cristian_a

<p> I was looking about info on night photography lenses and all the results were from 2006/2007 or before so i decided to ask this again, maybe i can find some fresh info.</p>

<p> So what i want to know is which lenses are better suited for night photography? I'm more interested about long exposure than taking photos of moving object in low light, and i read that primes are recomended for this task, but i want something wider and good wide primes are expensive so i was curious what other people use... or recomend...</p>

<p>I did some shots with my 50mm 1.8 but on a D90 i find it too narow, it always leaves me wanting to get more in the picture and sometimes no matter how much you "zoom with your feet" it's still not the same as having a wider lens.<br>

And how much does it count for the lens to have a smaller aperture ? i mean if it counts that it can go up to f32 so you can expose more... </p>

<p>C.P.M. van het Kaar as a matter of fact i did have a uv filter on...<br>

matt thanks for the insight, i'll take it into consideration next time.</p>

 

<p>I was in the mountains this weekend and i was trying to do some pictures while there, but somehow in a few of them appears a purple dot right in the middle, at first i thought it is because the viewfinder wasn't covered and light was getting in through there like in long exposure at night, but then i covered it with something and it still showed and at 1/80s i think it shouldn't show anyway... i'll attach 2 pics to see what i'm blabering about http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/8788/085.jpg http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/6162/130w.jpg<br>

So any ideas why they came out like that? </p>

<p>i actually have that :) i got it cause i wanted something easy that i can take with my bike or just walking and not having to carry too much... and it looked so nifty in the movie :D</p>

<p>i own a nikon D90 and i have to say the first few times i put it on i didn't step more that a meter away from the tripod :) it's not that stable and the legs move individually, and if you're not careful you just might smash your camera with this, even now after 4-5 months since i got it i still sometimes keep the camera "<em>belt</em>"(can't remember the english word) in my hand while shooting with the remote.</p>

<p>now after using it a few times i have to say on one hand is nice to carry around it's half as heavy as the d90 and if put on solid ground is quite decent and actually can be used as a monopod too... this is something definetly not for clumsy people or for people with heavy or expensive equipment, i think the maximum load is around 1,5 kg (3pounds).</p>

<p>i have to say this is something for people that travel with their cameras all the time and you never know when you find something worth shooting but you have nothing to hold the camera.</p>

<p>I know this has been asked before by other people but i'll ask again, what serious photo dealers are in EU ?<br>

i don't really care about the country if the retailer is serious...<br>

I wanted to buy something from bhphoto or adorama but with the VAT and taxes it's not such a big deal buying from the US, so i figured if i'm in EU there aren't so many taxes between member countries so maybe i can find a good deal here but i don't know where to look...<br>

if you can provide a link to the site i'd be grateful :)<br>

thanks in advance.</p>

<p>I was browsing the other day on the net for a new lens and i stumbled upon the Tokina 12-24 <em>f4 pro DX autofocus</em> and the <em> Tokina 12-24 </em><em>f4 pro DXII autofocus </em>and from what i googled about it i saw that the only diference is the built in motor for the d5000/d3000 cameras and i was wandering is there any reason that i should get the DX II if i own a D90? i mean is there anything in the lens (iq or something?) that would justify in my case the extra 100$?<br /> thanks in advance.</p>

<p>so basicaly a 400mm would have that image view from 250 feet?</p>

 

<p>that's not really what i was wondering:) what i want to know is for example peter how close did the lens reaches i mean when you look at the animal or whatever you are shooting, if you have the 200mm does it fill a half the picture from 10meters or from 20 meters ?<br>

lets say you are shooting a horse that's not moving, with the 200mm you should be at what distance for it to look nice in the picture not too far not too close. :)</p>

<p>I was looking at today's pics on the front page and i started to ask myself how close would you have to be to get a nice looking photo with lets say a 70-200mm or a 100-300 to get something like http://www.photo.net/photo/6143610 or http://www.photo.net/photo/8098281 i saw that both are made with a 100-400mm lens, and i'm asking about closeness in meters/feet to the "target". (btw i know those might be cropped and that the whole picture is probably different.)</p>

<p>So anyone that owns tele lenses could tell me on a DX sensor camera with 1,5 magnification how close (the distance) does it gets you a 100mm, 200mm or 300m lens?</p>

 

<p>I was thinking of buying the tamron 17-50 and i was browsing reviews and i'm kinda confused, is there any difference in the optics quality between the old lens and the new one that has VC, and is it really necessary for the vc at this focal range?<br>

And also i would like to know can i get something better in this focal range but at around the same price?<br>

(If it helps, i have a d90)</p>

<p>thank you all for the info, i'll try some of this techniques myself and experiment, and thanks for the tips Lex, i'll try the gamma thing too and try to understand more.</p>

<p>I was always wondering how people make a black background in a nature photo while everything else looks colorfull, and today i saw the featured pictures and i decided to ask.<br>

So what i wonder is how you can manage to get this effect http://www.photo.net/photo/2785003, http://www.photo.net/photo/3182351, or

i mean the first two seems like the background is cropped out and the last two seem too soft to be burned around the main subject so how can this effect be achieved succesfully?</p>

<p>Ok so the question might seem odd but i just want to know if there is on the net somewhere something that can allow you to see the difference between lets say 10mm, 15mm, 20mm and 24mm or from 75mm and 90mm...<br>

I ask this because i didn't had the oportunity to use many lenses and i'm thinking of getting a wide lens but i'm not sure how wide is wide enough for me...</p>

<p>Ok so i got a D90 about 2 months ago and i got it with a simple 50mm f1.8 cause it was just about the time the 17-50mm tamron with VC came out and i kinda wanted to see some reviews of the new lens but i didn't seem to find much info about the new lens... so any of you have it or have used it?<br>

I would like some opinions about it or suggestion for a better alternative at a decent price.<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>Hello,</p>

<p>I would like if anyone knows or can guide me to some places where i could study photography, my main interests in photography are in the fields of photojournalism, documentary, nature and also advertising/commercial, i'm not much of a fashion photography fan but i don't exclude the possibilities.<br>

If anyone could give me a suggestion about some universities or something in this area to study and in a decent price range i would be very grateful. (preferably in Europe)</p>

<p>Thank you for your time.</p>

<p>maybe it's because Paris was always a place where all the artists were welcomed and found an atmosphere of appreciation, i don't think it's something special about Paris itself it's more of a place where people could get together and share info and probably allowed them to grow more and faster...</p>

<p>Yes, i lock it at f22 and it works fine thanks.</p>

<p>thank you all for the help :)</p>

<p>Ok so i have a D90 and a 50mm f1.8 mounted on and i tried to use manual aperture and focus but it doesn't let me shoot and gives an error on the small lcd saying FEE ...<br>

i know i'm suppose to lock the lens at f22 so it will take pics but i don't know why... well mainly i don't get if i can't use the aperture ring manualy what's the point on having it on the lens ...</p>

 

<p>I was about to order a D90 with a 16-85 vr lens and i saw at ken rockwell and other sites that the optic capabilities of the 18-55 is pretty much the same, the only drawback that every review keeps this lens down is the built quality.<br>

<br><br>

So i am here asking you what other differences except the built quality and the rotating lens is there?<br>

I mean i'm not going to use the lens to break rocks, i never dropped a camera before and i hope it stays that way, and i don't think i'll use other filters than an UV for protection.<br>

<br><br>

I ask you this because i like more the wide shots and i was thinking that with the money saved and a few extra in a month or so i could buy a 12-24 tokina or something.<br>

i don't really want to get the 18-105 vr or the 18-200 vr because i inted to buy somewhere in the near future the 70-300vr and i don't want to overlap too much.<br>

<br><br>

So basicaly i'm set on getting a wide lens 10/12- something and the 70-300, but now i need something for normal day to day use a <i>normal</i> range which i will probably use most of the time at first till i get the other 2 lenses. Is the 16-85 vr worth the extra bucks just for built quality and a little better performance in extreme situations?</p>

<p>thanks for the input guys, i think i'll stick to the 16-85 for now and i'll get the 12-24 tokina in a few months or so if i find that i will need even wider photos, those are really nice wide shots Eric :) thanks for sharing.</p>

 

<p>ok so if everyone agrees, is the 16-85mm worth so much, i mean it's a dx with f3.5-5.6 or i can get something better for this money? is the quality delivered worth it?</p>

<p>Ok so i keep wondering, i want to buy a nikon d90 and i'll have left around 500-600 euro for lenses, and since i like more wide shots than tele i was wondering about which lens to get?</p>

<p>i was thinking of getting the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 or the 12-24 f4 which i would complement with a 50mm 1.8 later so that i'll have something for portraits and things that need fast shutter... or the nikon 16-85mm vr which from the reviews seems to be the best dx lens.</p>

<p>the thing is that i look for something decently wide and sharpness + image quality, but also, having a lens that covers more ground is also a plus, not having to change the lens very often seems nice.</p>

<p>Do you know where i can see the differences between how wide is a lens at 12mm, 16mm, 24mm and so on except http://lens-reviews.com ?</p>

<p>And if it were up to you, which wide or wide to normal zoom would you get?<br>

btw i'm not looking to spend all the money if there is something cheaper that gives you sharpness and image quality i'm open for suggestions.<br>

thanks.</p>

<p>So as the title says i was wondering if you could share what is your most used lens and for what type of photography? Any extra information is welcomed :)</p>

<p>@ <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5227004">Mark Drutz</a> I understood what everyone was saying, that the 16-85 because of it's 3.5-5.6 range is not so good for things that need a fast shutter in low light and that the fixed 2.8 would be better for that.</p>

<p>I also noticed that i always wanted my photos to be wider but also i don't make too many night shots either, i think in average daylight even the 16-85 could freeze motion at around f8, wouldn't it?</p>

<p>My main concern is the quality of the image delivered, i'm considering giving a try to stock photography and why not starting doing serious things after i master the things better. I also know that for serious things i would need serious equipment but for now i think this is ok for my needs.<br>

So if you have other alternatives on the market in the 16-85 price range, this was my main question.</p>