ed_lemko

<p>I read earlier somehere, I think flickr, that a guy was taking shots of his dogs running around and he was able to get sharp pictures focusing manually. Is this realistic with this lens (im talking about any of the sam/rok/bow/ variants with the new focus chip)</p>

<p><a href="

<p>Will be taking swimming photos. I know it would be tought at the onset to get used to accurate focus technique, but wouldnt it be worth it for iq/dof effects?</p>

<p>Thanks guys. You've got patience for someone rumbling around the corridors of indecision...</p>

<p>Try as I might to commit to the real choice here, the Nikon 70-200 VR II, I can't justify the price new or used.</p>

<p>And given my d40x backup, the older Nikons, though HQ IQ will not work on that body in case of emergency.</p>

<p>I'm starting to hold my nose, and consider the Sigma 70-200 2.8 HSM EX OS. It's new, with a longer than the focal length of my previous sigma 50-150, it's optically stabilized, and it will work (AF) on my D40x body.</p>

<p>I'm holding my nose because I didn't think I'd be back with sigma. Although I have 2 sharp sigmas, my old 18-200 f/3.5-63 OS zoom, and my newer 17-50 f/2.8 OS zoom, both of which are great, the build of that 50-150 and its front focusing and soft shots really put me off. There are plenty of reviews of that non-OS zoom misfocusing, and I even sent it on to Sigma for calib. to my D7000 but no change in IQ. PLus they tell me that it's front focusing on my D7000 and back focusing on their D7000. That doesn't make sense to me.</p>

<p>I'm hoping that the new design (+updated optics?) of this 70-200 OS, slightly longer focal length, and OS will make this lens a different experience. </p>

<p>No decision yet but this is where I"m leaning.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.adorama.com/SG70200ONK.html">http://www.adorama.com/SG70200ONK.html</a></p>

<p>Cesar- wow, that's my dilemma, I'm glad you threw that in there, about the 105 AF, that's exactly what I've started worrying about. I just read the dripping syrupy reviews of the 70-200 VR II. Drat. It should be the centerfold of playcamera magazine. Everybody and their neighbor loves it, the sharpness, the IQ, the VR, everything. drat. Don't have 2300$ in the budget....</p>

<p>The reviews are all stellar for the nikon 105 2.8 prime as well, but very few must be sports shooters there, so not much comments come up for AF speed-- as Michael said, I suppose the macro world has different AF performance requirements.</p>

<p>Eric- I'm with you - I would have loved to have kept the 50-150 it was ideal for the constant 2.8 and the handy zoom range. But it was consistently soft, I sent it in to sigma twice, and the 2nd time they said it back focuses on their demo D7000, and front focuses on my D7000 from the pictures I sent them. ??? All I knew is no matter what, I couldnt get consistent shots out of that thing that I was happy with. Plus, the AF on that was hunting and pecking. I didnt care that it was HSM and quite. Be noisy and fast! I have the Sigma 18-200 3.5-6.3 OS, the walk around lens, and although I can only use it outdoors morely, it's super sharp. My experience with the sigma 50-150 is keeping me from really considering the approachable 1200 dollar version of that same lens, new for 2012, and newly optically stabilized now. On paper, it would be great...</p>

<p>Anybody have this guy, or it's 50-150 2.8 OS cousin?<br /> Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM Auto Focus Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon AF <br /> <a href="http://www.adorama.com/SG70200ONK.html">http://www.adorama.com/SG70200ONK.html</a></p>

<p>And why has no body agreed with this choice-</p>

<p>Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 DI LD (IF) Macro, Fast AF Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon AF Mount -<br /> <a href="http://www.adorama.com/TM70200DNKAF.html">http://www.adorama.com/TM70200DNKAF.html</a></p>

<p>It says "fast AF" and has a decent warranty, but the main lenses mentioned are 1st nikon for quality and then sigma for decent quality and price. Tamron and Tokina dont hold a candle in this long tele prime or fast tele zoom category?</p>

