sweeterimage

<p>I have read a number of shining reviews on this lens. At less than $200, it almost sounds too good to be true.<br>

I read that it has excellent bokeh, good width, great low light performance, and fast autofocus. Surely there are some cons to this lens.<br>

Anyone?<br>

I would be using it with a D300.</p>

<p>Fred,</p>

<p>If you're looking for honest, objective criticism, lumping everything under one heading is not the way to go. Leigh isn't interested in portraits, so if you force her to look at them in order to get to what she wants to see, you are not going to get a very objective critique or rating.</p>

<p>I have no interest in nature photography, other than as a curiosity. I'm not interested in, and don't really know a lot about the subtle nuances of macro photography. If you photographed insects, would you expect me to give you an objective critique? "Oh, it's a picture of a bug. Next."</p>

<p>Or even a style modifier. Definitely a good idea.</p>

<p>A photo of the Grand Canyon in someone's best Ansel Adams style and a tone-mapped HDR image of the same view are both landscapes, but they are completely different styles and techniques. Someone who really loves Ansel Adams knock-offs would be negatively inclined toward the HDR and vice versa. A style/technique modifier would say, "Hey Ansel Adams loving guy. This is an HDR image and you probably aren't going to like it." The artist/photographer then gets a much more objective rating/critique.</p>

<p>I like it.</p>

<p>We already have a digital alteration category, but the site rules don't allow nudity in there. As you say, and as I said, in different terms, it has a completely different agenda. So are digital alterations that contain nudity to be critiqued in the same category as glamour, other art, or fashion, simply because they contain nudity? That would be like saying that the astronomy and underwater photos should be thrown into the nature category simply because they involve an aspect of nature. In fact, we should just do away with any category involving nature and toss all of the bug, flower and bird photos in with the landscape, astronomy and underwater photos. Entropy will lead us to a single "Pictures" category.</p>

<p>Anyway, I've jabbered on about this long enough. Hopefully my suggestion will merit consideration.</p>

<p>One of the biggest problems I run across is categorization of art and digitally altered photos with nudity. Much of what you find on the nude forum falls in the general category of glamour/fashion/portrait, but much of it very definitely doesn't fit.</p>

<p>A combined image that happens to have nudity should be critiqued as a combined image or a digital alteration, not as a nude. The photo is not about nudity, as is the case with glamour or fashion. The nude figure is just an element of the image. The same goes with the classic art poses and bodyscapes. While nudity is the key feature of an art photo or a bodyscape, the idea isn't to see a pretty girl who is naked, the idea is the appreciation of form and lighting.</p>

<p>On the flip side of the coin, if someone posts in the art category a nude that is obviously glamour or one that is obviously prurient, critics can judge it accordingly (not saying that art can't be prurient, but that's up to the audience to decide).</p>

<p>I think roll your own categories would quickly get out of hand, but I do like the idea of a place for a user-defined sub-category. Then if someone completely mis-categorizes it, the problem is all theirs. That being said, I still believe we need at least two nude major categories.</p>

<p>It's probably no worse than the gripe-fests that might come up in the nature forum. "Why didn't you post this in insects?" I've actually seen non-nudes posted in the nude category, and people didn't get into a slug-fest over it. It was just (politely) mentioned that the photo was in the wrong category. I have seen some people get their drawers in a serious twist over nudes in non-nude categories, but that's understandable.</p>

<p>Lumping all of the nude photos under one category doesn't seem helpful or fair to those who produce work containing nudes. There is as much variety in nude photography as there is in any other form of people photography.</p>

<p>I have mentioned categories before, and I mostly got responses indicating they don't really matter, but I beg to differ. If they don't matter, why are there separate nature, flowers, insects, and birds categories? Why not lump everything under nature? I also see many comments regarding whether or not the photo is in the right category. I can promise you that I would get a substantial amount of negative feedback if I was to post a glamour photo in the flowers category.</p>

<p>At a minimum, I would suggest a "Glamour/Fashion Nudes" category and an "Art Nudes" category. As I have mentioned before, glamour and fashion are two very different styles, but I'm not going to press my luck. I'm not suggesting an out-of-control propagation of nude categories, just a little differentiation.</p>

<p>Thoughts?</p>

<p>Sorry guys, but in the composite I posted, the contrast difference in the f/5.6 shot compared to the f/4 and f/8 shots is painfully obvious. There is a visual exposure difference, even if it isn't evident from the histogram, but it isn't enough to account for the difference in contrast. There may be a problem with the aperture blades at that setting, but I suspect the contrast issue has more to do with the perfect storm of lens, sensor and aperture. As I said, I guess I need to just stay away from that aperture range when contrast is important. Meanwhile, I'll start looking for a new lens in that focal range. Thanks for the responses.</p>

<p>The histogram is nearly identical on all three exposures. As far as I can tell, the f/5.6 shot is not underexposed. If anything, the f/4 and f/8 shots are a bit overexposed.<br>

In any case, I have noticed that just about every shot I have taken between f/5 and f/6.3 has contrast issues. As someone else mentioned, I can just avoid those apertures, but it severely limits my range with that lens.</p>

<p>This should make it a little more obvious. The exposures are, left to right, f/4, f/5.6, f/8.</p><div></div>

<p>f/8</p><div></div>

<p>f/5.6</p><div></div>

<p>I didn't see anything suspicious. The aperture blades seem to move smoothly and I didn't see any obvious lens aberrations. Here are the photos. I have had to compress them for upload, so the contrast loss isn't anywhere near as noticeable.</p>

<div></div>

<p>I didn't see anything suspicious. The aperture blades seem to move smoothly and I didn't see any obvious lens aberrations. Here are the photos. I have had to compress them for upload, so the contrast loss isn't anywhere near as noticeable.</p>

 

<p>I use a Nikon D300 with a Tamron 28-75 mm, f/2.8 lens. Except for the minor annoyance of the noisy AF motor, I really like it. However, I have noticed a distinct loss of contrast at f/5.6. I verified this with an aperture test. The loss is about 5%, judging from the raw file sizes. The images are exposed just fine, according to the histogram, but they are noticeably darker and flatter when compared to exposures at f/4 and f/8. It's not the body, because my long Sigma lens is just fine at that stop. <br /><br />Has anyone else noticed this?</p>

<p>The non-OS version is $800 at Amazon. The OS version is $1400. I just picked up a non-OS version for $590 on eBay. Since most of what I do will be in the 85 to 135mm range, and considering the price, I think the two of us will be very happy together.</p>

<p>Thanks, Shun.<br>

Are there any other differences between the last two generations? I think optical stabilization is great, but I have a hard time convincing myself that it is worth an extra $600.</p>

<p>There seems to be two generations of the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 lens. How do you tell the difference, and what makes the newer generation worth almost twice the cost?</p>

<p>Shun,<br>

The impending demise of the 4/3 system is one of the reasons I am considering a move to Nikon. The other is the inconsistent AF in the E-Volt line.</p>

<p>I've been looking, with lust in my heart, at the 135mm f/2 and 105mm f/2 lenses, but the best price I can find is close to what I would be paying for just the D300. I have run across a Sigma 20-70mm f/2.8 that seems nice. It's a little short for portrait work, so I might keep looking around. The difference between what I would pay for each body is not enough to get really killer glass. But saving a bit in order to get better glass is definitely part of my consideration.</p>

<p>I've been an Olympus shooter since I bought an OM-1 back in 1977. I currently shoot with an E510. For a couple of reasons, I have decided to venture into Nikon territory. I've always had a high opinion of Nikon cameras and Nikkor glass.<br>

I have an opportunity to pick up both a D90 and a D300 for reasonable prices. I can't afford both, so I have to decide on one. The D300 is more expensive, but not out of my budget. I'm looking for suggestions on which I should get. I know a lot of it is very subjective, so I'd appreciate hearing pros and cons of each. I mostly shoot models and portraits. I'm also planning to branch out into small weddings and events.<br>

Thanks in advance for your help.</p>

<p>Actually, the original reference I made to fill lighting was outdoor. It works much better than a flash head by itself. The fill is much more evenly distributed.<br>

I tried it for fill in the studio this weekend. I can't say I was impressed with the result. I was not shooting through the Orbis, so that might be part of the problem. I was shooting on a close axis, but no matter where I placed it, I got annoying, unwanted shadows. However, purely for fill lighting, it still did a great job. I will just need to remember that I need to use high key background lighting or shoot on a very dark background.<br>

By the way, Christopher, your still-life is wonderful.</p>

<p>Russ,</p>

<p>Agreed, but I have seen full and 3/4 body portraits by photographers who claim to have used an Orbis ring flash. If anything, the lighting was a bit on the flat side. I have to believe that there were at least two reflectors used (and not mentioned) or the photo was heavily retouched.</p>

<p>Scott,</p>

<p>Thanks. I'll check it out.</p>

<p>That's one of the reasons I'm not thrilled with it for portraits. It produces a very noticeable shadow if the subject is more than a couple of feet from the lens. It is great for closeup headshots, but that's about it. I've never been able to reproduce some of the full body portraits that I've seen that used a ring flash.<br>

Orbis recommends using it for off-camera fill in their documentation. It seemed a little odd to me too, but I decided to give it a shot (pardon the pun). The same "light everywhere" effect works off-camera as well, giving you great full body fill outdoors.</p>

<p>I recently started using an Orbis ring flash. I have mixed feelings about it for portraits, but I used it on my last shoot for outdoor fill. I couldn't be happier. It is very forgiving, and if you can get a helper to hold it about two feet from the camera, a lot of different fill lighting can be accomplished. I have never had this much luck with any other hotshoe flash modifier. I was wondering if anyone else had a similar experience.</p>