Nikon D750 & D780

minnnt said:
TBH i love WA portraits and was one of the reasons i went for the Sigma.

As for the zoom, no, it's quite good having a fixed focal length but i do have the 50 aswell so if i needed longer then i can just swap (as i did for the shot of the water tower). I also have the 70-200 but i may swap that for something else.
Click to expand...

I think it's an area that I don't feel totally comfortable with. I used to look at Aleksandras' extreme environmental wedding shots with the 14-24 and appreciate how difficult that is in practice to pull off. It does intrigue me and maybe one day I'll explore it a little more. Maybe you can change my perception.
 
:runaway::runaway::runaway:
pjm1 said:
I picked up an optically good Sigma 150mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM Macro (the non-OS version). Just some cosmetics on the outside which show it's been used. Ryan Brenizer seems to use his for weddings and not just ring shots... so I take that as an indication it's good enough.

My last lens from MPB had to go straight back (a non-autofocusing Nikkor 300mm f/4) but they were good through the return. Fingers crossed this time!

Purchases since April have been a bit more than I anticipated...

Nikon D750 body only
Nikon 50mm AF f/1.8D
Nikon 85mm AF-S f/1.8G
Tamron 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 AF
Sigma 120-300mmD f/2.8 APO HSM EX
Beike BK-45 Gimbal Head
Sigma 1.4x Tele Converter APO EX DG
Sigma 150mm f/2.8 APO EX DG HSM Macro

Double oops.
Click to expand...

Are you single Paul, or will you be when she finds out
 
anibap said:
If you don't need, you can request JJ to sell it on your behalf :D :exit:
Click to expand...

Getting a little old now. Plus I explained why and now finding comments like this inappropriate.
 
Dilemma...

Mrs pjm1 has just asked what I would like for a "special" birthday that's coming up.

Do I go double-or-quits on the fact she doesn't seem to have noticed the amount of kit I've been buying and suggest something photography-related?!?

I bought her a (quite nice, tbf) necklace which I had designed... I'm not sure she'll think buying me a Nikkor 20mm f/1.8 has quite the same romantic feeling?
 
pjm1 said:
Dilemma...

Mrs pjm1 has just asked what I would like for a "special" birthday that's coming up.

Do I go double-or-quits on the fact she doesn't seem to have noticed the amount of kit I've been buying and suggest something photography-related?!?

I bought her a (quite nice, tbf) necklace which I had designed... I'm not sure she'll think buying me a Nikkor 20mm f/1.8 has quite the same romantic feeling?
Click to expand...

Go for it, tell her it would mean a lot to you;)
 
pjm1 said:
Dilemma...

Mrs pjm1 has just asked what I would like for a "special" birthday that's coming up.

Do I go double-or-quits on the fact she doesn't seem to have noticed the amount of kit I've been buying and suggest something photography-related?!?

I bought her a (quite nice, tbf) necklace which I had designed... I'm not sure she'll think buying me a Nikkor 20mm f/1.8 has quite the same romantic feeling?
Click to expand...

Or you could opt for one of those fancy straps ukexile has (that`s forever), and a voucher for your lens :D
 
phil_b said:
The family, 70-200vr2 @ 200mm


The Family by Philip Blair, on Flickr
Click to expand...

I think I'm going to chop the tammy in after next weeks airshow to help fund a 70-200 vr2. I see one as an investment [emoji3] I'm trying to future proof my kit best I can, can't see too much else I 'need' after that. Suppose I could scratch the 58 itch next year then...

Looking forward to the days when I can chase Rosie around the park with a 70-200, a while a way yet, but good to be prepared - ok, that's my excuse to SWMBO.
 
Livin The Dream said:
I think I'm going to chop the tammy in after next weeks airshow to help fund a 70-200 vr2. I see one as an investment [emoji3] I'm trying to future proof my kit best I can, can't see too much else I 'need' after that. Suppose I could scratch the 58 itch next year then...

Looking forward to the days when I can chase Rosie around the park with a 70-200, a while a way yet, but good to be prepared - ok, that's my excuse to SWMBO.
Click to expand...

I used the same kind of excuse and was lucky enough to pick mine up locally for £900, just need to actually use it more.
 
Last edited:
pjm1 said:
#3 is a cracker - that expression!
Click to expand...
Thanks :) I've just added another shot of the same dog but closer. The focus of these dogs is quite something.
 
This seems to be getting some positive feedback despite being a 1:1 crop ;)


DSC_4193 by TDG-77, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Chuckoir said:
Love it. Pictures of running dogs always make me chuckle. Simple things and all that...
Click to expand...
Me too. If I knew photoshop well enough I'd put a cape on him ;)
 
Yeah - that's super @snerkler !

Ok... completely unrelated question for the assembled experts:

If I use a longer focal length and short subject-camera distance, I get a super shallow depth of field. We obviously see this with macro lenses, but I'm wondering what it would look like for portraiture? What do we think the smallest f/number that would be "pleasing" would be?

For example, at 80cm (the minimum focus distance) camera-subject distance with my 85mm lens at f/1.8, I have a depth of field of 8.6mm - enough to get eyes and eyelashes in focus and not much more :) In portrait orientation, the frame would capture a subject 22cm x 33cm, which is bigger than a head, so not quite frame-filling and in fact, it would fit in fine in landscape orientation too.

If I switch to a 150mm macro, I could JUST squeeze in the width of a head in landscape orientation at a distance of 70cm. It would be a close-up of the central part of the face - eyes & nose basically. Interestingly though, even at an aperture of f/4 (which would probably the maximum achievable given macros don't operate at f/2.8 at high magnification), this would give a pretty insane depth of field of 4.1mm. That's probably enough to get the curve of the eyeball in focus. Just. To achieve similar with the 85mm at its MFD, you'd need an aperture of f/0.85!

So, what do we reckon the limit of acceptability for depth of field is with "artistic" (i.e. for creative effect rather than as a faithful repro/useable headshot) portraits? f/1.4 looks lovely, f/1.2 probably looks lovelier... but what about sub 1?
 
phil_b said:
I used the same kind of excuse and was lucky enough to pick mine up locally for £900, just need to actually use it more.
Click to expand...

That's a right deal. I've been looking for a few weeks and about £1100 seems to be typical for a very good copy.
 
Livin The Dream said:
I think I'm going to chop the tammy in after next weeks airshow to help fund a 70-200 vr2. I see one as an investment [emoji3] I'm trying to future proof my kit best I can, can't see too much else I 'need' after that. Suppose I could scratch the 58 itch next year then...

Looking forward to the days when I can chase Rosie around the park with a 70-200, a while a way yet, but good to be prepared - ok, that's my excuse to SWMBO.
Click to expand...
Good luck with that, I told myself that too ;)

The 70-200mm VRII is a stunner of a lens imo, both in terms of IQ and AF speed.
 
snerkler said:
Good luck with that, I told myself that too ;)

The 70-200mm VRII is a stunner of a lens imo, both in terms of IQ and AF speed.
Click to expand...

I had the Canon mk11 and that was on par, certainly was a great bit of kit. I'm more interested to see how it renders.
 
Minnnt will be lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top