Last edited by .A.K.4.7.; 02-14-2011 at 11:58 PM.
niiice photo of the moooon.
that's the eclipse we just had?
Ya that moon is sweet, At first I thought both those photos were one and I was like HOW? but then I realized lol. Nice photos.
Sweet portrait Joe, I have that planet shirt! cool spot too.
Found out I make 6grand a month with this new company, Lighting Equipment here I come!!!!
Yeah, the eclipse last December.
just figured out we got a negatve scanner at the college,
WOW
heres a flcik of a piece I did last fall
Finally jumped along the Flickr train
It'd be appreciated if I can get some feedback
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59559500@N06/
my camera is awkward as helll with the battery grip i can never use it with without one
i dont know how i used it without out.
Last edited by lakim shabazz; 02-16-2011 at 04:23 PM.
I cant use a battery grip. the vertical shutter release is nice though.
anyway, anyone owned/used the Sigma 85 1.4? I love my 50 1.4, but the 85 is as much as a 135mm f2 L.
also selling my 60mm 2.8 macro.
got a 35 rc for christmas from the folks, only shot one role on it so far, this has to be my favorite shot, i know its cliche, but i like it, the only editing was cropping
If your using Nikon I'd just save a bit more for the nikkor 85 1.4. Sigma lenses feel cheap and are built badly. (I know this from experience) The nikon is tough as fuck and trust me you won't be wanting to sell this lens so in the long run you will save money not having to sending it back to sigma to get repairs done etc etc.Originally Posted by Kao.Ali
I can't speak for canon lenses but all canon shit feels cheaper to me than nikon gear anyway really.
It's by far my favourite lens I have ever used... flick the 60mm macro photography is for toys.
If I were you I'd sell the 50 1.4 and the 60mm for the nikkor 85. The 85 is great for everything. If I were you I'd own a wide lens, eg, 18 or 21mm, a long lens like the 85, and cheap f./1.8 or f/2 manual focus 50 for the rare occasion that you'd need it. These go for like $60 on ebay.
Are you shooting full frame? cos remember the 85 will become nearly 130mm on a cropped sensor camera. Thats quite long. If your using a 50 on a cropped sensor camera then you are effectively shooting 75mm anyway... so why an 85 in that case?
Last edited by .A.K.4.7.; 02-17-2011 at 04:24 PM.
I shoot canon. they only make a 85 1.8 and 1.2 (which is totally out the question because its 2 Gs) I'm aware of the crop factor (I have a 7D). I'm renting a 135mm f2L and borrowing a 85 f1.8 for a concert this weekend to see which focal range feels better to me.
I'm getting the lens mostly for stage shit because I use my 50 for portraits. and yes, the 60mm was the first lens I bought and I never use it besides to take pics of weed.
I own a 10-20 4-5.6 and a 30mm 1.4 (from sigma which really isnt all that bad IMO).
Your right about most canon glass feeling cheap. anything besides their L lenses and a few primes don't inspire a lot of confidence in me when I hold them. But my boss shoots canon and has all sorts of pricey glass I get to play with as long as I shoot canon too.
Last edited by Kao.Ali; 02-17-2011 at 06:32 PM.
what sort of concert are you going to, and how close will you be getting?
I ask this because I find that closeups of people on stage are extremely boring for me to look at. I prefer closer wider shots. Of course if it's a big show and you can't get close you'll probably have to go long. I have the 10-20 sigma also and I'm actually pretty happy with it's build quality. It feels better then my non-L canon stuff. It's the only sigma I own, but I've heard it's really a gamble with them. Maybe I just got one of the good ones.
There's some great m42 85's that are stupid cheap like the jupiter that will fit on your canon, but it's going to be almost impossible to focus that at a dark show unless you change your focus screen.
tl;dr: try go get as close as possible and ditch the tele's unless you absolutely need them.
Maybe you need a 70-200 2.8? good to have zoom range for concerts since you are mostly in cramped photographer pits and cant move around too much.
Oh and PS, clients usually want tight shots of the lead singers etc... easier to place in their magazines etc rather than large wide shots where the subjects are quite small in the overall composition...
oh right... clients..... Forgot this is for work
I don't think in terms of what clients want
haha. the game.
I have a 70-200 2.8 is at my disposal. Its a great lens but too big for indoor stage stuff without a tripod. I mostly use a 70-200 2.8 and a 24-70 2.8 for stage stuff unless lighting is really an issue and need the extra 2 stops of light.
Plus it'd be nice to own some more glass instead of borrowing it all the time. Def not fucking with Jupiter stuff for anything moving decently fast though.
IDK what AK's talking about as far as sigma. yes, some of their lenses are crappy, but they have some gems too. I love my 10-20 and my 30 1.4 does me okay too.
and kc, I've already made the mistake of trying to do stage work with a wide lens. everything looks tiny. the 10-20 makes people look like ants.
Ken Rockwell is a total goober but he talks some good shit sometimes
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-...ide-lenses.htm
I think he's probably referring to older sigma with the red ring, that shit was junk. The newer stuff with the gold ring is much better.
The 10-20 is useless unless you're shooting landscapes or shoving it in people's faces. I wouldn't reccomend it for stage work. The 30mm would be good if you can get close enough.
This was shot with the 10-20 @ 10mm, like a foot in front of her. And it's cropped.
Last edited by kmcdon3960; 02-17-2011 at 10:11 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks