jbm

I just wanted to contribute a couple of samples from my Sigma which I think is a fantastic lens if you are DX

bound and do want to get ultra wide. The links to them are at the bottom. I think the IQ has been great with

perfect colors.

 

Both of the Nikon lenses give great IQ but I have not owned them and cannot comment on them, really. Also the

Tokina is supposed to be build like a tank and gives great IQ. For the price, though, the only way to get down

to 15 mm equivalent on DX is with the Sigma.

 

Pick your poison and happy shooting!

 

Cheers,

 

Jay

 

Taken at 12mm:

http://www.photo.net/photo/7306432

 

Taken at 12-14mm and cropped slightly:

http://www.photo.net/photo/7321902

 

Taken at 10mm with almost no postproduction:

http://www.photo.net/photo/7335179

 

Taken at 10 mm with mild perspective correction in PS and crop, obvious selective color desaturation:

http://www.photo.net/photo/7375071&size=lg

I just wanted to contribute a couple of samples from my Sigma which I think is a fantastic lens if you are DX bound and do want to get ultra wide. I think the IQ has been great with perfect colors.

 

Both of the Nikon lenses give great IQ but I have not owned them and cannot comment on them, really. Also the Tokina is supposed to be build like a tank and gives great IQ. For the price, though, the only way to get down to 15 mm equivalent on DX is with the Sigma.

 

Pick your poison and happy shooting!

 

Cheers,

 

Jay

Rui, fantastically stupid post. Really. Your post is among the least intelligent I've read in a long time.

 

Gilden does come across as obnoxious and intrusive in that video...but to toss the other fine Magnum photographers out because you do not like Bruce Gilden's approach is just silly and stupid. Look at Michael Subotzky's photos from South Africa or anything Alex Majoli has done. They make articulate, compassionate photographs. And we have no idea how they make them, how they relate to their subject. That is part of the risk you take in appreciating photography, you have no idea how the person pulling the trigger relates to their subject.

 

I've been a New Yorker for ten years...just making the transition to a different city. Gilden captures Gotham in all its glory and depravity better than almost any other photog, period. As a Manhattanite, I've been disturbed by much more than a flash going off in my face on a sidewalk. And if a blast of light happened to rock me out of my mental space, so be it. I am sure most resilient New Yorkers recovered from Gilden's flash before passing the next hot dog stand. I loved living in New York because I felt like I was part of the big show. If Gilden barks commands and blasts a flash of ow and then, that's the price we pay.

 

I would never have the scrotal contents to photograph the way Gilden does, but we should all be thankful that he shoots the way he does.

 

I don't know Bruce Gilden and can't pretend I would like him if I met him but his images, like most of the Magnum images, are great.

 

Incidentally, Rui, YOUR images are great, and I do not care how you obtain them.

 

There's room for all of us.

 

Jay

I own a 16-85 as an everyday lens, a 50/1.8, 24/2.8 and a whole bunch of other stuff I share with my Dad. For the two year old, I'd use the zoom. I do have to say, though, that simply bouncing a little flash is really the way to fly. This will allow you to stop down the 16-85 which is a truly superb lens for the price...stopped down it is as sharp as anything I can think of...seriously! Look at this shot of a couple of leaves with flower petals on them I took with a stopped down 16-85...

 

Have fun whatever you buy.

 

Cheers, Jay<div></div>

I have been shooting again for about a year. I'm 30 but my initial experiences shooting were in high school in the darkroom with 35mm and MF.

 

I love my Nikon Digi SLR but have just moved into a Mamiya 645 with two lenses, a couple of backs, a viewing prism all for $500.

 

I just got back from a Yousef Karsh exhibit at the Boston MFA...larger formats are where it's at. Get the 'Blad and kick some ass!

 

Cheers,

 

Jay

Ilkka,

 

You are correct about the Red FF camera.

