Jump to content

The Official Head-Case Photography Thread.


Knuckledragger

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by shellylh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by shellylh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 />

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

 

i-H4wVTnn-L.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.