leighmcmullen

February 14, 2010

help me out here... I understand the "situational dependencies" of auto-focus, or at least I think I do.

if we were to devise a test for lens auto-focus speed under "normal" (read: not ideal) conditions, and lens A was 30% faster than Lens B. Would 'Lens A' not continue to be faster under say difficult auto-focus conditions (like low light). (although perhaps not 30% faster).

---------

Lets rewind a little bit... what factors do we suppose influence auto-focus speed the most:

* Subject Contrast

* Lighting

* Subject Movement

* ???

February 13, 2010

AF-S 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 image tests (it focuses crazy fast relative to the 50 1.4)

Original re-sized to fit post. Hunter outside experiencing snow in Texas for the first time...

1/125 f/5.6 ISO 200

and the crop:

I'm pretty happy with this For a 299 "Bargain" lens from KEH (whose "bargain" rating is better than "Like New" on ebay, as I've discovered). It certainly doesn't compel me to upgrade my fast sigma mid-range to the nikon. Low light is gonna be a bit of an issue... but perhaps the 85 1.8 will answer that problem? Let me find one, and I'll let you know.

**note the look on hunters face... Alien Paparazzi on the move...

February 13, 2010

@John, "Unitasker" Williamson: I see Alton Brown has gotten to you too... welcome to the reserves. Pick up your zombie spray and stand mixer (itself an awesome zombie basher).

February 13, 2010

Should we invent a standard? Since all measurements are arbitrary, we could simply say, (for our purposes), the standard is:

AF-D 50 1.4 - since everyone and their cousin has one, or should.

-------

And then develop a testing methodology that mimics likely photographic scenarios, something like:

* Target is a 3d object with a high degree of contrast against a neutral background.

* Camera is 10 feet from target.

* lighting is natural sunlight & tungsten indoors. (might need to be more exact on lighting conditions such as ambient light meter reading suggests 60 f4 ISO 400) but for "forum reviews" telling folks to test during daytime, in a room with windows with the lights on, might be sufficient.

* Camera is set to point focus, with focus point on the object.

* Scenario 1: set lens to minimum focus, and focus on object.

* Scenario 2: set lens to maximum focus distance and focus on object

* Scenario 3: Set lens to middle focus distance and focus on object.

* with lens focused on object (from prior test), move the object 3 feet backwards refocus

* with lens focused on object and object returned to netural test position (10' from camera) move the object 3 feet closer to lens, and refocus.

------------

Against a known baseline, even arbitrary measures if consistent provide value.

February 11, 2010

@Steve: I think the days of "professional" media are pretty much dead... I write for 2 print magazines, and 2 blogs, and I still have to have a pretty demanding day-job just to be able to afford to keep the zombies at bay. I'd like to see us all get paid (or paid more), but that is what it is... Hopefully the iPad (and it's like) will turn around stuff for content producers, enabling folks to monetize their work without the dilution the current "free" internet has caused on all of us.

@BM Mills : You have both of my dream lenses. How would you compare the 85 f1.4 against the 50 f1.4 in focusing speed. Even screwdriver powered, I hear it's pretty quick.

February 11, 2010

Update:

I got my hands on an old AF-S 24-85 3.5-4.5... "Bargain"* from KEH for 299. Nice, Nice piece of glass, very fast focusing, very fast focus tracking (faster than my fifty). I'll drop some images when I get a chance...

With the shutter set day-light fast (~800), IQ of a slow moving kid who'd never seen snow before is pretty crisp and sharp (for my purposes), at least zoomed in on the camera's LCD. Certainly worth the 299, and a real alternative to my Sigma 2.8 in a much more compact format, at the cost of just around a stop.

we'll see how it does at night, and if I can keep sharpness wide open.

February 11, 2010

@Mat (pt 2.) You wrote:

Have you considered mounting a Nikon speedlight (say, SB-600/800/900), and using it only for the IR AF-assist? You don't have to let the strobe fire in order to let it help you with AF in dim rooms. And because the IR is invisible, it won't upset the natives you're studying.

</blockquote>

That is quite possibly the best freekin suggestion since the time the one cave-man said to the other, "Make it round, Dude." Seriously, I'm totally gonna give that a go, at a minimum it will help with focus hunting in low light, and might make smaller aperture glass more viable.

February 11, 2010

@Sam: the 105 micro AF-S VR is probably my leading contender... can anyone comment on how fast she focuses relative to the 50 1.4 (either AF-D or AF-S as they're about the same)

@Matt: Thanks for the tip on the Sigma... I looked at that.. and I'm not bias against their glass my second favorite lens is a sigma 28-70 f2.8. I do find, however that lens to be a little... uh... I guess I'd say pale, it doesn't seem to pop color the way nikon glass does. I don't know why, could be my own goofiness, I'm not an optical physicist. Does your sigma 50 pop? Good contrast, good color, sharpness? etc?

I would agree, also that the weapons potential of the 70-200 AF-S VR is unmatched. Certainly the sigma 500 F2.8 is bigger, but unwieldy. The Nikon is got just the right amount of heft and umph to do the job... If that job is zombie killing. For my purposes it'd be too big.

I discovered that Nikon made a 35-135 3.5-4.5 which if modernized could be perfect, anyone got experience with this lens? I might get it anyway as they're so cheep used right now, if it turned out to be a doorstop, I could use it for that purpose and not have over spent.

@Eric: We've talked about it before, the sigma 50-150 is about the perfect lens (for DX, great size, nice handling). I'm actually hoping that there's some old film lenses out there that might be gems in the rough.

--------

@Joe -- Can I call you joe? Snark in my experience is best when it's "over the top in both quantity and tone", otherwise a lot of folks won't get that i'm being intentionally ridiculous, farcical, whimsical, sarcastic and goofy... most often cutting right past that and assuming that I'm an A-hole. (which is also pretty much true... but hey it pays the bills...)

February 11, 2010

Since apparently last time I didn't provide enough information to garner even a single suggestion, I will try in this post to be more complete. I apologize if it's a long post, but I want to make sure that folks have all the information they feel they need to offer a suggestion.

WHAT I WANT A really, really fast focusing lens, somewhere around 100mm, but anything between 50-150mm would be fine. I'm willing to entertain both primes and zooms. I ask because how fast a lens focuses is not a data-point most reviewers capture scientifically, other than, "seems fast to me". Though a f2.8 or better lens is preferable, I'm willing to sacrifice a 1-1.5 stops for focus speed, since the bodies I'll be using them on produce reasonable results at "high" ISO.

WHAT I'LL BE USING IT ON Usually on my D700; sometimes on a backup D300 body. Both bodies are well configured, and I have a reasonable technical knowledge of each, including how to set up 3d tracking continuous servo focus. I also know that if I don't set these up correctly it can cause abnormal focus hunting in challenging lighting conditions. I generally set up the camera appropriate to the conditions of the subject. I frequently use focus tracking, because, well, folks move. However, they are not usually camouflaged, or using “Predator-Like” cloaking shields. I almost always use point focus.

WHERE I'LL BE USING IT I'm what you wanna call a columnist (with a highly under-paid editor, as I'm sure having said that, someone, somewhere will find some grammatical, punctuation, or spelling error in this post, as use the previous as a reason to "ping" me. All I can say there is: dude, congrats on memorizing the Chicago Manual of Style... I'm sure it will come in handy). I bring that up, only because, well, magazines and blogs and such that I write for don't like paying photographers any more than anyone else does anymore. As such, I often have to shoot my own art. This means IQ is relatively important. I usually take photographs of people doing things that people do (eating, drinking, dancing, glaring at me suspiciously, coming over getting ready to hit me, and in general carousing in circumstances where I have little to no control over lighting).

Now, I tried getting me one of those fancy-schmancy mini-LED flashlights --the kind cops use to burn out the retina of kids caught making out-- but when I use that to try and help the lens focus it irritates the natives. Flashes also tend to disturb my subjects, causing me to not be able to capture them authentically in their natural habitat (and sometimes gets me kicked out of said venues). That said, I have been known to keep a PW'd speedlite in my pocket just in case.

I have considered the 80-200 AF-D, but find that lens to be too large and mostly useful as a battering ram. I have also been known to take pictures of my kids, who, when I grab my camera, seem to suspect I’ve metamorphosed into some kind of alien paparazzi as they regard me with equal parts curiosity and fear & suspicion.

In almost all circumstances I’ll be shooting human moving subjects indoors in available light from 10 feet or less away. My current preferred lens is the AF-D 50 1.4, and I find it slow-ish. I’ve tried the new AF-S version of that glass to no great improvement.

BUDGET Up to 1K I'm fine with good used glass, so out of circulation lenses like the AF-S 24-85 (which I just bought) are options.

WHAT I'LL BE WEARING. I generally prefer to dress similarly to the natives, finding it easier to fit in. I have considered wearing a tinfoil suit as a means to direct more light to my subjects, but that usually just gets me kicked out of where ever I might be going including my own living room. Though I will say that the children do seem to be enthralled when “Daddy wears his crazy hat”, I preserve that mostly to keep the CIA from reading my brainwaves. I will say this, though, on the completely irrelevant subject of attire, suits are underrated. Not only will they gain you entry to just about everywhere, but are highly mobile and flexible attire, and when worn with boxer shorts provide the kind of “freedom” that can ordinarily only be gained while shooting nude.

WHAT WE’LL BE HAVING FOR DINNER. I am explicitly forbidden from having a camera with me while at family dinner, though this is one of the rare shooting opportunities when the kids are locked down in their chairs like death row inmates at Sing-Sing. When shooting folks other than my children, I’m generally not permitted to eat either, though I often stuff my pockets with hors d’oeuvres and Kashi trail mix bars. I find the weather sealing of the D700 to be sufficient to protect it from most of the foods I eat or spill on it, and I understand that dipping a lens in a fruit smoothie might effect focusing performance, I promise to be careful so we shouldn’t consider these possibilities when making recommendations.

My favorite food is macaroni and cheese, preferably from Twin Peaks.

WHERE WE’LL BE SLEEPING Having spent five years of my life wearing green and living in a muddy hole in the ground, I refuse to sleep anywhere other than a hotel anymore. Me and my gear, while not pampered, are usually protected from the elements. Though I have to say that some of the Parsian hotels I’ve stayed in lack sufficient climate control to ensure a completely consistent humidity and temperature. Nevertheless, from my research, they are well within the operating limits of most modern camera gear.

WHO WILL BE JOINING US There is this smoking hot girl (waitress at the afore-mentioned Twin Peaks) that I’d love to hire as an assistant, but the wife objects due to her lack of qualifications. Also, since we travel on a tight budget, its usually just me. I do drink a lot though, so we should factor in the ability to operate while impaired, as well as resistance to drops, spills and such.

IN THE EVENT OF AN OUTBREAK OF ZOMBIE-ISM I will be locked in my saferoom, with an AK, and .45 USP. In the event that those break down, or I run out of ammo, it would be nice to have a lens that could be used as a blunt-force weapon. I will, however, otherwise, not be engaging in photography, instead I’ll focus on surviving as long as I can until the National Guard arrives. I will leave the Pulitzer opportunities to you. That said, opportunitistically, I might take a photograph or two, though I suspect any lens recommendation will do as most zombies are slow moving and not photo-shy (except those fast moving ones from 28 Days later – I hate those).

February 10, 2010

@Raymond: I'd shoot my dog for an 85 f1.4 or f1.8 AF-S... though I'll tell ya, I got the 50 1.4 AF-S it was not any faster (focusing) than the regular old AF-D version. I wonder if the any theoretical 85mm AF-S would be faster focusing with a SWM?

@John: thanks for the reality check. I guess I'd hoped that folks would make certain inferences from my OP like:

Geeze, he says he's got 2 screwdriver lenses, he probably has a body that can focus with one. He asked for something close to 100mm, so it' doesn't matter if it's FX or DX, since the OP knows what focal length he wants and is probably accounting for the crop-factor, if there is one.

