Nikon D750 & D780

Nope won't need 1.4, but as snerkler mentioned it's the rendering that's most important here. Would never shoot a horse at 1.4 unlese I was focussing on just an eye or something!

I own the 1.4 and although I built my setup around that and the 35 1.4 I'd go with the 1.8 version, personally think there's very little in it.

If it's stationary shots you have in mind, then an 50/85 would work, but if it's for general use then the flexibility of a 70-200 would be my choice. I guess you'll consider the weight too given your shoulder. I'd add a monopod to negate that if you go that route.

Rendering is so subjective, there's not much in them all TBH and they're all sharp.
 
Went for a wander this evening in the hope of a sunset to match the sunrise that I missed this morning. As per usual, turned out to be terrible, no light at all. So here's where the 85 1.4 gets you out of a little bit, but not what I wanted at all. Gone a bit flat with the PP too.

37546384072_613be51ded_b.jpg


37546383932_a718a7136e_b.jpg


37546383682_fa282b41b3_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
Was one of those weekends where I was so tired I should have left the camera behind!!

Went for an unexpected visit to the horse of the year show Friday afternoon as friend had free tickets. It took us over 4 hours to get there, finished at 11pm and we got back home around 330am!!

So next day went to take a few pics of my friend at Hickstead and was sooooooo tired and shooting away. Dark horse so went spot metering and dialed down the exposure which worked well.

Went through the images on camera and some looked great but some where out of focus and was like what the hell.

Camera was in AF-S - ooops!

Then same day in the afternoon I took some pics of our new horse and forgot to adjust the exposure back!

One of those days just about saved by LR and a bit of luck when it came to focus!
 
So expensive dilemma....

Equestrian portrait work, 70-200 2.8 or 85mm 1.4g. Or get a 85mm 1.8g and Tamron 70-200 or older used 70-200 Nikon.

Nikon 85mm 1.4g looks like a great lens and much lighter than a 70-200. I already have the f4 70-200.

Is the 1.4g that much better than the 1.8g?

I used to shoot equestrian events. Definitely get the 70-200 and maybe add the 28-70 F2.8 (good value) or 24-70
 
Shot a bit of local ladies football this weekend using the D750 with the old 70-210 f4-5.6. Never shot sports before, so reasonably pleased with how it went, could have done with a bit more reach, but the lens performed relatively well given its cost... definitely need to consider that 70-200 2.8 if I'm going to do more.

Settings wise, just winged it, so probably shot a bit too fast a shutter speed - could have slowed it down a bit and lowered the ISO (auto), but on the whole good fun.


Redditch Utd Ladies v Solihull Moors Ladies-31
by Dave Young, on Flickr


Redditch Utd Ladies v Solihull Moors Ladies-37
by Dave Young, on Flickr


Redditch Utd Ladies v Solihull Moors Ladies-42
by Dave Young, on Flickr


Redditch Utd Ladies v Solihull Moors Ladies-90
by Dave Young, on Flickr


Redditch Utd Ladies v Solihull Moors Ladies-91
by Dave Young, on Flickr
 
Shot a bit of local ladies football this weekend using the D750 with the old 70-210 f4-5.6. Never shot sports before, so reasonably pleased with how it went, could have done with a bit more reach, but the lens performed relatively well given its cost... definitely need to consider that 70-200 2.8 if I'm going to do more.

Settings wise, just winged it, so probably shot a bit too fast a shutter speed - could have slowed it down a bit and lowered the ISO (auto), but on the whole good fun.


Redditch Utd Ladies v Solihull Moors Ladies-31
by Dave Young, on Flickr


Redditch Utd Ladies v Solihull Moors Ladies-37
by Dave Young, on Flickr


Redditch Utd Ladies v Solihull Moors Ladies-42
by Dave Young, on Flickr


Redditch Utd Ladies v Solihull Moors Ladies-90
by Dave Young, on Flickr


Redditch Utd Ladies v Solihull Moors Ladies-91
by Dave Young, on Flickr
Really impressed with the rendering of that lens, the players really pop even though you're not using a wide aperture. Any chance you could post a SOOC shot to see how much of this is the lens and how much is PP please?
 
Really impressed with the rendering of that lens, the players really pop even though you're not using a wide aperture. Any chance you could post a SOOC shot to see how much of this is the lens and how much is PP please?

This is SOOC, opened in PS and saved as a JPG, then JPGmini'd to reduce file size. The others have had a little bit of work done to them, but nothing major.

For Snerkler by Dave Young, on Flickr
 
This is SOOC, opened in PS and saved as a JPG, then JPGmini'd to reduce file size. The others have had a little bit of work done to them, but nothing major.

For Snerkler by Dave Young, on Flickr
Thanks, they're really good SOOC aren't they. Gotta be one of the best bargain lenses ever that (y)
 
Few from our pumpkin picking session:

1.
Pumpkin Picking by mg photography, on Flickr

2.
DSC_2867_WebSized by mg photography, on Flickr

3.
DSC_2919_WebSized by mg photography, on Flickr

4.
DSC_3032_WebSized by mg photography, on Flickr

5.
DSC_3033_WebSized by mg photography, on Flickr

6.
DSC_3036_WebSized by mg photography, on Flickr

7.
DSC_3050_WebSized by mg photography, on Flickr


Really loving the 50mm at the moment
How bizarre, the ad for this has just come on the radio. Great pics (y)
 
Thanks, they're really good SOOC aren't they. Gotta be one of the best bargain lenses ever that (y)

It's not that shabby is it? Noticed prices have snuck up a bit on it since I bought mine... but still a relative bargain. The other small zoom I have which I don't use much is the plastic fantastic 28-80mm f3.3 - 5.6, another bargain basement optically really good lens. That's what I like about Nikon, just so many good lenses to pick from!

They certainly get stuck in!

They certainly do! Picked up a few new words too :D
 
Does anyone know roughly if you were to shoot a couple at 70mm how far away you'd been to get them in frame like this:
https://2dhnizrxqvv1awj231eodql1-wp...p-content/uploads/2013/06/couples-posing1.jpg

Just trying to work out how much DOF i'd have shooting at f4.
This formula gives a good approximation (no idea why it works but in testing it I have found it is close to what I measured ...) d = (f / s) * sh
d= distance, f=focal length, s= sensor height, sh = subject height
The odd bit is the f & s are measured in mm, the distance is given in feet and the sh is measured in feet - the odd mix of units confuses me but like I say, it seems to work.

So, for a 70mm lens in portrait orientation and assuming the bloke is 6ft tall and there is in the first image around 1.5 feet of space above and below (7.5 total height) we get about 14' 6 shooting distance ... so given that you would have around 3' of DoF

Like I said, I have no idea how the formula "works" other than the basic maths but it does seem to give the correct results at least for our purposes.
 
Shot a bit of local ladies football this weekend using the D750 with the old 70-210 f4-5.6. Never shot sports before, so reasonably pleased with how it went, could have done with a bit more reach, but the lens performed relatively well given its cost... definitely need to consider that 70-200 2.8 if I'm going to do more.

Settings wise, just winged it, so probably shot a bit too fast a shutter speed - could have slowed it down a bit and lowered the ISO (auto), but on the whole good fun.


Redditch Utd Ladies v Solihull Moors Ladies-31
by Dave Young, on Flickr


Redditch Utd Ladies v Solihull Moors Ladies-37
by Dave Young, on Flickr


Redditch Utd Ladies v Solihull Moors Ladies-42
by Dave Young, on Flickr


Redditch Utd Ladies v Solihull Moors Ladies-90
by Dave Young, on Flickr


Redditch Utd Ladies v Solihull Moors Ladies-91
by Dave Young, on Flickr

They look really good! Would never know what lens you are using TBH!
 
I’ve got a 1.8 85mm and it’s a beauty of a lens. Sharp and good renedering.

Would I swap for the 1.4, well yes I probably would for the rendering, however that would probably be for my own eye rather than the real world difference the 1.4 to the 1.8 makes.

I’d probably go for the 85mm 1.8 & 70-200 Tamron simply for more flexibility in your situation.

I'm weighing up whether to get the 2.8 or stick with my F4.

I know which one I should get, especially if I start to do some indoor events. But the sheer size and weight compared to the F4 is a little off putting!
 
Few from our pumpkin picking session:

1.
Pumpkin Picking by mg photography, on Flickr

2.
DSC_2867_WebSized by mg photography, on Flickr

3.
DSC_2919_WebSized by mg photography, on Flickr

4.
DSC_3032_WebSized by mg photography, on Flickr

5.
DSC_3033_WebSized by mg photography, on Flickr

6.
DSC_3036_WebSized by mg photography, on Flickr

7.
DSC_3050_WebSized by mg photography, on Flickr


Really loving the 50mm at the moment

These are good, we're off pumpkin picking at the weekend.
 
I'm weighing up whether to get the 2.8 or stick with my F4.

I know which one I should get, especially if I start to do some indoor events. But the sheer size and weight compared to the F4 is a little off putting!

Well I guess you’re only gaining 1 stop, which would be what shooting at ISO1600 instead of 2000. The D750 files clean up that nicely I’m guessing the real world speed difference may not be that much different - guess it just depends if you need that subject separation 2.8 offers.

*think I’m talking myself into an f4 myself :D:D
 
Well I guess you’re only gaining 1 stop, which would be what shooting at ISO1600 instead of 2000. The D750 files clean up that nicely I’m guessing the real world speed difference may not be that much different - guess it just depends if you need that subject separation 2.8 offers.

