to some extent. I asked for input/ shared experiences and possibly suggestions on a set of lenses that fit a focal length range I like to work with and have grown accustomed to over much experience (for my lifetime...) using. I didn't ask for a lecture on art. While not totally irrelevant, it can be over done in this situation. I will never be Adams, Porter, Bresson, Cob, McCurry, Abel, Kelby, or even a number of nameless people on flickr. But, I like you, practice this thing called photography. </p>

[studio460]

<p>Mid-teles are my favorite--they must be--I have a ton of 'em! I think I own a total of four Nikkor 85mm lenses (e.g., I use an 85mm f/1.8G on my DX bodies for its compact form factor, and an 85mm f/1.4G on my FX bodies when I need speed).</p>

<p>But after buying my first DX digital body, for years I yearned for the DC-Nikkor 105mm f/2.0D, and finally, I rationalized my way into buying one a few years back, and was lucky enough to find a mint-condition copy at Samy's Camera for only $400. Of course, once I moved to FX, I began to covet the DC-135, which I only just purchased a couple months ago.</p>

<p>But, as much as I love the DC-Nikkors, they can be a bit finicky, and aren't necessarily the sharpest lenses in the drawer when wide-open (when they're at their the prettiest). If you want razor-sharp eyelashes, my Sigma 150mm f/2.8 OS macro just can't be beat (it's my go-to lens when shooting for-hire headshots). Though probably a bit too long on a DX body, perhaps a shorter Sigma macro may be worth considering.</p>

<p>As an aside, I also have a gorgeous Nikkor 105mm f/1.8 Ais I picked up on eBay a few years ago, purchased specifically for cine/TV applications (I happen to be rigging a new digital cine system, so I'm excited to show it off):</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/cinecam-4.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[johne37179]

<p>Jason, I'm sorry if you thought I was attacking you. My comments were general observations on the subject of photography and in no sense personal. I remember having lengthy conversations with Ansel about equipment. I was a young, but active professional advertising photographer back then and was somewhat amazed that Ansel seemed to use fairly ordinary equipment and certainly not the best that was available to him. The one piece of equipment that was truly top of the line was his enlarger. Ansel had designed and built his own lighthouse for the enlarger. Instead of a condenser in the enlarger to manage the light, he removed the condenser and build a grid of small lamps in the lighthouse -- each connected to its own rheostat. Instead of dodging or burning in on the image when printing he would set each rheostat to the setting he had recorded in his notebook for that negative/print combination.</p>

[studio460]

<p>I haven't read the entire thread, but I skimmed the OP's last comment, and don't think anyone needs to defend their desire to search for the "ideal" lens. Life is short. Gear is fun. I own cheap gear. I own expensive gear. And yeah, sometimes the cheap gear is even more fun to use. I have way too much of it, but I don't make any apologies for it. I have a co-worker who has over $20,000 in purses. Now, <em>that's</em> silly. At least gear <em>does</em> stuff.</p>

[studio460]

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/Alyssa-WHITE-2-700.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM APO Macro<br>

<br>

Again, this is pretty much the sharpest lens I own, and I basically shoot 99% of my portrait work with it. AF is always spot-on as well. Since 150mm is probably too long for DX, I did a quick check on the shorter Sigma macro, and at least one review site considered the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG OS macro to be sharper than Nikon's 105mm VR macro. That said, I would favor an 85mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 lens instead for available-light candids.</p>

 

[johne37179]

<p>Gear is fun -- and we all get the "I wants" when new gear comes out. My point is that gear doesn't make the photographer -- it is what is between the photographer's ears that makes photographs. I don't think any of us get the best out of the gear we use. A fine musician can produce great music on an instrument of virtually any quality. The difference between the school supplied violin and a Stradivarius is significant, but only the truly best musicians can demonstrate that difference and the great musician will produce great music with the lowliest instrument. <br>

I think the same is true of photography. I never cease to be amazed at some of the truly wonderful work posted here and elsewhere that is produced with very modest gear.<br>

Again, I'm sorry if anyone thought my comments were directed at any individual -- they were not, but are just general observations from 65 years of taking photographs.</p>

[hnl_imaging]

<p>That sigma looks nice. I have looked at it a bit before... I may have to look at it again. those don't come very cheap though. <br>

E.J., for what its worth, I think you are right. Modest gear is sometimes the best. I have have seen that myself. I am not out to buy a lot of gear or depend on gear to do anything other than what it is supposed to do... I think... basically I just want to be able to replace the kit that I had and move on... Use that gear to the best of my very limited ability.<br>