<p>Stan- I'm surprised you are satisfied with the IQ from your f4.5-5.6 with shots taken at dark indoor pools. Still, yes, action, with a higher shutter speed, I could never get enough light with my walkaround outdoor lens.</p>

<p>EDIT: PS- Is to really dumb or just partially dumb, remembering the budget of $600-999, to go with a $499 nikon 85mm f/1.8G prime (a super-well reviewed sharp lens) , and get a 2x teleconverter? For days when I can get close to the deck, I can take advantage of the 1.8 light, and on days I'm stuck father out, I can get 170mm at f/3.6 with the teleconverter... ? Or is even the Tamron above a better solution than this cobbled-together idea?</p>

<p>Elliot - I appreciate your persistence when I dont fully appreciate your point about the value and quality of that lens, even if over budget. Point taken.</p>

<p>nick- I hadn't thought of the slowness of the AF. I wonder if there's some Dxo optics number for the "fastness" of a lens's autofocus. Maybe lenses tagged "macro", while fine for portrait work, have less technology devoted to the AF, since it would be presumed that a macro subject would not move as fast as splashed water or a moving ball?</p>

<p>Michael - interesting option. Looks like a nice one. I have a backup Nikon D40x, though, which will be incompatible with that. No matter, it's something to consider. And, related to nick's comment, the 80-200 is obviously not a macro lens, and so I'm curious what about the AF built into it performs better than a macro lens. Contrast-based? etc?</p>

<p>Is any macro lens (or mid tele prime) comparable in AF speed to a lens like what Michael suggested?</p>

<p>Trying to cut myself down to the 700-900 $ area if I can... but I'm aware that an extra 200 bucks could put me in a much better strata.</p>

<p>Michael-</p>

<p>OK, so I got from your optics humor that I won't need to worry about changes in effective aperture as I'll be focused way out on a swimmer, not up close at a water droplet 2-3 feet away. Plus I see that many of these (all?) macro primes have a switch on the barrel to pick subject distance and subsequent ease of focus (lack of focus hunting). For swimmers, I won't be needing the switch.</p>

<p>Does the guy in the Q&A quote above mentioning "barrel extension" on the sigma 150mm f/2.8 prime mean literally that, that the lens telescopes to a bigger length when you focus? Even on my old sigma 50-150 f/2.8 all the movement was internal.</p>

<p>Andrew - </p>

<p>Thanks for the thoughts. I have 2 separate issues - 1 is which lens I should get - and the second is understanding this effective focal length thing, which is secondary, though I dont feel good not understanding it. </p>

<p>Taking the 2nd topic 1st, I noticed under the "question and answer" for this</p>

<p><a href="http://www.adorama.com/SG15028OSNKA.html">http://www.adorama.com/SG15028OSNKA.html</a></p>

<p>Sigma 150mm f/2.8 prime, someone said "I returned this. It focused slowly and went to f5.6 when close focused to 1:1By <a href="http://www.adorama.com/SG15028OSNKA.html">ALAN F</a> · Apr 30, 2012" So that I don't get - if it's a f/2.8 prime, with no zoom, why would the f change if it's a constant lens. When I had my Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 HSM zoom (not OS), I would take swim shots at 50mm, then zoom to 150mm, be on manual at f/2.8, and no matter where my focus or zoom would be, the f# on the exif data on my computer always showed 2.8 on those shots since I set it to be that. A closely related question is, for far-away swim shots, would I be ever be focused at 1:1, and I assume the answer there is no. Although I would dabble in bugs, this lens will be for wedding portraits, pj style, and swim shots indoors at medium distance (pool edge, concrete deck, a couple of bleacher rows up, that's me).<br>

<br>

Regarding if 150mm is too long, no. Even on crop, I'd want that. On my old sigma 50-150 that I traded in, I found that 80% of the time I'd want to be maxed out at 150mm anyway, and wanting a bit more.<br>

<br>

But sticking with this effective aperture for a minute longer, I dont know whether that's just for primes, or whether that exists for zooms as well. As I said, I never noticed any exif data moving away from 2.8 when that's what I had set in camera. So Here's the other lens candidate again, the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX HSM OS prime:<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.adorama.com/SG10528MNKAF.html">http://www.adorama.com/SG10528MNKAF.html</a><br>

<br>

and again as in the sigma 150mm prime we have a guy commenting the Q&A popup for the product that it's not a true 2.8 lense.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"The lens is not a true 2.8 lens as you focus the lens the aperture shifts due to the barrel extension all the way to 4.5 The lens primary function is to be a macro lens. I purchased this with hopes of getting a 105mm 2.8 portrait lens. <br /><br />Although I was disappointed as mentioned above, the lens is tack sharp, has excellent color rendition, and contrast. The lens has a good construction, and came with a nice case and lens hood. <br /><br />I choose to keep the lens and add it to my collection. <br /><br />Kevin Russo -Photographer"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So I really don't know fully what that means- when you focus, the barrel extends and it pushes you to f/4.5 on your shot? Whah? If a swimmer is close to me, I can't take the shot at f/2.8?</p>

<p>Anyway, all this is secondary to which lens is best for my needs, and I appreciate your other comments there as well. Regarding the Samyang, I already had my eye on that for a couple years, but I do so much swimming stuff that it wouldn't be used, even though it reviews beautifully for price and manual focusing, I know...</p>

<p>I could get a monopod, but there are kids, stairs and feet all over in these crowded pools. Plus I'm attracted to the OS as a feature as it works great on my other lens, the sigma 18-200 OS, which I use outdoors only as it's f/3.5-6.3.</p>

<p>Have a d7000 that I use to shoot swimming (my 2 kids, every week), and some events (parties and family wedding soon in august.)</p>

<p>I just got rid of my sigma 50-150 2.8 HSM EX because, for the life of me, it was constantly soft, unless I cranked up the f to 5-6 range, which begged the question, "I can just use my outdoor optically stabilized zoom at that point" what's the use of 2.8 when even the point of focus is not sharp. </p>

<p>To replace it for an upcoming wedding (not as much swimming) I got a sigma 17-50 2.8 OS. Nice and sharp now, great for small rooms, up close, etc for wedding. But I'm still out my swimming lens. Dark pools, medium and long distances, indoor with weird gym lighting.</p>

<p>Would getting a 105mm f/2.8 prime be good for that? (and would a macro be appropriate for sports work at medium distances) i.e.)</p>

<p><a href="http://www.adorama.com/SG10528MSG.html">http://www.adorama.com/SG10528MSG.html</a><br>

OR<br>

<a href="http://www.adorama.com/NK10528AFVRU.html">http://www.adorama.com/NK10528AFVRU.html</a></p>

<p>I'm thinking yes- it'll give me the sharpness as a prime and with the OS OR VR, better than my soft previous sigma above, and for the getting ready shots (not much sports motion yet) , I can slow down the shutter and take advantage of the OS or VR.</p>

<p>This would bring me a bit closer-</p>

<p><a href="http://www.adorama.com/SG15028OSNKA.html">http://www.adorama.com/SG15028OSNKA.html</a></p>

<p>but there are comments that this reduces from 2.8 to f/5.6 when focused 1:1 so it's not a true 2.8</p>

<p>Lastly, there's this</p>

<p><a href="http://www.adorama.com/TM70200DNKAF.html">http://www.adorama.com/TM70200DNKAF.html</a></p>

<p>Would be a relief to have the in and out of the zoom, but nervous that it would not give me the sharpness I want, being a zoom not a prime, and also not having the optical stab. needed for dark still shots. My budget is in the 600-1000 range, which is where all these lenses are.</p>

<p>Thanks for any thoughts!</p>

<p>So many issues in this one event-- preparation, competence, contracts, early red flags, anger management, refunds, liability. Great discussion.</p>

<p>David, will you let us know on this thread how it progresses/ends?</p>

<p>Also, semi-related-</p>

<p>1) can you say where you got the solo trumpet track for the website? It's very nice, super appropriate for your purposes, and I'd like something similar as well. </p>

<p>2) your website idea is smashing really, I've thought of doing that myself for sports and events nites/dates-- accompanying a couple for 5-10 hours and shooting their whole night, plus a book. I hope your model works! the world has "personal chefs", why can't it have personal photographers for couples, right?</p>

<p>3) you took care of the name issue, i dont remember now if you extended that to the company name, as it can be tracked back via trademark to you, remember? if Nadine didn't address that, it would be smart. (ignore this if already handled).<br /><br /></p>

<p>Thanks, Dan. </p>

<p>I do have a verbal agreement on 50% profit sharing, not revenue, which is then echoed in writing on the team website where the link to my pic gallery is. "If you want great shots of your little snookums, click here for pictures by roaming around photo guy".</p>

<p>Unfortunately, there's another photographer who's also doing what I am, so the team has 2 photogs, and he was there before I was. It's all a big, friendly, backslapping kind of group, so I presume if I start getting "contracty", there might be some eyebrow raising from the team, or the other photog. (Like I"m getting too fancy, too formal, too legalese, too serious about it). It's not like this is some massive money maker.... But still, I have a nagging feeling that I don't want to go too far in marketing the pictures which resulted from covering the team, without a proper paper trail of permission...</p>

<p>Kind of stuck in indecision land. So far I've set up a blog where people can buy the photos, which 8-9 families already did. I also put them up on facebook, and the assistant coach, the head coach's wife, many player/parents already "liked" the photos, and made positive comments. It's considered more an ad-hoc friend thing at this point, than a "formal service" as such, that's my problem in terms of the motivation to ratchet this thing up in legal seriousness...</p>

<p>As an unsolicited party to photographs, technically, (each and every kid or parent doesn't physically agree to me prancing around with a camera, the coach and parent board did in general), do people generally ask for something in return (like money) to sign the model release?</p>

<p> In other words, have you gone back to say, "hey, a mag was to buy this shot and slap it on the cover, and they want to pay me 1000 bucks, please sign here so I can get my 1000 bucks". I imagine some parents might say "hey, I didn't sign up for you taking shots of my kid" or "OK, how much does my kid get of the cover shot seeing as they were 1/2 the package as the model"... </p>

<p>Anyway, I believe some indeed are lawyers, at least 2-3 of the parents are. </p>

<p>The retrospective model release doesn't have to include verbiage about the sports cover or whatever, since that's second base, right? First base is " I hereby release my kid's image and co-sign as their legal guardian for sports shooter guy here to use in his portfolio or whatever business purpose his copyright allows him"</p>

<p>I don't want to morph this thread into a model release thread, there are plenty of those, I just have to find the right one...<br /><br /><br>

Thanks so far for the comments- </p>

<p>I'm in the northeast US and my kids are on a sports team where I take pictures and have sold prints to parents who are very happy. I made arrangements with the coach and parent board to give back half the profits to the team as a fundraising aspect.</p>

<p>I'd like to sell some of the really good shots I took to some magazines, or at least try to, and my question is what responsibility so I have to the kids or parents if a magazine decides to buy and publish? (or make me go thru an ad agency and the same results happens)</p>

<p>The photos are taken at practices and games, and the teams is about 120 families. There is no agreement between anyone other than verbal that I give over 1/2 the profits, which is less than 100 bucks so far.</p>

<p>But requests are coming in for more shots and things are picking up. And these are not blurry action shots but actually moodily-lit captures with attractive post-processing that has punch.</p>

<p>What I've read around here already is that if I use the shots in my own advertising, say "Northeast Sports Photography", then I'd definitely need to go back and get model releases. But what about just selling a shot to vendors or magazines for the sport for the cover, or the (small) vendor's own PR use? Does that require more in terms of getting signed permission?</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>I cancelled an order once at Abe's, because I'm in Jersey, and they're, uh, not in Maine, but in Jersey, so I'd have to pay sales tax. Abe's of New Jersey....<br>

EDIT: some not-so promising reviews...<br>

<a href="http://www.yelp.com/biz/abes-of-maine-edison">http://www.yelp.com/biz/abes-of-maine-edison</a></p>

<p>brad-<br>

thanks for the fleshout. i like the points you make about page cost and shipping cost. </p>

<p>their logo made me think they're owned by HP, but perhaps they are just showing that to indicate their use of hp equipment.</p>

<p>how have you found conversion rates compared to other hosted print or download solutions?</p>

<p>do you feel that the magazine format promotes purchasing more than individual photos sets? (i.e., a set of 30 photos for sale, vs the set of 30 photos, integrated into a self-pub magazine with text-- what are the implications for buy rate?)</p>

<p>heck, if you have time to kill, i'd love the technical details...</p>

<p>Fred,</p>

<p>Funny thing is that you can go by quotes, or you can go by ideas for the country. Speaks for itself.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Think Tea Party. Have you met those folks? They wear themselves out patting each other on their backs for agreeing so urgently.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And thank God for the tea party. Just saying. Since it was brought up.... There is a crime in agreeing with something fresh and right, apparently.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Mark, it's not Adorama. I could tell you who it is, but I'm just wanting to make sure they aren't simple making a mistake before I get into it. I wan't able to call today due to travel, I'll call them in a day. The waranty says "nikon waranty" (or rather "said", as I mailed the little postcard in, and there really wasn't anything else that came with it other than an envelope, which reads:</p>

<p>Nikon 2 year digital SLR extended service coverage D90 D80</p>

<p>"product # 5762, not intended for sale in WA, VA, FL" - i'm in jersey. "suggested list price 129.95"</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you bought the camera from Adorama the extended warranty is from Mack, not Nikon. Go back to the website and check.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>@Mark, the warrantee is a black and yellow nikon logo-ed envelope with a postcard inside that I mailed to a nikon address, so the mack thing is not in play. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I will take a position on "refurbished". Sorry, its "secondhand" or "used" and warranties only apply to NEW.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>@Shadforth Stephen: that's part of my personal disagreement-- that either in print nor online there is no mention in the 2 yr nikon ESC that it does not apply to refurb-- literally nowhere. There's stull about addresses, and neglect, and sending it in, and peace of mind, and being in force when the original waranty runs out, but nothing AT ALL about refurb. <br>

Thanks for the input- I'm calling the reseller on Monday. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The refurbished item had a clear 90-day warranty piece of paperwork, right? You wanted to make a good savings and took the chance.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, 90 days, a refurbished camera. That's why I bought the 2 yr warrantee with it-- and conversely-- I bought the camera BECAUSE the 2 yr warranty was available.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Unless you actually and expressly informed the sales person that you were only going to buy the camera on condition that the warranty came with it,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, that's why I used the word --expressly-- in my original post. I --expressly-- stated that, since I never buy refurb, and I never buy extended warranties because I always buy new products, that in this instance, I'd be convinced to buy the refurb, only since I could cover my 90 days with an extended warranty, so I'd feel solid in my purchase of a refurb.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The refurbished item had a clear 90-day warranty piece of paperwork, right? You wanted to make a good savings and took the chance.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Right. I took a chance because it was a Nikon refurb, so I figured it's reliable, and the extended warranty covered my butt, and that was a Nikon warranty too.<br>

Incidentally guys, not only did the reseller not tell me that I can't buy an E/W with a refurb camera, the warranty that came from them-- the Nikon yellow and black 2 yr warranty for D90 and D80 it said-- nowhere does it and did it say that it does not apply to refurbs. Nowhere! I just sat on hold on Nikon's help line earlier, and hit the selection for repair-- and while I was on hold, it told me all the 4 or 5 stipulations in warraties-- you have to be on time... ok ok, you have to have your serial number-- ok ok, etc, even that did not say "and warranties do not apply to refurbished products". Not a work. Packaging? Just an envelope with a postcard with little squares that you fill out with your email and serial # and purchase date, etc. Nowhere does it say no refurbs-- just D90 and D80-- and I have a d90!<br>

