If those pictures posted in PM was really wide open, then its really an amazing lens. Check out those sample photos posted, check back few pages especially those posted by NixxerJixxerWixxer, it's very sharp wide open and image quality is good as well.

http://www.photomalaysia.com/forums/showth...t=159958&page=8

At this price, it's really a bang for the buck, puts many other 50s to shame; but it's a good thing for us consumer.

Really tempting; Now wonder how will the 85mm f/1.8G be? If there is one coming...

True, it also depends on the distance from your subject and what are you shooting. For wedding or events where you need more hit rate and capture the moments, you hardly use very wide aperture unless you're really confident; But for portrait shoot under controlled environment, then it's different story; But not everyone understand when to use the aperture and just use the widest, end up many OOF or sharp at different area; In my personal opinion, it defeats the purpose.

For the software, there's many types out there, the one I use is not really that good, but it's more of a movie editor. Can't remember the name now, will let you know when I get home; You can check it out and see.

Ya, if you nail it, it's very satisfying, but if it's important moments and you didn't nail it, I think it'll be really big regret and wish you nailed it. I think it depends on the situation.

For weddings, event or photographing kids/babies/toddler, many times the moments are unique special; You really want to capture that moment/scene. And for babies/toddler, you can't ask them to stay put or do some expression, it comes natural and unpredictable, for this, it's more important to nail the shot and capture the moment; I have regrets using too wide aperture and although the scene is capture, but the face is not sharp; Even with 35mm on DX, I usually use f/2.5 and above for babies; their movement is unpredictable and they move a lot especially the active ones.

Depends on the focal length and your distance also; Anyway, the aperture value is just a reference, which I use mostly.

D70s not fast enough? Why? DSLR have no problems. Try using compact camera or N8, hahaha.. for indoor or lowlight, that is really not fast enough, really struggle and suffer.

Still can use; Compact Dig Cam and N8 only have 1 focus point lol.
That's why need to use smaller aperture, so you can get more in focus and less change of OOF; but shooting active babies or toddler is a challenge and you might need to move around and be quick to capture the moment that maybe will not happen again.

I also use the N8 for video recording mostly; But sometimes, you want to capture some moements/expression in pictures and you only have a compact digital camera or mobile phone camera with you, that's when you struggle and suffer. It's very different with normal shooting, where you still can compensate and find ways to utilize the compact camera or mobile phone camera.

Yes, Adobe Premier is good, but haven't tried it yet.

For candid, actually 50mm on DX still not tele enough, you still need to get quite close and unless you want to get full body shot. For the candids and very nice effects, subject separation, etc. you'll want tele lens; Tele zooms will be very useful, 80-200mm f/2.8 is a good budgeted tele lens. You can take candid shots, nice effects, and actually still can be use for group photo if you stand far enough. This is useful during Wedding Reception usually, you want to capture those candid moments from far away; Tough, having 2 bodies will be more useful so you can easily switch to wide zoom/primes as required. I've seen photographers use the tele-zoom for walk-ins as well; Nice output results, but it can be though.
True, the moment is important, you need to know when's the right time to switch lens or use certain lens.

EDIT:
One more reason is because if you get constant aperture f/2.8 zooms like 17-50mm or 17-55mm, it already covers up to 50mm range, except your max aperture is limited to f/2.8.
So, a longer range zoom might be more preferable since it's already covered by your wide-tele zoom.

This post has been edited by Andy214: Jun 16 2011, 03:55 PM

How sharp? According to many user feedback, its very sharp.

See these sample shots wide open here, especially from NixxerJixxerWixxer...
http://www.photomalaysia.com/forums/showth...t=159958&page=8

Actually, it's more stable and easier to get sharp image compared to 55-300mm (VR turn off) and 70-300mm (VR turn off), I mean, far easier. With those lighter lenses, the shake is too much, so hard to hold it still, but with the heavy lens, it shake slower and easier to keep steady. With such heavy lens, you can still defy some of the laws, you can shoot slightly below the recommended shutter speed and still get sharp image, and with the help of flash, you can even hand hold at 1/30 second at 200mm on DX. Provided your subject is static object or the person did not move.

True, but there quite a lot of light from the huge glass window during daytime, especially during certain time of the day.
For human subject, can move towards the lightsource to get more natural light; for miniature, have to restrict to certain angle if need more natural light.
They also have flash for testing if one need it; So, I think it's pretty good enough actually.

Haha, I was about to say that, to clear people behind you, or disrupt other photogs trying to steal your shots, LoL, jk!

90 degree upward where ceiling is high, won't get much/any bounce effect but it can still get some light , kind of lit up the environment more; Can be a little useful where it's better than No Flash? At least you get some additional light to lit up the environment and you can use slightly faster shutter and/or lower iso. Really depends on the environment, test out and see whether it makes a difference.
It all depends on the desired output result, some people use the small flash/bounce card built in the camera, some people use the diffuser provided, etc.

Sigma 50 f/1.4, the price is very expensive; Do you really need the 1.4? If not, you can get the new Nikon 50mm f/1.8G at less than half the price, and it sharp wide open; For the price and performance, it's easily better than the 1.4, unless you really need the 1.4 or you have the $$$ or you're earning from photography.

Yea, that's why I said, "or"; either the person have the vitamin "M" for Money, $$$ or he/she is earning money from photography.

Haha, thanks to Mr. Jobs.

That is no difference than being a prostitute.

---

Added on June 23, 2011, 4:38 pmAnybody heard of "Lytro Light Field Camera"? It's coming soon.... was on the LowYat.net front page... check it out....
Capture the moment, FOCUS LATER. You can adjust your focus.... Amazing...


