The Official Photography Thread - Vol. 3

[mangudai954]

Originally Posted by qksLvrtypeS

e session yesterday. first go at it with the 7D.

c/c much appreciated

1

2

3

4

5

1 and 2 look somewhat forced and unnatural. I like 3. 4 looks manufactured(who puts their hand on the wall like that when they're being kissed?) as well but the DOF on the arm is kinda cool. 5 is meh. You've done better work..to me they dont look that comfortable like they weren't loosened up.

 

[dstylezs]

.... Click to view larger

 

[lokid40]

 

[poeticjays]

Hey guys i'd appreciate your opinions on this...

So i shoot with a Nikon d90 and a 18-200 lens most of the time when i travel (also have a 35mm prime, and the 11-16 tokina) but after coming back from my trip this year, I just feel like my pictures aren't that sharp and crisp.

i was doing some research and it seems like the 24-70 /f 2.8 is a great lens. Its pretty damn expensive though. Does anyone here shoot with that? if you do can you give me some perspective? i know its Fx and Dx capable so it would fit on the d90. Has anyone switched over from a semi-pro lens like the 18-200 and seen a dramatic difference in the pictures?

 

[jcinista]

EDIT......
my recent stuff.

without flash.

with speedlight.

 

[zion21]

Try getting a lens hood as well.

 

[jcinista]

Originally Posted by DJ bana

[color= rgb(0, 255, 255)]PEEP FLICKR FOR MORE - LINK IN THE SIG.[/color]

your stuff is dope, dj bana. love the colors on that garage door.

 

[luong1209]

lokiD40 - I love these type of photos, but the little blotch in the middle is quite distracting, same goes for the one in the clouds.

 

[jcinista]

www.gorgeouskillers.tumblr.com

I've been getting angry mail in my tumblbox every time I post this girl. :/

 

[lokid40]

Originally Posted by Luong1209

lokiD40 - I love these type of photos, but the little blotch in the middle is quite distracting, same goes for the one in the clouds.

i hear ya..thanks for the comment. damn glare!

 

[abstract success]

from a friends baby shower

​

 

[yallayalla]

vans by j.bringas, on Flickr


untitled by j.bringas, on Flickr


Main Building by j.bringas, on Flickr
22 pictures stitched together

 

[solemunchies]

Haven't posted in a while but I just did a mini shoot for my car this morning, enjoy:

 

[juggy4805]

Originally Posted by abstract success

from a friends baby shower

​

That second pic looks like a scene from saw.

 

[mangudai954]

Originally Posted by solemunchies

Haven't posted in a while but I just did a mini shoot for my car this morning, enjoy:

Was wondering who zoopreme was lol

 

[Fong$tarr]

Originally Posted by PoeticJays

Hey guys i'd appreciate your opinions on this...

So i shoot with a Nikon d90 and a 18-200 lens most of the time when i travel (also have a 35mm prime, and the 11-16 tokina) but after coming back from my trip this year, I just feel like my pictures aren't that sharp and crisp.

i was doing some research and it seems like the 24-70 /f 2.8 is a great lens. Its pretty damn expensive though. Does anyone here shoot with that? if you do can you give me some perspective? i know its Fx and Dx capable so it would fit on the d90. Has anyone switched over from a semi-pro lens like the 18-200 and seen a dramatic difference in the pictures?

Can you show examples of your other stuff? that Tokina should be a pretty sharp lens....as well as the 35mm. If you're not getting clear shots with those, I don't think you'll get clear shows with the other lens.

 

[hendrix watermelon]

Yo, which vans are those up there?

 

[bionic90]

 

[nycknicks105]

Hey, whats up guys. I'm a huge lurker in this thread and I just had a quick question for all you photography aficionado's. I want to buy a lens that's great for portraits, but it also takes great low light/night shots. I was looking at B&H and this is what I cam across. I mean, for the price I can't really find better, right?

http://www.bhphotovideo.c...ormal_EF_50mm_f_1_8.html

Now, there's this other lens, which belongs to the L series and there's a significant price difference. Why? Better quality glass? Finer cut? More feature? You get the extra .4 in the aperture, but is it THAT much of a difference? Here's the link.

http://www.bhphotovideo.c...rmal_EF_50mm_f_1_2L.html

 

[CHICHAN]

I was just looking at those two lenses today, haha. Any input from anybody?

 

[poeticjays]

Originally Posted by nycknicks105

Hey, whats up guys. I'm a huge lurker in this thread and I just had a quick question for all you photography aficionado's. I want to buy a lens that's great for portraits, but it also takes great low light/night shots. I was looking at B&H and this is what I cam across. I mean, for the price I can't really find better, right?



http://www.bhphotovideo.c...ormal_EF_50mm_f_1_8.html



Now, there's this other lens, which belongs to the L series and there's a significant price difference. Why? Better quality glass? Finer cut? More feature? You get the extra .4 in the aperture, but is it THAT much of a difference? Here's the link.



http://www.bhphotovideo.c...rmal_EF_50mm_f_1_2L.html

go with the nifty fifty ($100 one). If you're taking portraits, you won't be able to use the 1.2 anyways. At that aperture, you'll have the depth of field of a sheet of paper

 

[nycknicks105]

Originally Posted by PoeticJays

Originally Posted by nycknicks105

Hey, whats up guys. I'm a huge lurker in this thread and I just had a quick question for all you photography aficionado's. I want to buy a lens that's great for portraits, but it also takes great low light/night shots. I was looking at B&H and this is what I cam across. I mean, for the price I can't really find better, right?



http://www.bhphotovideo.c...ormal_EF_50mm_f_1_8.html



Now, there's this other lens, which belongs to the L series and there's a significant price difference. Why? Better quality glass? Finer cut? More feature? You get the extra .4 in the aperture, but is it THAT much of a difference? Here's the link.



http://www.bhphotovideo.c...rmal_EF_50mm_f_1_2L.html

go with the nifty fifty ($100 one). If you're taking portraits, you won't be able to use the 1.2 anyways. At that aperture, you'll have the depth of field of a sheet of paper

Ok, sounds interesting. I'm basically going to take a lot of shots of my friends when we go out. Most of them will be of us in parties or hang outs. Would I still be ok with this lens? Do you recommend another lens?

I need it to be versatile enough for me to get a good low light shot, but i don't want to have it on a tripod like that.

 

[poeticjays]

Originally Posted by Mr Fongstarr

Originally Posted by PoeticJays

Hey guys i'd appreciate your opinions on this...



So i shoot with a Nikon d90 and a 18-200 lens most of the time when i travel (also have a 35mm prime, and the 11-16 tokina) but after coming back from my trip this year, I just feel like my pictures aren't that sharp and crisp.



i was doing some research and it seems like the 24-70 /f 2.8 is a great lens. Its pretty damn expensive though. Does anyone here shoot with that? if you do can you give me some perspective? i know its Fx and Dx capable so it would fit on the d90. Has anyone switched over from a semi-pro lens like the 18-200 and seen a dramatic difference in the pictures?

Can you show examples of your other stuff? that Tokina should be a pretty sharp lens....as well as the 35mm. If you're not getting clear shots with those, I don't think you'll get clear shows with the other lens.

yea the 35mm is really sharp. The Tokina is pretty sharp as well. The thing is when i travel i use the 18-200 like 90% of the time, as it is the most versatile. However, when i come back and look at most of my pictures, they're all very good but not great. I can never get a national geographic type of shot on that lens.

I just love pictures, especially of people that are razor sharp. I know i'd be paying a huge premium for the 24-70 but if it's as good as the reviews say, then I'm willing to throw down.

I was just wondering if anyone on here used that lens and if they saw a big difference after switching from a consumer lens like the 18-200 to a pro lens like the 24-70.

what do you use Fong? You have some good stuff.

 

[poeticjays]

Originally Posted by nycknicks105

Originally Posted by PoeticJays

Originally Posted by nycknicks105

Hey, whats up guys. I'm a huge lurker in this thread and I just had a quick question for all you photography aficionado's. I want to buy a lens that's great for portraits, but it also takes great low light/night shots. I was looking at B&H and this is what I cam across. I mean, for the price I can't really find better, right?





http://www.bhphotovideo.c...ormal_EF_50mm_f_1_8.html





Now, there's this other lens, which belongs to the L series and there's a significant price difference. Why? Better quality glass? Finer cut? More feature? You get the extra .4 in the aperture, but is it THAT much of a difference? Here's the link.





http://www.bhphotovideo.c...rmal_EF_50mm_f_1_2L.html

go with the nifty fifty ($100 one). If you're taking portraits, you won't be able to use the 1.2 anyways. At that aperture, you'll have the depth of field of a sheet of paper

Ok, sounds interesting. I'm basically going to take a lot of shots of my friends when we go out. Most of them will be of us in parties or hang outs. Would I still be ok with this lens? Do you recommend another lens?

I need it to be versatile enough for me to get a good low light shot, but i don't want to have it on a tripod like that.

The 50 f/1.8 is one of the best deals out there for lens (I have the Nikon equivalent). It's very sharp and very fast. The thing is that there's no zoom, so its not the most versatile. But that's how prime lens tend to be. you give up the versatility for sharpness/speed.

If you're trying to shoot in low light with no flash, and not willing to blow $1K+ on a lens, i would say that's your best bet.

 

[nycknicks105]

Originally Posted by PoeticJays

Originally Posted by nycknicks105

Originally Posted by PoeticJays

Originally Posted by nycknicks105

Hey, whats up guys. I'm a huge lurker in this thread and I just had a quick question for all you photography aficionado's. I want to buy a lens that's great for portraits, but it also takes great low light/night shots. I was looking at B&H and this is what I cam across. I mean, for the price I can't really find better, right?





http://www.bhphotovideo.c...ormal_EF_50mm_f_1_8.html





Now, there's this other lens, which belongs to the L series and there's a significant price difference. Why? Better quality glass? Finer cut? More feature? You get the extra .4 in the aperture, but is it THAT much of a difference? Here's the link.





http://www.bhphotovideo.c...rmal_EF_50mm_f_1_2L.html

go with the nifty fifty ($100 one). If you're taking portraits, you won't be able to use the 1.2 anyways. At that aperture, you'll have the depth of field of a sheet of paper

Ok, sounds interesting. I'm basically going to take a lot of shots of my friends when we go out. Most of them will be of us in parties or hang outs. Would I still be ok with this lens? Do you recommend another lens?

I need it to be versatile enough for me to get a good low light shot, but i don't want to have it on a tripod like that.

The 50 f/1.8 is one of the best deals out there for lens (I have the Nikon equivalent). It's very sharp and very fast. The thing is that there's no zoom, so its not the most versatile. But that's how prime lens tend to be. you give up the versatility for sharpness/speed.

If you're trying to shoot in low light with no flash, and not willing to blow $1K+ on a lens, i would say that's your best bet.

Thanks!!! Would know of any fish-eye lenses that are similar in price/value to the 50 f/1.8?