And in a panic when I got the warranty envelope in April 2010 I called Nikon to say -- hey-- it says I have to send it in within a week-- is it true? And the guy says no, you have a year to send it in. Nobody asked about refurb-- and I didn't bring it up. Why the heck for? Isn't it completely logical that refurb customers will be much more likely to spring for a warranty? <br>

It makes no sense that Nikon says this is invalid. Nothing on the packaging. Nothing said by the reseller. Remember from math class-- "if and only if"? I dont buy warrantees-- I trust new products. But the chance I do see a good deal on a refurb, I wanted the warrantee. I'll buy the refurb only because I see that the warranty will cover me. That's the whole point of warranties! You pay for them, they should be in effect, or at least labelled!<br>

I smell some consumer problem here, but I'm not a lawyer. I just want to be treated fairly.<br>

Still have to call the reseller. Everyone has quit for the holiday... Happy TG.</p>

<p>Hi everyone,<br>

Wondering if any out there had a similar situation - or have any advice<br>

Bought a refurbished D90 at a large reputable NY reseller- march 2010<br>

90 day warranty, 14 day return, wanted to sell me the extended service coverage, also from Nikon, but I said I'll take a look at the camera 1st-- if I keep it, can I still buy the 2 yr coverage. The guy says I can buy it in 30 days, no problem<br>

Took a week, loved the D90, called back in April 2010 to buy the extended warranty, 2 yrs.<br>

Called Nikon, they said I could send in the warranty card within 1 yr of the purchase date, I dont have to get scared of the envelope it came in that says "must return in 1 week for coverage".<br>

So now it November, I'm sending in the warranty card, and following up by phone to make sure it's registered under my name, camera serial, etc.<br>

Nikon claims that I can not buy an extended warranty coverage for a refurbished camera (again, refurbished by Nikon, extended warrantee is yellow and black Nikon, both bought from same sales person at reseller over phone). <br>

I cant believe it. I would never have bought the refurb if I knew I'd be stuck with 90 days! Isn't that the point of buying a (somewhat) expensive policy-- it's especially useful to those buying refurbs?<br>

So my next call will be to the reseller, for them to refund the money for the E/W, but also take back my camera. You see, I bought the refurb --expressly-- to have it in conjunction with the extended warranty, no other reason. Otherwise, I would have bought new, or bought something else. No question, I bought the refurb ONLY because of the option to buy the warranty. <br>

In my opinion, the reseller should be on the hook for both the warranty and the camera, whether this was an honest mistake by the sales guy, or on purpose.<br>

Any ideas before I call the reseller? They will probably refund the warranty but obviously balk at taking back a 7 month old camera, lightly used. But on principle, they should eat it, and refund my money, or am I wrong?<br>

Anyone know who runs the authorized reseller program at Nikon? Would be a good point of help if things don't progress.<br>

Would really appreciate any help. Thanks.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I keep thinking of the end use. Still vs. Motion. </p>

<p>The proliferation of video, and ubiquity. Ubiquity. Video everywhere.</p>

<p>Video billboards in motion while you drive. Huge, wafer thin motion murals on sides of city building, where Michael Jackson dunks and jumps on a 3 story canvas. Airport ads as you go to your terminal are also moving: someone is pouring coffee, the next one has kids jumping on a trampoline, someone using a kodak camera to capture it all.</p>

<p>Frankly, drivers will get into accidents, and the people who say we already have information overload will have system shutdown. Will the airport billboards have sound? If so, will it be the military-grade directional sound so that when you walk outside of the billboard or ad's vicinity, the next ad's sound will take over? Or what's the point without sound?</p>

<p>I often walk past a bride/groom framed art, and smile at the moment of happiness. That's all you need as you grab your hat and coat, or phone and keys to fill your memory with a full happiness of the day, from that one glance at a fine pose or captured moment. I don't have time to watch it move. </p>

<p>Extrapolate that to all the other examples. What's your conclusion about the value of still?</p>

<p> </p>