*think I’m talking myself into an f4 myself :D:D
Errr :thinking:

Your knowledge of stops is overwhelming :whistle:
 
Just to remember to wibbly ;-). A stop = doubling or halving the exposure.
As the iso is a linear scale you need to go from iso 1600 to iso 3200 to double it.
On another hand you get the hang of the fstop scale which is a pretty tricky one (1.4 - 2 - 2.8 - 4 - 5.6 - 8 -...) each stop doubling the light getting in!
 
Just to remember to wibbly ;-). A stop = doubling or halving the exposure.
As the iso is a linear scale you need to go from iso 1600 to iso 3200 to double it.
On another hand you get the hang of the fstop scale which is a pretty tricky one (1.4 - 2 - 2.8 - 4 - 5.6 - 8 -...) each stop doubling the light getting in!

A worthy reminder, sometimes I write or speak before I think - a trait I'm well known for, always gets me into trouble but I never learn :D
 
I'm weighing up whether to get the 2.8 or stick with my F4.

I know which one I should get, especially if I start to do some indoor events. But the sheer size and weight compared to the F4 is a little off putting!
The f2.8 is great if you need the extra stop to improve shutter speed or ISO. Recently with the deer I've been maxing out the exposure setting because I'm limited to f4 on the 200-400. I'm regularly shooting at 1/500-1/800 sec at around ISO2000-3200. whilst in the rain the other day, being at 1/200 f4 iso4500 was pushing it but I want to show the rain too so would have been around there shutter speed wise anyway. I'm actually thinking of going the other way to you with swapping the 70-200 f2.8 to f4 due to weight of kit to carryfor landscapes. The only way I can ever see me change is if I swap the 200-400 with a 300 f2.8 as I find an f2.8 lens very helpful. the down side of f2.8 lenses is the extra weight but it pays off if you have conditions that really need it.
 
The shutter has stuck permanently on mine after playing up for a week. Photo shows that its part of the lastest recall and the stuck bit of the shutter at the top (blacked out area). It is under warranty with Panamoz so looks like Tina will be getting a email shortly. :(

DSC_8072 (Large).JPG
 
The shutter has stuck permanently on mine after playing up for a week. Photo shows that its part of the lastest recall and the stuck bit of the shutter at the top (blacked out area). It is under warranty with Panamoz so looks like Tina will be getting a email shortly. :(

View attachment 112193

Do you need to contact Tina? Pretty sure Nikon will fix it as part of recall even if its grey
 
Do you need to contact Tina? Pretty sure Nikon will fix it as part of recall even if its grey
Was just checking that the camera was part of the lastest recall but I was of the thinking that this was for the shading issue and not shutter failure?
 
Who on here was it that's got a tokina 100mm macro lens?
 
OK I've just noticed that the rear glass turns/moves, nothing seems loose and no screws missing. does yours do that?
If you mean the glass that's inside the mount it doesn't appear to move on mine. Is there more than one model of this lens?
 
Hi guys,

Sorry if this has been asked before (I'm sure it has) but has anyone sent theirs back for the shutter recall and if so how long was it away?

I've just checked mine and it's affected but I've been asked to photograph a friends daughters birthday party in 3.5 weeks and so I need it back by then.
 
Hi guys,

Sorry if this has been asked before (I'm sure it has) but has anyone sent theirs back for the shutter recall and if so how long was it away?

I've just checked mine and it's affected but I've been asked to photograph a friends daughters birthday party in 3.5 weeks and so I need it back by then.

I would wait a bit if it don't show too bad symptoms. Better safe that sorry. Send it back after!
 
Hi guys,

Sorry if this has been asked before (I'm sure it has) but has anyone sent theirs back for the shutter recall and if so how long was it away?

I've just checked mine and it's affected but I've been asked to photograph a friends daughters birthday party in 3.5 weeks and so I need it back by then.
Do you need to send it in before that? Mine has been 'needing' to go in since last year but as I'm not seeing any problems I've yet to send it in. I don't see the point in sending it in if I can't see any problem. It would be interesting to see the actual number of cameras that have experienced the problem, I honestly don't think it's as bad as the recall sounds.
 
Last edited:
I can't see any problems but I don't know what I'm looking for.

I do use it most weeks so am really going to miss it and didn't know whether to send it tomorrow and hope it's back or wait until afterwards.

Now I know it's affected it's making me nervous in case it suddenly breaks!
 
If you mean the glass that's inside the mount it doesn't appear to move on mine. Is there more than one model of this lens?
Yes the rear glass that's nearest to the camera, don't think that there is other models in the 100mm. Guess I'll have to see if it needs doing or get it sorted. Thanks.
 
Back
Top