The Official Head-Case Photography Thread.

[n_maher]

What AF setting are you running Dinny?

[The Monkey]

To be honest, I've experimented with all of them. Haven't found one that I love. I find that it often hunts a bit more than I like.

[Knuckledragger]

How are Nikon bodies with AF beams? My ancient 30D (and even more ancient 5D) hunt horribly in bad lighting, but I use my 580EX speedlite's AF-assist beam virtually all the time. In Canon-speak that means turning on the flash but disabling it from firing. I'm sure there's a similar arrangement for a Nikon. Of course this entails buying a speedlite, but eventually every photographer needs one of them anyway.

[Iron_Dreamer]

How are Nikon bodies with AF beams? My ancient 30D (and even more ancient 5D) hunt horribly in bad lighting, but I use my 580EX speedlite's AF-assist beam virtually all the time. In Canon-speak that means turning on the flash but disabling it from firing. I'm sure there's a similar arrangement for a Nikon. Of course this entails buying a speedlite, but eventually every photographer needs one of them anyway.

Ever since moving to the CAM3500 51-point system in the D700, I've had no need to use an AF beam. Unless the light is so low that a long exposure is needed (and MF is mandatory), AF is fine to get a lock without the assist beam (unless your target has no contrast) on the D700 and D800.

[shellylh]

I am going to buy the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 (I was going to get the Nikon 17-55mm but decided against it because of its size and I think the Sigma will be almost as good).  I have always bought B&W MRC filters for almost all my other lenses but I am wondering if I should really be using a filter (since I keep a lens cap on the lens unless I am shooting).  

 

Filter or no filter? What do you do and why?  

 

Not counting polarizing or special filters, just everyday UV filters. 

Edited December 2, 2012 by shellylh

[Salt Peanuts]

I always have a UV filter on (B&W MRC, for the most part) and usually lens hood as well on the basis that filters/hoods are much cheaper to replace than my lenses.

[nikongod]

I think you mentioned elsewhere that you would be shooting your very young relatives with this setup. Anything to keep dirty little hands away from the front elements of my lenses is worth it.

I'm hopelessly frugal, so would go for a Tiffen UV filter, but whatever.

[Knuckledragger]

A surprisingly in-depth review.

[shellylh]

I think you mentioned elsewhere that you would be shooting your very young relatives with this setup. Anything to keep dirty little hands away from the front elements of my lenses is worth it.

I'm hopelessly frugal, so would go for a Tiffen UV filter, but whatever.

 

Indeed, I did.  I think I will go ahead and get a filter.  I figure that it can't mess up my pictures too much and it is better safe than sorry. 

[falkon]

Why not the Tamron 17-50?  Better optics than the sigma, especially the non-VC version.

[nikongod]

Does anyone want a 14mmF2.8 Rokinon (Samyang) lens? 

It may be a little too hardcore for me on fullframe, but I really liked it on APS-c.

 

Check out some crazytoast photos people have taken with it here... 

 

http://www.flickr.com/groups/14/

[VPI]

I really enjoyed that lens.  When did you get a full frame Ari?

[nikongod]

D700, came yesterday  

 

I had put it on an old film body a while ago and just giggled at how insanely wide it is. Actually shooting it very clearly shows how unworthy I am. 

 

I'm going to spend some more time trying to get used to the lens, but I'm already really comfy with 21mm. Since this lens has a 21mmFOV on APSc it was perfect on my old camera. 

[VPI]

Awesome.  I wish I was still up there so we could go shooting.

[shellylh]

Why not the Tamron 17-50?  Better optics than the sigma, especially the non-VC version.

 

That seems to be the consensus.  However, I was mainly concerned with noisy AF and hunting on the Tamron.  Also, I thought the VR on the Sigma might be useful. The difference in picture quality didn't sound all that much.  If I am not happy with the Sigma, I will probably return it and try out the Tamron non-VC. 

 

By the way, since people seem to have problems with Sigma lenses, I would like to do some tests when I get it so I can return it if it's not functioning properly.  Is there a good site that explains what and how to test a lens (for AF, etc.) when you get it? 

[crappyjones123]

http://cameralightlens.com/newsblog/?p=264

Shelly, that's what I used prior to returning my sigma lens.

[Iron_Dreamer]

The only filters I use are polarizers and ND's. I might use a UV filter to keep sea spray off the front element if I was shooting at the beach, and not using any filters for effects, but I pretty much always am. UV filters for "protection" is for the most part a scam, IMO. I've seen more cases where the a broken filter has scratched lens' front element and required it to be replaced, than I have a UV filter "saving" a lens.

[shellylh]

Thanks for the link Crappy. 

 

@Peter:  Do you think it is useful to have a filter in a really dusty or windy environment or around little kids or should I just send back the UV filter altogether?  

 

Edit:   I guess you do a fair amount of shooting at the beach and don't use filters so maybe I have answered my own question. 

Edited December 4, 2012 by shellylh

[Duggeh]

I don't think I've posted photos in this thread before, but I'm enjoying this X100 more all the time. Couple of the snaps I took on a beach walk on Sunday.





 

[Iron_Dreamer]

I've never seen dust damage the front element of a lens. Perhaps if you were out shooting in a sandstorm, it might be another matter. Unless you see yourself doing a bunch of shooting in sandstorms, or at the beach (while not using any effects filters) the UV filter isn't worth it IMO.<br /><br />When I shoot at the beach, I'm almost always using a polarizer to cut reflections and deepen colors and/or an ND filter to slow shutter speed. If for some reason I wanted to do a bunch of shooting at the beach without either, I might consider a UV filter to keep the sea spray off. That's what I meant earlier.<br /><br />

[shellylh]

I tend to stay out of sandstorms if I can help it.     I didn't think about the polarizing filter at the beach.  I would probably be using one there.

[dsavitsk]

Links to lots of "Best Photos of the Year" lists at http://kottke.org/12/12/the-best-photos-of-2012

[padam]

 

Hand-held, MF focus wide open, first try.

[nikongod]

Very nice! 

I now want to do something like that with my headphones. 

 

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lord_nikon_12/8247814113/'>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lord_nikon_12/8247814113/'>Sunrise over GWB by http://www.flickr.com/people/lord_nikon_12/'>Lord Nikon 12, on Flickr

[shellylh]

Got the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8yesterday.  Loving it so far.  I haven't done any tests but it seems to focus ok.  I'll have to look at the typical problems that the Sigma's have so I can check that this one is a good copy.  It is pretty large already (especially since I've been mostly using the Nikon 35mm DX lately).  Glad I didn't get the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 now, since it would have seemed huge.  

 

Crappy cell phone pic: