peter_kervarec

<blockquote>

<p>I have the Tokina 12-24 and it has been soft wide open at f4. I've had to stop it down several stops to get sharper photos, even then if I can go f8 or smaller the results are much better.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Joe, In my case not true. I used this lens to photograph a mining operation 1000 feet underground over a 12 month period, always wide open at F4 because of no light or very little light available. It is as sharp as my 17-35 AFs Nikon, well built and a reasonably priced no frills performer. I would recommend it over the 11- 16 even though I havent tried it (11-16). It has a better zoom range, is cheaper and if you shoot interiors such as I do, its just about perfect. The only issue it has is there's a little CA when shooting landscapes with tree branches or sharply defined edges. In defence of that, I think there is a degree of CA with all lenses.</p>

<p>I prefer the image as it is - it just screams "grab shot" with no time to straighten horizon or whatever. I say to all the editors that have played with this, leave it the way it is, the original looks best !</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Ok switch off and start again ok for a few shots then same again.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Dave, did you try removing the battery for 10 secs and reinserting it and then turn back on, in many cases, this works. The CF card could also be suss. (suspect )</p>

<p>Sometimes I have to wonder whether this is a forum to ask general photography questions. There seems to be quite a few self appointed moderators and critics who are more than ready to espouse their "know all" and "dont dare disagree" attitude. I have noticed this a lot more just lately. Seems you cant ask others about their experience with photography and equipment without knowalls that trawl the forums and are deliberately condescending when they find something they know a little about.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My key question was " I would have thought that the focus distance would be uniform throughout the range."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I then get a definitive reply from people who no doubt manufacture lenses themselves.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sometimes I have to wonder whether this is a forum to ask general photography questions. There seems to be quite a few self appointed moderators and critics who are more than ready to espouse their "know all" and "dont dare disagree" attitude. I have noticed this a lot more just lately. Seems you cant ask others about their experience with photography and equipment without knowalls that trawl the forums and are deliberately condescending when they find something they know a little about.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My key question was " I would have thought that the focus distance would be uniform throughout the range."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I then get a definitive reply from people who no doubt manufacture lenses themselves.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I wonder why you expect that this would differ on the individual basis? This is a function of the optical design and I would expect that all samples of this lens would be the same.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Gee Walter Schroeder, I must ask your permission next time before I post a silly question like that, I mean after all, I should have known that every lens by the same manufacturer of the same focal length was exactly the same ! How silly of me to even think anything different. The lenses I have had over the years of the same brand/focal length that I tested were different in many ways but I must have made a mistake with my data and testing methods because they are are all the same to you.</p>

<p>Thank you guys for all the help, much appreciated !</p>

<p>I purchased a Nikon F lens advertised as a Nikon A1 lens and put it on my D300 without noticing prior that it wasnt A1. I took one shot and noticed that the aperture in VF was saying 2.8 yet the lens was on 5.6. I turned the aperture ring and noticed it was really tight to turn. I immediately took it off and noticed it was an "F" lens. I tried my current Nikon lenses and all functions tested OK. Could I have done some damage?<br>

Does anyone know of a company in Australia that converts Nikon F lenses to A1 ? and maybe an approximate cost? If not in Australia, the US, as it is in excellent condition for age.<br>

Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>I have a 24-70 Nikon Afs lens. In the lens specs, it states that the closest focus is obtained between the 35 & 50 zoom settings. That is correct on my lens. With the same lens, the "70" end will focus closer than the "24" end of the zoom , possibly an inch or so, but neither will focus as close as the 35-50mm section. Have others experienced this? I would have thought that the focus distance would be uniform throughout the range.</p>

<p>I also have 2 D90's and one works fine with bounce in TTL or TTL / BL, the other does the opposite with regular underexposed images in EXACTLY the same situation using the SAME flash and the SAME location and SAME settings. This also goes for direct flash shots as well. Its an inexplicable pain in the ass. With the offending one , I occasionally run this on manual if I have time, it is lacking judgement on Shutter priority or Aperture Priority. This camera also underexposes without the flash.I believe there is an issue with some D90's in this regard and at least 2 of the above posters have the same issue. This just cant be explained away. The only thing that I can think of is maybe a firmware upgrade is required?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>"I hate the Tamron" and "My idea is to replace the Tamron with two primes to lighten my load, not look too conspicuous, and increase speed (the Tamron takes forever to focus)." </strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Strong words when you "hate" a lens, cant you moderate that a little? I mean when people say that stuff, their words have the potential to damage a companys reputation. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Tamron, we have used one for a couple of years and you wont find a sharper or closer focusing zoom with out having to pay over $1000.<br>

You will be sorry you sold that lens because your "primes" wont focus down to even half the distance of the Tamron. As for the autofocus, its quite acceptable for a lens of this zoom range. Are you shooting high speed action or split second moments that a millisecond difference means you didnt get the shot? The Tamron is a general purpose lens for landscapes and travel to minor portraiture. Once again pay over $1000 for a lens that is fractionally faster at autofocusing than the Tamron.</p>

