Cheap reach

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
Bernard Delley Senior Member • Posts: 1,241
Re: Cheap reach
3

olindacat wrote:

So I went to a nearby camera shot and grabbed an AF-S 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR G for $230 used. I have shot a 104-page book with it and my 24-70, and am glad to have it, but will say the bokeh on the 70-300 isn't up to the same standard as my 24-70 f/2.8 G, and I had thought the length might've given me even a softer look, but I guess the glass just isn't up to the task, given its price.

Technique-wise, I found myself struggling to freeze a golf ball to the point where I could see the dimples, logo, etc. on a moving ball. I have seen some shots at 1/10000th, but have never shot anything at that speed.

Now, I was shooting wide open and with pretty high shutter speeds, but not 1/10000th. Are people bumping up the ISO in broad daylight to shoot that fast?

maybe you have unrealistic expectations !  Your shot below is at ISO 63  1/1000 s , with ISO 500 you would have had 1/8000s at the same aperture, the shortest your D810  can give you. For 1/10'000 s and shorter you need flash techniques, difficult in this bright daylight!

This one is without a ball, but soft. No real bokeh here. I wish I could see the exif while I'm writing but can't, so am unable to easily determine my settings.

I'm shooting some theatre stuff as well. Here I really want eyes, the actors' eyes. My work is not sharp, and I'm screwing with PS camera shake removal settings, which know is naughty, eh? Like this:

I am under the impression that both of your examples here a a bit front focused. You could correct that with AF fine tune. The shot below  has a longish exposure of 1/250s for FL 300mm , shorter would help sharpness. Your AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G is noticeably surpassed in sharpness at 300mm by the AF-P 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E which I suggested.

.Using monopod, maybe 20-30' away. ISO way up there. Trying that filter is PS which I know is a cheap trick. Beginning to wonder if the one tune is off. I tried stopping down, bumping pn ISO, etc. Actually screwed p and moved quality from RAW to TIFF and blow my card off quick. Nightmare. Happened twice.

I'm seriously considering a used 200-400. I see that thread about the 200-500 vs 200-400. I gotta figure the 200-400 f/4 is better bokeh, sharper wide open. I see a lot on that 80-400 as well. I don't want to blow more coin on cheap glass if it is going to wind up being a waste.

Actually, the bokeh in both of your images here is quite good, no outlining issues, Just not extremely large blur circles.   If bokeh is high on your list fine, but that does not go well with cheap. It comes best with expensive prime lenses like the 58mm f/1.4 the 105mm f/1.4 200mm f/2 and 300mm f/2.8 . Not cheap ! You mentioned having the 300 f/2.8 .  I have seen a pro using the 300mm f/2.8 indoors, with the lens supported by his knees. Shooting while sitting on the floor.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow