Photography Shoutbox
- Thread starter Dinzdale40
- Start date
Up where?D1GP pics are up, now to start editing the ones from tonight's model shoot....
ryan s
they dont think it
i liked what i saw on the net with tmax 400 pushed to 1600 developed in dd-x so i thought id give it a shot. i'm going to try (almost) every b&w film under $5 per roll hopefully by the end of summer...as long as it doesnt need a special developer, like kodak used to recommend with tmax films.
definitely post your results from the 100...this might be a good film to pull 1 or 2 stops (to ISO 50 or 25). i think i'm going to pull one roll of ilford fp4+ 125 to 50 and see what happens...it's rated as a 100/125 so 1 full stop should be ok...
Anyone read anything on the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 lens? It's a pseudo macro lens, so I suppose some nice shots could come about with it.
It can be found for a lottttt cheaper than the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 and the f/2.8L IS.
Is it worth the couple hundred dollars though is what I'm wondering.
It can be found for a lottttt cheaper than the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 and the f/2.8L IS.
Is it worth the couple hundred dollars though is what I'm wondering.
hiddengamer7
Well-Known Member
I've shot with it and wasnt that impressed, but overall, it wasnt bad. I really like the af/mf clutch thing, it makes switching between the two easy since it doesnt have a full time manual focusing system. The build quality was OK, but nothing spectacular, and the images were nice, but not as sharp as, say, a 70-200 F4L.
Final opinion, if you need the extra stop of light, its a winner, but if overall image quality is more important, go with the (slightly) cheaper L.
Final opinion, if you need the extra stop of light, its a winner, but if overall image quality is more important, go with the (slightly) cheaper L.
Well it won't be as sharp as the F4L, what about the f/2.8L or f/2.8L IS?
hiddengamer7
Well-Known Member
I've heard that it isn't quite as sharp as the F2.8L or the IS version and in my experience, it doesnt come very close.
ryan s
they dont think it
is the extra size/weight of the 2.8 lens worth carrying around all day? extra cost vs f/4 worth it? are your settings maxed out at f/4 and still not enough light? is 200mm long enough/too long? would a 85/2 or 1.4 or 135/2 or 200/2.8 be good enough? etc
those are the first questions to ask...cause i know i use zooms either all the way in or out...rarely in between. so to get speed (as a side effect) i just use primes.
2.8 lenses arent "ZomG sharp" at 2.8...most zooms arent terrific wide open.
and i dont buy into the whole "i can get a tamron/sigma for $xxx and its more lens" thinger. true that tamron has designed some lenses that pentax licensed...like the pointless 18-250...but those are the ones i dont own oem all the way. i have one vintage tamron SP (from the days when SP was king...before L, before G, before *), one vivitar that was my dads, and one sears (rikenon) lens. the rest are pentax and i like it oh and one zoom.
those are the first questions to ask...cause i know i use zooms either all the way in or out...rarely in between. so to get speed (as a side effect) i just use primes.
2.8 lenses arent "ZomG sharp" at 2.8...most zooms arent terrific wide open.
and i dont buy into the whole "i can get a tamron/sigma for $xxx and its more lens" thinger. true that tamron has designed some lenses that pentax licensed...like the pointless 18-250...but those are the ones i dont own
oem all the way. i have one vintage tamron SP (from the days when SP was king...before L, before G, before *), one vivitar that was my dads, and one sears (rikenon) lens. the rest are pentax and i like it oh and one zoom.
fastflyinaccord
Well-Known Member
hey guys i have never used uv filters before but after seeing some of my pics from vacation i def need some. can anyone recommend a good set for the d60?
