I tried it lately, it does work. But of course this kind of a lens is bought for other stuff, too. Next summer my boy is going to school, aka larger indoor rooms where plays and sports happen.Albert Silver said:My home is not small, but I cannot imagine a 70-200 being the ideal lens indoor, since it isn't a hangar, and the space is all broken up into rooms.
Sure, I am using a 50/1.4G that I bought used for a price in between a new 50/1.8G and 50/1.4G. I am contemplating getting a 85/1.8G, but it's likely better to put that money into a 70-200/2.8 instead.Member said:
Yes, I do sympathize. I just acquired a Tamron 35 f/1.8, and while I am not struggling with the idea of 'zooming with my feet', sometimes my feet are just not fast enough, and cropping is the only recourse I have.I tried it lately, it does work. But of course this kind of a lens is bought for other stuff, too. Next summer my boy is going to school, aka larger indoor rooms where plays and sports happen.My home is not small, but I cannot imagine a 70-200 being the ideal lens indoor, since it isn't a hangar, and the space is all broken up into rooms.
Sure, I am using a 50/1.4G that I bought used for a price in between a new 50/1.8G and 50/1.4G. I am contemplating getting a 85/1.8G, but it's likely better to put that money into a 70-200/2.8 instead.
I still own my Olympus E-M5 + 45/1.8, too. And even its 90/3.6 equivalent DoF can be too shallow to catch them moving and leaves little room to put more than one in a shot without stopping down further. Fortunately they keep still sometimes...
But then they often don't even when the feet are not moving. Then a bit of Photoshop's anti lens-blur sharpening might be needed to rescue a 1/200s shot.
Yes, the 24 mp sensor of the D750 allows for quite some cropping, too. Which also helps with stuff like minimum focus distance and allowing the kids some breathing room when you don't have a longer lens attached.
I use the Tamron 70-200 on a D300 and a D700, and the AF speed is just fine, for me. I shoot fast-moving sports, like bicycle racing and football, and it's seldom missed anything, even when the subject is coming right at me. Indeed, when I tried the Tamron and the Nikkor 70-200 f4 at the store, I found the Tamron faster and more accurate, with less hunting, which was one of the reasons I bought it over the Nikkor.
Sam
Satyaa,
$1299 sounds grey market by a mile. I'd be sure if it even matters to you you are getting a Nikon USA product. If it makes no difference then sure good deal.
To be honest the Fuji XT-1 could have easily met these needs and I shoot both the D750 and XT-1. The D750 is mainly for extensive TTL flash needs and accessories that Fuji does not have.
Fuji has amazing Prime lenses all of them and now with the rebate is the perfect time to get into Fuji X
The D750 is to make money with photography or I never would have sold several Fuji X lenses to defray the cost of Nikon. I had 6 Fuji X lenses and kept the 16-55 mm 2.8. Either way Fuji X still has lens options for the APS-C sensor that Nikon does not even offer, namely F 2.8 zooms and Fuji glass in the crop sensor I would say better than Nikon for apples to apples.
Not on every photo, but generally yes.
The 1.8g is faster with focus and sharper. Why bother with a 2.5 times more expensive 1.4g? (I own it [the 1.4g], and probably wouldn't buy it again if both g's were available at time of purchase).
i'm a bit late here but find it interesting the majority seems to push towards 50mm. there is a strong bias towards 50mm vs 35mm in photography in general imo and for good reason but the choice is radically different and should be yours. there are pros & cons going towards either, regardless of what lens brand, and aperture speed you'll select. 35mm is certainly the most versatile choice but 50mm especially at 1.4 is imo a whole other universe as far as isolation & light/speed goes. it's basically a more "creative" lens but demands much further control/skill. for street photography it's kind of ideal because you can compose at a much further distance then 35mm, allowing you to be stealth/remote from your subject. But i know pros that prefer 35mm because they have no issue getting in your face with the subject and therefore enjoy the versatility of selecting to be either close or further away. it really depends on you're style of shooting. 50mm definitely has the advantage for portraits (portrait pros will even often suggest 85mm) and street photog if you're into stealthy/remote shooting situations. but for landscape/fast moving kids 35mm will allow much better flexibility. In the end if you got a DSLR it's to have imo several lens choices. so either go for a zoom that covers both ranges or get a prime combo of either 28/35-50mm or 35/50-85mm.
I don't see it.
It's not the speed that hurts af accuracy in this case. It's the change of speed (acceleration or deceleration). The AF focusing system assume constant subject speed to predict where the subject will be when the shutter is opened. The prediction is required due to the delay because of moving the mirror etc.
