Cheap reach

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
OP olindacat Regular Member • Posts: 355
Re: Cheap reach
1

Tord S Eriksson wrote:

olindacat wrote:

cosmicnode wrote:

This is shot with the latest 70-300FX using a D800 notice the slower shutter speed used to blur motion but still giving relatively sharp shots considering this.

This is shot with a D300

The Tour de Yorkshire with the D500

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?

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:

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.

Still, my vote is for the Sigma 100-400 C, the best lens for the money I ever bought. The 80-400G cost nearly four times as much (bought both new), but didn't work for me at all, even after servicing/tuning at Nikon.

I was sniffing at the 100-400, even without the collar as it seems it would be fine. Understand there is some kind of dock required? Needs a lot of tuning? I am such an idiot I worry I'll screw myself up worse! It has been maybe 15+ years since I tried Sigma. Tamaron I tried also, but never liked. It was a super room, cheap (500) so I probably got what I deserved.

Might update my idea of "cheap"... I could drop $2K for a killer long lens/zoom, but that would be my max, and I'd be shining shoes for a few years to pay for it. That's fine.

Hence my sniffing at the 200-400. I don't care about weight as I can use a golf cart. Not hiking like a lot of folks here. In fact, the weight might help me be less shaky.

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