And of course the OP did say he wanted a fast-focusing lens for available light (but was willing to give up a stop or two), so he's probably photographing moving subjects. Maybe kids, maybe dogs, maybe adolescent velociraptors? Is it relevant?

Now I know that here is a difference in how fast the screw-driver turns between bodies like the D90 and the D700, so that might be relevant, but not, if (as chances are) the fastest sub-thousand-dollar lens you can buy is an AF-S.

Now, I'm neither new here, nor altogether ignorant of the technology of photography. And was merely trying to seek the opinions of trusted friends and peers, as I tried to fill out my kit. Imagine my frustration if I WERE NEW HERE, and we'd gone 16 posts and still , nobody has offered up a suggestion (other than that perhaps I'm both impatient and stupid for failing to provide exact details on everything I own, circumstances of use, and configuration).

February 9, 2010

@Keith, yes.

@ Everyone else... you know I love photo.net... but It's becoming real, real apparent why folks suggest this site is in decline, if one can't ask a question like:

"Whats the fastest focusing lens between 50-150mm, for under 1K new or used"

and not get a single lens recomendation, but get 12 more questions back.

Forget it. I quit.

I just bought a used AF-S 24-85 3.5-4.5 I'll let YOU guys know how fast it is when I get it.

February 9, 2010

Sorry, the body is a D700. the ideal focal length as I said in the OP as 100mm though anything in the 50-150 range would work fine. Subjects will be people, moving in available light.

prioritizing my wish-list:

1) Focusing Speed

2) Image quality

3) Aperture Speed

4) Handling / Size (being able to move in and out of people without bashing them in the head as one would with the 70/80-200 f2.8 lenses

5) Price. (that said, it needs to be <1K. but I'm also okay with buying used glass).

-----------

@Dennis: I'm very happy with my sigma, it is VERY VERY sharp. but it focuses VERY SLOWLY, often hunting when I'm using another other than matrix mode, and for some reason, the images it seems to produce lack "pop" Don't know if it's contrast, color rendition, or what, but subjectively, I've got a nikon 28-200 that crosses its focal range, and that glass seems to produce better "looking" images, in situations where low-light isn't a problem.

February 8, 2010

All--

I'm looking for a VERY VERY fast focusing lens, key here is focus and focus tracking speed. While I'd prefer a f2.8 or faster aperture, a variable f3.5-4.5 would work as well.

lens will be used primarily in available light, candid, situations, so handling is important.

Ideally, I'm looking for something around 100mm but anything zoom or prime between 50-150 would work.

-------

what I've tried. 50 f1.4 both AF-D and AF-S. this is my main lens, which I love neither focus particularly fast for my purposes.

sigma 28-70 f2.8. Also nice, but slow focusing. optics are a bit less than what I'd like.

------

I'm looking for something at or under 1K. I've thought about the AF-S and AF-D 80-200, which are way bigger than I'd like, and I don't know how fast they focus.

thoughts?

Thanks

Leigh

October 6, 2009

I do carry mine slung across the chest, lens pointed down to the ground. Using my blackrapid sling, I can very easily bring the camera back up to shooting position, which is I believe the heart of the OPs question.

With a traditional neck strap this is difficult to impossible. You need a sling like the black rapid.

September 28, 2009

quick tip:

Don't put a battery in the camera body. Its a pain in the @ss to have to pull the grip off every time to change it. Just use 8 AA NiMH batteries in the grip. I shot over 1000 pictures on one charge of the Energizer 2500s plus then, your flash & camera only use one type of batteries. thus only one type of charger, and one set of spares...

September 17, 2009

@eric, I liked the last one Urban Industrial 4... it think the near split toning of the image adds greater depth than BW alone. it's very very easy for regular BW images to go 2D. Where capturing a gothic mood, you need a bit of color or light to offset and make the shadows more dark than black by comparison giving the image greater scale...

I'm probably not explaining my thoughts very well (hungover)... I like number four.

September 16, 2009

FWIW, I'd crop it tight, and consider color. In color the Aqua on the boxes will stand out and draw attention, as will the sweat on his face if cropped tight, with it in the upper left third and the water boxes close to the bottom right third.

September 8, 2009

I've got this lens (non HSM and a D700), Picked it up for $200 on ebay. I like it a lot, it's good glass.

August 27, 2009

Hi,

I'm in the market for a new printer, I need a MFC type printer (printer, fax, copier, scanner), and it can't be an inkjet.

I've seen good things about the minoltas, and the xerox solid ink printers. canon is comming out with a couple of printers that look real nice.

The printer will be used 80% for office work, only 20% for photography, hence the requirement for a laser.

Just looking for something that's "pretty good" for photography for personal use, I will obviously still get my official prints printed at a lab.

I've heard good things about the minolta's but their MFC models don't seem to have the same resolution as their stand alones, Canon is coming out with a couple of new printers that might be real nice. Similarly i have a xerox solid ink printer at work that produces a "pretty good" image.

Advice anyone?

August 26, 2009

totally off topic, (on account of my not giving a sh*t about the 60's, kent state, or old hippie photogs, after having fought Regan's covert central American wars in the 80s'), but Eric that middle shortie in your Ethiopia pic, he's got that look in his eye, it stops you cold.

it's that look right there that keeps me a confirmed liberal... how many die in south central, oakland, south east, or whatever hood, who really could'a been someone who changed the world, but were denied that because of the circumstances of their birth.

And the fire in that kid's eye, reveals the possibility of truths that he world will be sorry to never learn.

To the OP: capturing an image the speaks to someone like that, totally spontaneously, in the moment, I think it what street is about.

August 26, 2009

Eric paraphrasing and satirizing JC's posts: " ...i've been to europe three million times, i shot the Crimean war..."

</blockquote>

Seriously dude... thank you... not only was that my best laugh of the morning, but I projectile shot coffee all over the keyboard of my MB pro... which I guess means I have a reason to upgrade!

The unfortunate thing is that John C has shot some pretty swell street pictures, but long ass monologues detract from what he might actually be able to share.

Of course my big take away looking at his portfolio is that apparently if I call it "fine art" I can take pictures of naked girls... I'm totally gonna try that on this waitress I know --I'll get back with you on my results.

----------

© 2009 Leigh McMullen - Some rights reserved, but of course not 'all rights' if I tried to reserve ALL rights that would put me into some sort of legal twilight zone because pressing the 'submit' button tacitly grants this site (for example) perpetual world-wide publication rights... And then there's the question of Google... and does indexing, searching, and republishing excerpts surrounded by their ads, constitute fair use...

Ahh effit, lets just say "(cc) licensed, some rights reserved."

I feel better.

August 21, 2009

i'd go the extra distance and as eric suggests get a f1.4 lens.

the 50 f1.5 is my favorite on FX (roughly equal to eric's sigma 30 f1.4 on DX)<div></div>

August 17, 2009

I use the select-focus / auto tracking feature ALL THE TIME...

you can follow as the focus point changes as (for example) a football player is moving down field, and if the stupid AI decides to change the FP to his shirt sleeve or something, you just kinda nudge the camera back up to his face, where it will re-lock, then you can recompose, and open the shutter when you've got that magic moment framed --all that's done in a second or two, with the shutter release half pressed.

I use that all the time, and it can really save your bacon, especially on action shots where you might have selected a shallower DOF to add drama, and I can make sure that what I want to be in focus is.

August 16, 2009

Roy,

I think I may understand your question. you're asking why the camera doesn't tell you which focus point it's using when you're 51 point AF with 3d tracking?

try this:

Make sure the focus selector switch is in the middle position which allows you to select your focus point (from the 51 available points) rather than having the camera select it for you. Now you can use the dpad to move your focus point around, now with Servo Focus on, you can see which point the focus is tracking.

Does this help?

L

August 14, 2009

It's worth adding that in just a short time you'll be able to pick up a D300 for a song, a camera which beat hands down, any of the sonys on any point, AF, ISO, build quality, weatherproofing, etc...

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by leighmcmullen