Cheap reach

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
Tord S Eriksson
Tord S Eriksson Forum Pro • Posts: 11,577
Re: Cheap reach

olindacat wrote:

Bernard Delley wrote:

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.

Actually, I did not ignore your recommendation, I needed to get a book to bed and that copy of the 70-300 was all I could get my hands on. My golf season here is moving quickly, and I need to be shooting so did not see that lens in my neighborhood store, and a trip into the city is a lost day, so I made do. My reason for citing what O have, is so my next purchase (which I will take more time in executing) is as optimal as possible.

The 300mm ing end reach isn't enough. I need that extra 100mm, but low light capability, and yes, I do like the uber bokeh you get with the larger more expensive apertures.

I never owned a 300 f/2.8. My partner on Maui did, and I shot with it often. I know the difference. I always lusted after the 200-400 f/4, but not having access to rentals on Maui never tried one. Now, in the NYC area, I could rent, but it's gonna be north of $100 I suspect, and that's a downpayment!

Isn't that 58 1.4 outlandish? That's a bucket list lens, right? I have the nifty 50 1.4 never use it. Seems soft on the edges, but has good bokeh. My old 50 1.2 was better. Like the thin film place, but I'm drifting here from my OP purpose: cheap reach.

I guess we get what we pay for. But at under $2K is the 200-400 better than the 80-400? I'm leaning in those directions and am curious if this is the right thinking... using the latter indoors in low light.

Thanks for the suggestion about the front focus. I have been very hurried, and did try a few +/- just melts when I first bought the lens, bt have not had a target and tripod test, to run all 20 +/-s yet. I'm sure it ought to help.

Insofar as dimples are concerned: I can't have much bokeh, the guys eyes' nd dimples. Just not possible with a thin plane. If I stop it down I lose the bokeh but get the dimples. It becomes relevant when the guy his hitting toward you and the ball is coming at you. His eyes and the ball, groves on club face very much the subject/s. Thanks.

The real bokeh master/mistress is the Sigma 135/1.8 Art. Sadly neither Nikon nor Sigma TCs work, but Kenkos does! But stopped down a bit and it is just perfect for anything!

The Sigma 100-400 C has nice bokeh, but not in the class of the 135 Art.

My Voigtlander 58/1.4 has nice Bokeh and is affordable for everyone, but it is a classic manual lens :-)!

-- hide signature --

tordseriksson (at) gmail.....
Owner of 1 Canon, 1 Olympus, 1 Pentax, 1 Ricoh, 1 Sony, and a lot of Nikon, cameras.

 Tord S Eriksson's gear list:Tord S Eriksson's gear list
Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom Ricoh GR Nikon 1 V1 Nikon D600 Nikon 1 V2 +25 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow