where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
Rx4Photo said:
Last month I bought the Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D. It's an excellent lens but tricky to use handheld. Best image quality is gotten using a tripod due to handheld camera shake.
WHAAAT??? You are shooting with very odd camera settings if you get shake. Try this:
Put the camera to M mode, shutter time to 1/160s and aperture & ISO to your liking. No camera shake.
Or try the S mode with 1/160s or faster.
Godless said:
WHAAAT??? You are shooting with very odd camera settings if you get shake. Try this:Put the camera to M mode, shutter time to 1/160s and aperture & ISO to your liking. No camera shake.
Or try the S mode with 1/160s or faster.
LOL! Godless, your initial WHAAAAT kind of cracked me up. Yesterday after my post I went home and did exactly what you're saying here although I first set my shutter speed at 1/500s in Manual mode. The handheld pictures I took of my daughters are so sharp I could see the peach fuzz on their faces - and that was from several feet away. I'll admit I'm still getting used to having to think a little before shooting (opposite of using a point and shoot).
I'd gotten overly used to aperture priority since I'm always trying to get that perfect DOF appearence. Took some nice sharp photos today as well. The lens is definately a keeper and I guess that expensive 70-200mm VRII can wait. Thanks.
4. Nikon D90 (for those wanting to shoot video, which included me).
The Man From Mandrem said:
I regret not using eBay sooner.
Ebay's great for photo gear. I've gotten some great Nikkor lenses and a perfect Nikon N90s on Ebay. Thankfully, from all honest sellers.
NSXType-R said:
In a way I feel guilty about the 105 micro. It's a very specialized lens, it's heavier than I thought it would be and not very wallet friendly either.
I think for anyone who bought a 105mm VR Micro, who didn't end up doing a lot of macro photography, that, if they chose the AF 105mm f/2.0 DC-Nikkor instead, they may have gotten more use out of it. For those who can't afford the new AF-S 85mm f/1.4G, the 105mm f/2.0 DC is the next best thing. Maybe even better, for DX.
soshigee said:
IMHO some people need to stop complaining about weight issues and man up. I think people are getting way too sensitive about self-comfort. Sometimes, it disgusts me how wimpy some people can get; even my 15-year old sister lugs around a 70-200 all day for her school newspaper stuff.
The other day, I saw a dude walking around with a Nikon 400mm f/2.8 and a TC-14 mounted on a D300. The sun shades on made it look even more monstrous. Now that was a man setting. His lens alone was 10 pound naked and to impress me, the guy was showing me how he handheld that thing. He let me hold it for a while and I got concerned about snapping a vertebra.
My D700 70-200mm f/2.8, even with the shade looked tiny and I felt shame for my past weight complains.
I would not mind the weight if I only was carrying the 70-200, but I need a “good” camera with it and I would never go anywhere without wider lenses, so I must bring my 24-70mm f/2.8, and of course my 105mm, tripod, TC-20E III, Genko tubes, spare battery, SB-600 + batteries, filters and a few other necessities. You know what? It adds-up.
A (long) while ago, I walked the northern Americas, through the civil-war of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua with 40 pounds on my back for 4 years straight and I probably have lost an inch in height because of it, so I know what weight means and I don’t think any one can call me a wimp.
I am planning a trip to china for the fall and the thought of lugging 20 pound of hardware by foot, 10 hours per day for weeks in a row does not enchant me. And with that, I have no water, lunch, clothing, battery chargers and laptop yet. And to make things worst, I may have to carry my wife’s stuff too.
So when does it become legitimate for someone to start complaining about weight and how crazy is one going for the good shots is really a personal thing.
I did not do the math yet, but I am thinking to leave my zooms and bring only a 35mm and 85 mm f/1.4 instead or maybe the 24-70 f/2.8 and the 85mm f/1.4 combo.
The weight of all my gear is the only thing that gives me regrets (just to be back on the topic).
studio460 said:
I think for anyone who bought a 105mm VR Micro, who didn't end up doing a lot of macro photography, that, if they chose the AF 105mm f/2.0 DC-Nikkor instead, they may have gotten more use out of it. For those who can't afford the new AF-S 85mm f/1.4G, the 105mm f/2.0 DC is the next best thing. Maybe even better, for DX.
I do do a lot of macro work. It's just that I don't have time to shoot because of school. So the gear hasn't proven itself to me yet. I know it's a great lens, I'm just waiting until late summer probably, that's when I'll be free to shoot. School first.
Pierre said:
Can I put the 85mm on a TC-20?Edit: Apparently not, bummer, I thought I could get 170mm.
You might want to consider that you can use it on the 105mm micro, although Nikon says you lose autofocus. I have both but haven't tried it, if I shoot later today I'll set it up and see.
soshigee said:
Unless you've never lifted a weight in your life, (not saying you specifically, just in general)OR
blah blah blah
The guy said he wasn't getting great results hand holding an 85mm f/1.4 and said he was considering a 70-200mm instead.
I was suggesting the comparative weight of the 70-200mm would make it harder to hand hold, albeit someone else pointed out that ergonomics of the lens might make it easier.
To address the wider point you raise:
I wouldn't avoid shooting with my 300s, grip, L plate, 70-200mm because of the weight - I know what I get in return.
But gear weight can't be disregarded in some circumstances, or always offset by more trips to the gym.
I'd wager that on this forum you're more likely to see people mention weight in relation to such a circumstance vs. whining their ~$4k camera/lens combo is gosh-golly too heavy for their wee arms.
elvishefer said:
You might want to consider that you can use it on the 105mm micro, although Nikon says you lose autofocus. I have both but haven't tried it, if I shoot later today I'll set it up and see.
If you have both, it would had been faster to try it than write these lines. I use the TC-20E3 with my 105mm 2.8G ED macro all the time and autofocus is just fine.
NSXType-R said:
In a way I feel guilty about the 105 micro. It's a very specialized lens, it's heavier than I thought it would be and not very wallet friendly either.
good, i'm not the only one! i hardly ever use it even though i thought i would do a lot of macro before i bought it.
It has got to be the most cumbersome lens. It just looks big and clunky on the d700, or any camera I imagine. I have used a good amount of lenses and the 105 feels horrible on the camera. it is too fat down by the mount.
optically i cant complain about it, but physically i am really not into it.
Gareth said:
good, i'm not the only one! i hardly ever use it even though i thought i would do a lot of macro before i bought it.It has got to be the most cumbersome lens. It just looks big and clunky on the d700, or any camera I imagine. I have used a good amount of lenses and the 105 feels horrible on the camera. it is too fat down by the mount.
optically i cant complain about it, but physically i am really not into it.
Now imagine that lens on a D40. Awkward, to say the least. I'm amazed by the autofocus speed. But once again, I'm not going to leave my gear in my dorm while I go off to class. I left all my equipment home. I'd be out shooting all day if I had it with me.
I do a lot of food photography, but I haven't had time to do that either.
Have you tried using that lens for sports photography?
You must log in to post.