 

I don't think shooting this way will be terabytes of information. The idea will be that you can have a running 3-5 second buffer for action shooting and depressing the shutter will bracket the information behind and ahead of the buffer. Then you can immediately hack down to the relevant stills. It's really an amazing concept. The throughput, write rates, and storage for this will quickly become portable, and it will change a lot of what it means to be an action photographer. At any rate, I am going to stop posting on this thread as it is really for those interested in debating the merits of current FF offerings from the big players.

 

Cheers,

 

Jay

The most intelligent post in this thread is the post regarding the potential Red "dSLR Killer." This company, more than anything, has the ability to fundamentally change the paradigm of taking and producing still images. Digital capture as it is used in dSLR's changed several paradigms: the capture device and storage device were different, the ability to instantly see the results of pictures and act on that information, or to erase images. But the idea of capturing a "moment" is going to change when a company like Red allows you to pull high quality images off of a full frame sensor that takes away completely the distinction between video and still camera.

 

I have a D300 right now which is fine. Full frame dSLR's are totally great...but I am not worrying about upgrading to a full frame machine until I know what the future of still photography is going to be, where the new direction really lies.

There is a great review of the different 50mm primes on www.imaging-resource.com that puts most of the available 50's through their paces.

 

I've owned the Canon 50/1.8, the Canon 50/1.4, an old Nikon 50/1.4, and now the Nikon 50/1.8 plastic fantastic. I for some reason am still partial to the color rendition and images that came out of the Canon 50/1.8. I did not resort to any test charts, but they really looked great to me with such accurate saturation and tonality compared to the others I've used.

 

My new Nikon is the second best by a bit and truthfully is probably tied with my old, old Nikon 50/1.4 from well before I was born (I'm 30).

 

I agree with the review of the Canon 50/1.4 but still think it is a great lens, as they all are. Really for most of us we should focus on making great photographs...an amazing image with the Canon 50/1.4 will still be great, even if it is a bit soft wide open.

 

Happy shooting,

 

Jay

Bring a bottle of good white wine and an iPod with some Barry White, also portable speakers. Wait...this was a lens question?

 

I own the 16-85 and love it. It's incredibly sharp and was quite useful at a recent bike race to give great low, semi-wide angle shots of racers in a corner. I've used it for some commercial shooting and it really produces super sharp and nicely saturated images. Honestly at the same stops, it's as sharp as the 17-55 as well as I can tell. And I do find the wide end useful.

 

Now last year I went to South Africa, also on a honeymoon, and used my then Canon with an 18-200 tamron. This lens was a real piece of junk, not that sharp, lousy colors...and I appreciated every millimeter of the range. A HUGE number of my shots (wildlife) were at the tele end of the lens. Take a look at my wildlife folder, every single one shot with the lousy tamron and you will appreciate the variety of wide and tele shots I took...this would not have been possible with a more limited zoom range. The Nikon is a much better lens than the Tamron equivalent and the images will be great.

 

Sooooo...if the question is what to bring for the trip, go for the 18-200. If based on your style you anticipate shooting a lot with the 16-85 range, it's a better long term investment.

 

Enjoy the honeymoon. As my grandfather says, "Marriage is a wonderful institution. And I should know, I have been institutionalized for over 50 years!"

 

Cheers,

 

Jay

The 1.4 focuses better. I used to use Canon and tried all three, owned the 1.4 and 1.8. There are great lens reviews at www.imaging-resource.com including a 50mm shootout between Nikon and Canon's offerings. The 1.2L is no better than the rest and might mean you have to sell a kidney to buy it. For the record, I loved having my rebel xt and the 50/1.8. It was light and outrageously sharp and I took a lot of incredibly sharp pictures with it.

 

If you are really having AF problems in low light after changing lenses, you might want to consider an upgrade to a body that has more cross type sensors and a faster AF system. I don't know that the new XSi does, but the AF system in the 40D is really good and it's pretty much a bargain now.

 

Happy shooting.

 

Cheers,

 

Jay

I own a D300 having recently switched from Canon to Nikon (DigiRebel series to the D300). There is an immense difference between the feel and responsiveness between the two levels of camera and I feel more confident with the D300. The biggest difference is the viewfinder. The viewfinder on entry level bodies is much smaller and darker, making it more challenging to see gesture or achieve focus. Though some people will disagree, I think it's one huge reason I would invest in a D300. It's not quite like my old F3 viewfinder, or even close to full frame, but the critical difference between feeling like I am looking through a tunnel (DigiRebel, D40, D80) and a window (D200/300, 40D) is there.

 

Image quality between all of the cameras is not radically different. People are going to wank about this, but it's true. You can make incredible images with any of them.

 

Comments about the glass are well taken. Image quality is mostly about the glass. But I would say that impact and resonance is about composition and seeing more than anything.

 

Whichever you purchase, buy some nice, nice glass and focus on seeing and composing well. Put yourself in situations where you are likely to encounter compelling scenes. Take pictures where people tell you you're not supposed to take them. And enjoy the heck out of yourself.

 

Cheers,

 

Jay

This is an interesting thread. I am not a professional photographer, just for the record, or even a very proficient amateur. I am, however, a physician finishing residency. I have discussed with friends and mentors many times the nature of a profession and what constitutes a professional. Of course, we have discussed it as it pertains to medicine, so it's a bit different, but some of it is probably applicable.

 

A profession is an occupation that has a defined and extensive skill set. That skill set and education should take a long time to acquire. And then you have to be proficient at it. Any jamoke can hang up a shingle and call themselves a professional photographer, but if you have not spent the time and effort to understand the intricacies of composition, exposure, printing, and display, you are not a professional photographer.

 

A professional is defined by their profession. When people ask my wife what I do, she tells them I'm a doctor. Now I spend almost as much time racing bicycles and taking photos as I do practicing medicine (have even been paid for both), but the profession that defines me is medicine. When someone asks you what you do, do you tell them you're a photographer? That seems a reasonable start. If you tell them you're an investment banker, but you also have shot 5 weddings, you're not a professional photographer.

 

Finally, the idea of a profession (traditionally medicine, law, education, etc. as the "professions") also incorporates an aspect of education. I have been teaching the students and physicians behind me basically since I entered medicine. I don't think this is a hard and fast rule, but think about it. Could you pass this profession on in a coherent manner by teaching someone else about photography? I would be hard pressed to call someone a professional photographer if they could not teach to me the very basic physics associated with optics, the fundamentals of equipment, and how to compose, expose, print, and display their work.

 

Anyway, thanks for all of the interesting posts. It has been some interesting food for thought as I finish residency in just over a week...then I'll be a "professional" doctor!

 

Cheers,

 

Jay

I'm going back to film.

Sounds like Canon missed their price point with the XSi...a little too expensive...wen they should have just buffed up the XTi. Oh, well.

I will put my two cents in here. When I am not at my day job or else shooting photos, I spend most of my time riding and racing bicycles. When I am fit and fast, I approach professional level ability. And I have had my a** whipped by racers from third world countries with bicycles costing 1/8th as much as my light weight wonder. It's the rider, not the bike, just like everything.

 

That being said, there is no way I would trade my racing rig for a clunker...I really prefer a sweet ride.

 

I will say this, the viewfinder on the full frame 5D is awesome...that makes more difference to me than almost anything. Any of the cameras you listed will take lovely pictures, but it's nice to really be able to see gesture in the viewfinder of the 5D.

Any lens with this large a range will make some sacrifices in terms of sharpness. Also, the long end tends to be slow. I took a Tamron 18-200 to Africa. It was a piece of crap lens (still is, actually), but an easy compromise to switching lenses out all the time and on a digi-rebel makes for a relatively compact and unobtrusive setup when knocking around. A real wide angle is a must for hammering around the cities of Europe, though, so you might want to consider the Sigma. Cheers, Jay