<p>Hi Christine<br>

I think the explanation for this variation is that you used spot metering. An interesting experiment would be to repeat this, placing the spot on 2 different colours in the scene and try to retain the same exposure details.I would like to see these taken again in Matrix metering mode, which would be the preferable setting for flash. IMHO,The bottom image also contains more blue than the top image hence the colour balance change. The bluer content could have influenced the colour shift and "corrected" the more yellow top image..</p>

<p>Hi<br>

The AF system on the D90 is a big advancement on the D200,on that score alone I would go D90. (I have one and owned a D200)<br>

BTW, the files out of the D90 are equally as good as those out of the D300, if there is a difference it must be minute.<br>

If you have old Nikon lenses, they are a no go with the D90.</p>

<p>Hi William W has the answer here. Meet the celebrant and become their friend. Find out exactly what they want and explain in a nice way the difficulties of not using flash could create for you. If its a really dark church it could be difficult however in talking to the celebrant you could ask for all the lights in the church to be turned on. I would also explain to the B&G that you will be doing your best despite not being allowed to use flash. With modern digital offerings of high ISO, VR etc and judicious use of PS, you should be able to nail this. Maybe its an opportunity for you to grow and learn to produce a different perspective of the ceremony than the standard view. If you are going to be a wedding photographer then this situation will not be uncommon.<br>

There is a minister in my city who strictly forbids flash at weddings. The first time I encountered this, I was using film and was absolutely aghast at how I was going to get through the ceremony. It worked out fine. Many weddings later, I relish the thought of a wedding with him as it gets my juices flowing and presents a challenge which I am well and truly up for ! It also gives your images a very different and natural look compared to flash.</p>

<p>Hi I have to wonder why you shot this at "F18".Thats just asking for trouble indoors. If the image is exposed correctly then the noise wouldnt look so bad, however with underexposure, noise can be a real bogey. Try shooting at F4 /5.6 with much lower ISO. Had you changed the ISO to 400 for this shot you would have still had an aperture of around 5.6, more than adequate for this type of shot and the image wouldnt be as "flashy" either. With a little work this could be a nice image. I have "roughed" this image in a couple of minutes with some quick burning,toning and blur to give an example.</p><div></div>

<p>Hey Nobody, you must have bought Yoshio's 20D ! I would not buy anything without a return policy.</p>

<p>Hi Beatrice<br>

Dont over do the the act or you will be seen through. On occasions I have been in similar situations. The key is to protect and ENHANCE your reputation - your good behaviour and self respect will be your protection.<br>

At the end of the day you want people to say " the photographer was great".</p>

<p>No problem here, edit out ALL the unsatisfactory images, leaving the best images that you would want EVERYONE to see. Pick out the best of similar images and DELETE.Then rename in chronological order and sit back proud. Seems like your rules are there to hide something. Its just human nature to want to see everything. If you refuse to show all, the bride can rightly expect that you are hiding something. You wont get any referrals taking the line you are on. </p>

<p>Thanks Peter, I did download the already edited version. The unedited version is a lot easier to correct IMHO.<br>

This was edited in PS using levels only.</p><div></div>

<p>Hi June<br>

BTW the Red channel is not the problem here - its the green and blue channels according to my downloaded version.</p>

<p>My contribution using levels in PS only. There are some major influences on correction in this image - yellow background, bright orange foreground and model looks like she has sunburn or maybe a red reflection object casting light on the upper half of her face.</p><div></div>

<p>Thank you for taking the time to post interesting and informative replies. I really would like to buy a good commercial grade 35mm pinhole camera. Does anyone know a brand or website that I can look at? Thanks again.</p>

<p>Hi I am interested in pinhole photography possibly using an old Nikon film body eg FG 20 or similar. I was going to use a body cap with a pinhole melted through it. Has anybody done this? Does the hole have to be dead central and does the hole have to be "clean" ie a smooth hole? Is there a way of working out exposure time using the sunny 16 rule or similar ? Are pinhole images mainly monochromatic / desaturised ? As many images I have seen dont seem to have the saturation of a standard image possibly due to post processing.<br>

Is it possible to somehow view the scene prior to taking, to ensure the composition of the image ?<br>

Many questions I know but maybe some interesting answers.<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>Hi I can tell you without fear or favour that the Tamron 17-50 is as sharp and at some apertures, sharper than the 17-55. I have thoroughly tested these side by side, same camera, settings, tripod etc and the Tamron comes up trumps especially at 2.8 / 4.<br>

Save your money and buy another body with the difference !</p>

<p>I totally agree with Stephen Asprey, I had a D200 for a couple of years and it was a great camera except for the average AF system which has now been replaced. Here's a clue, Nikon totally changed the AF system with the advent of the D300, D90 meaning the D200 AF system needed overhauling. I now have a D90 and D300 and the AF system and ISO capabilities/results far exceed that of the D200. I wouldnt buy a D200 - its a backward step. The D90 is probably the best value digi SLR out there, fantastic images and great high ISO results plus a precise and smooth AF system.</p>