This post has been edited by Andy214: Jun 23 2011, 04:38 PM

If shoot underexpose at low ISO, the noise will be worst than if you shoot at high ISO properly exposed. Got some people also complained how bad D7000 ISO is when it's was famous for it's ISO capability, problem is they shoot underexpose.

If your friend don't know how to see the histogram, he should know how to see the picture; Is it dark, is the skin tone correct; Underexpose, the picture will be obvious and noticeable, especially the skin tone; it'll look like BBQ skin for fair skin.

Kit Lens should have no problem, at 18mm, you're at f/3.5 and at this focal length, your have more DOF unless you shoot close-up.

If you zoom, your aperture will stop down anyway. For portrait, I presume you would probably be using longer focal length.

If the subject stays still, you have less worry about focusing method, just use AF-S; If you're shooting in 'A' (Aperture Priority) make sure you control the minimum shutter speed in the settings, so that it don't go too low, which will cause blur shots when there is movement of the subject. Don't restrict too much on the ISO settings as underexpose will introduce more noise even you use low ISO.

Anyway, with kit lens, the aperture shouldn't give you much problem, you should be able get more in focus easily.

Bro, picture looks soft, and I think you applied a lot of luminance smoothing (or noise reduction in lightroom)? It makes the picture looks like water colour or too smooth, it will also make your picture less sharp; Or Did you lower the clarity?

Try not to restrict yourself from using higher ISO if you're worried about noise because IF you underexpose, the noise will be worst and the picture will look muddy and losing details.
The first picture you shot at f/6.3?

My cheap 2 shutter.


No experience but have tested before; This glass is too expensive IMHO, unless you have the $$$ or earning from photography; Because you can get Tamron (without VC) equivalent at around RM1.2K? That's a whole lots of difference.
You can also invest a little more to get the VC version OR the Sigma equivalent.

Another reason is, you can invest on other zoom lens, primes, etc.
If you're thinking about upgrading to FX in future, you don't loose much; The 17-55mm second hand price is quite low compared to new.

But, that's just my personal opinion; I think this glass is too expensive, personally I'd rather get the 24-70mm with that price.

That pic also look soft, probably focusing plane off due to close up?

The luminance smoothing in LR will make the photo look like water colour if applied too much, and too soft, very unreal. Did you decrease the clarity? Decreasing the clarify can make the girl look like angel

For the ISO, if you shoot in Aperture priority mode, you can set the max ISO to 3200 or even 6400. Even at 6400, if you properly expose the noise level is still acceptable especially if you don't pixel peep, or viewing an usual size is still pretty much acceptable; Still better than many digital camera at low ISO in low-light.
If you under-expose, the noise will be very obvious and the picture may turn muddy as well.

There's one more which is Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Macro; It has macro capability up to 1:3 magnification.
As for review, the Tamron is sharper, especially the older one (e.g. non VC model).

I'm not sure about the softness comparison with kitlens, but the advantage is basically on the aperture side; unless you comparing at similar aperture. As for the 17-70, it's not constant aperture so, I wouldn't really look into it.

The reason I bring it up is simply because of the price NEW vs NEW.
Unless you're going for 2nd hand Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8, which you need to becareful not to get a problem unit; This usually no more warranty and any problems, this is a nearly RM4K used glass..... and it's also very heavy and pretty huge.

Anyway, it's up to you; You can always try out all the lens first before making decisions; Many pros wedding photogs also use the Tamron/Sigma equivalent and still deliver excellent image quality; without people knowing what they use.


If you're using low quality filter, it'll affect more. The filter is not really necessary, you can google more about it and read about it yourself; As for the fro, he is against filter.

You can set your camera max ISO, minimum shutter speed and so on; It'll help you control on the settings.
If you're relying on the VR, after you focus, you need to wait a short while for the VR to stabilize the image.
If you're shooting with wide aperture OR close up, you need to becareful of movements and the DOF will be more shallow and movements will shift the focus plane, resulting in out of focus; At wider angle, you will have more DOF.

If you subject is standing still for you to shoot, you can stay on AF-S, single point; Careful when using focus-recompose method (e.g. focus using the center-point, lock the focus, then recompose the image), depending on how you shoot, the focus plane may shift resulting in out of focus; Usually happen for wide aperture and/or close up.

Try to make sure the focus is lock on accurately, sometimes it may not be spot on, it may focus wrongly if there is not enough contrast, etc. resulting in out of focus again. If quite hard to see it clearly through the viewfinder, need to get use to it.

Wide Angle for portrait give different "effect" or "perspective", it may make your subject look fat if you shoot close.

With VR, you can shoot at lower shutter speed, but you need to let the VR to stabilize first; BUT then, you need to becareful of slow shutter speed with moving subject, you will get blur shots due to movements of the subject.

Looking at the noise reduction applied, seems like there's a lot of noise, possibly underexposed? At f/6.3 is would require quite a lot of light indoor I suppose?


Not sure how far in terms of performance; Reviews said the Tamron are pretty comparable in terms of sharpness; Both the Sigma and Tamron are much lighter and smaller lens; The DX King, once put on, you can straight feel the quality difference, but it's darn heavy and BIG.

The reason I brought up 24-70mm is actually because of the price and if one is planning for FX anytime soon; I personally think, getting a cheaper alternative for DX can be an option; Later when upgrade, or get a 2nd FX body, the DX can still use the cheaper alternative while the FX can get the 24-70;
Anyway, just sharing my point of view, everyone has different opinion; just point out this alternative and to test out other lens first before making final decision.
Of course, given the money and option, the DX King is no doubt the better choice.

True, as I mentioned above, just stating some alternatives and options, and about testing out the other lens first; Just like buying cars, no harm testing out other car first; at least he can know how they feel and perform.
As for selling later, if getting DX King new unit, I think the loss is quite a lot for 2nd hand, personally.

too sharp for Jpeg or Raw?