Unfortunately, I'm not seeing the 85D as doing the job. I feel like I got ripped off $300 for a lens that performs at about half the level of my old Pentax 100/2.8M. Which was a manual focus lens that you can buy on ebay for ~$150. That lens had micro contrast, a certain acuity and look to it (It may not have even been as sharp as the 85/1.8, especially since little girls are hard to focus on with a manual lens). The 85D doesn't have either of those things and fringes something terrible. I thought the 100/2.8 was bad when I first took it out, but nothing like the 85D. I don't think I have ever had a photograph so completely ruined, passed the point of being able to fix it due to PF with any other lens. And I have used some pretty old and cheap gear. While I find that the colors are really nice, usually form this lens, it really lacks that acuity. It may not even be sharpness. Its nice in that it doesn't show every pore, but that comes at a bit of a price as well. <br>

This shot isn't perfect, its not really well focused and the bokeh isn't smooth (I don't mind...) but it does have a certain character and contrast that I don't get from the 85/1.8... </p>

[hnl_imaging]

<p>My computer crashed... </p><div></div>

[keith_burdett]

<p>The non os sigma macros are more affordable than the newer os versions. The 150 is long on dx as I said but offers excellent background separation at f2.8. You won't get that as good with a 105 f2.8.</p>

[hnl_imaging]

<p>The non-OS version... Interesting. I may have to look for that. </p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>The non-OS version.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not too long ago, I traded the non-OS for the OS one (when I happened on one at the local store that happened to not be outrageously priced) - and I can tell you were a non-OS version is sitting in a used lens display.<br>

The OS version improves upon the already very good non-OS one in every aspect except size, weight and price.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>Jason, I don't think any of us get everything out of our gear that we can. I know I don't even come close -- I guess in many ways that is part of what keeps us coming back. However, there are times when we just have the wrong gear or gear that slipped through the QC process or has gotten out of spec. I think we also never quite have the right gear. I know in my own case I don't think anyone makes it. In terms of digital cameras, I have owned three Nikons as they evolved starting with the first D-1. As the cameras added capabilities they also came down in price. However, from my perspective they also got loaded with features I have no interest in. My ideal would be a fully capable body with very few bells and whistles. I have little interest in preprogramed settings, video, audio, etc. I manage white balance and all color balance in the post processing. <br>

I have found that I prefer lenses that render contrast and color over super crisp lenses. I prefer depth and roundness in images to flatness and crispness -- but that is purely a personal point of view. I used to leave my widest lens on my primary camera body as I tend to see things very wide, but for the last year it has been the 70-300 zoom and I find myself seeing more semi macros than before. However, I will still spend a day or two a month with the full frame fisheye (10.5) and have a lot of fun with it. I love the extreme barrel distortion and the super wide reach -- it is kind of like the distorted mirrors at carnivals years ago.<br>

I think the key is in getting to know your own point of view (not easy and many never discover it) and matching that to your photographic toolset -- from camera and lens, to tripod to post production software. The one piece of gear I really lust after these days is a Really Right Stuff tripod. Probably nothing can improve picture taking as much as a really good tripod.</p>

[hnl_imaging]

<p>E.J.<br>

HAHA, that is great. I have often said the same thing. I know there are many people around who want the same thing. If a manufacture would just make a reasonably priced digital camera with say 10-16 mpx, manual only mode, a decent viewfinder that one could see out of and compose with, accurate AF or at least focus aids for MF, no video, no programmed garbage etc... that would be great. Just a reasonable camera that was easy to use. <br>

The 85/1.8 is staying for a while. It will probably be something that I get used to... I may still look for that perfect lens of about the same focal length. Its far off though. It may never happen. I just wanted to pose the question and see if there were any other good Nikon alternatives. <br>

But you're right, all gear is a compromise!</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>I worked with the 85 1.8D for some time until I tried the 85 1.8G which solved most of my concerns. I have used that lens on both the 7100 and the d810 full frame. It is a wonderful lens at a good price. I also us the 105 2.8 VR which is heaven sent except for being a bit hefty. I could recommend either without reservation. The 105 also is a macro lens which is outstanding.</p>

 

[bob_bill]

<p>The 85 1.4 has been fabulous on FF. It is probably used more but is second fav to the 135 dc. With the 85 you are getting close to 130 mm on a crop. I find it more than sharp enough for portraiture with a gorgeous bokeh, but not quite magical like the 135. Ralph, try shooting it at 2.8 or 3.2( I need it to get both eyes sharp in any shot with nose off camera axis any way) with the dc there as well. CA goes away, and as Alton Brown says, your patience will be rewarded. </p>