[bigshot]

The 8mm Samyang (Bowen, Vivitar) fisheye is optically superior to the Nikon, and it's inexpensive enough you don't have to baby it.

 

[Trysaeder]

Quote:

...fisheye is optically superior...

Does it really matter?

 

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Yeah and rear mount filters arn't going to protect my glass… I will have to try that string thing. Things are just so hectic that it may seem like a bother, but protecting the lens is extremely important. It was an investment, to say the least. Even with the 35mm things are made very uncomfortable by the fact that I have to back up so darn far. Although when it gets late and people start filing out I get some beautiful portraits with it. I suppose 18 on my 18-200 would work moderadely well, but honestly this lens is perfect for what I do.I couldn't get most of my spur of the moment shots in such a cramped space without it. Thanks for the suggestions!

I know someone who does professional nightclub photos.  I like the ones he takes at 11mm.
 
 

 
Might be worth asking him what lens he uses.
His flickr account is:  http://www.flickr.com/photos/ktoffl7574/

 

[Butler]

The 8mm Samyang (Bowen, Vivitar) fisheye is optically superior to the Nikon, and it's inexpensive enough you don't have to baby it.

It's not like I'm "in the market" anymore for one so it's kind of irrelevant if you feel that is is optically superior. Mine is faster, which is a more of a plus for what I do. If I ever have 300 dollars lying around it's probably not going to go to have a beater fisheye. Even if it was 300 dollars I would still baby it just like I do my 200 dollar 35mm or my ~800 dollar 18-200 VRII, I just like keep my items at tip top shape for resale. No joke, I have a circular cut "invisible shield" over the wood on my ESW9's.
Also, I am a huge Nikon fanboy when it comes to camera equipment so that extends to my Nikkor Lenses of course. But that's more foolishness/ brand loyalty than practicality.
Besides, that 300 dollars is reserved for my bifrost DAC.:atsmile:

I know someone who does professional nightclub photos.  I like the ones he takes at 11mm.
 
 

 
Might be worth asking him what lens he uses.
His flickr account is:  http://www.flickr.com/photos/ktoffl7574/

Those shots / lens profiles are similar to what I have. Somewhat less cramped than what I deal with. I'm not interested in picking up another lens as much as I am protecting what I have.
It looks like he uses a wideangle zoom lens, which is awesome and something that's great to have on hand. I would like something like that for framing but it's not the end of the world. What I'd like to ask him is why go all the way down to (and past) f22 on some of his club shots? Hahaha. Oh well. To each their own. He's got some great stuff here, some stuff that I wouldn't be able to do.

 

[Trysaeder]

Dark shots should be underexposed to retain the feeling of the environment. The photos all look really unnatural, giving the same feeling as overdone hdr.

 

[BlackbeardBen]

Quote:

It's not like I'm "in the market" anymore for one so it's kind of irrelevant if you feel that is is optically superior. Mine is faster, which is a more of a plus for what I do. If I ever have 300 dollars lying around it's probably not going to go to have a beater fisheye. Even if it was 300 dollars I would still baby it just like I do my 200 dollar 35mm or my ~800 dollar 18-200 VRII, I just like keep my items at tip top shape for resale. No joke, I have a circular cut "invisible shield" over the wood on my ESW9's.
Also, I am a huge Nikon fanboy when it comes to camera equipment so that extends to my Nikkor Lenses of course. But that's more foolishness/ brand loyalty than practicality.
Besides, that 300 dollars is reserved for my bifrost DAC.

Those shots / lens profiles are similar to what I have. Somewhat less cramped than what I deal with. I'm not interested in picking up another lens as much as I am protecting what I have.
It looks like he uses a wideangle zoom lens, which is awesome and something that's great to have on hand. I would like something like that for framing but it's not the end of the world. What I'd like to ask him is why go all the way down to (and past) f22 on some of his club shots? Hahaha. Oh well. To each their own. He's got some great stuff here, some stuff that I wouldn't be able to do.

More important than what lens he uses, he uses ceiling-mounted strobes.  That's also why he's stopping down so much.

 

[bigshot]

Does it really matter?

I guess it does if you plan to do panorams. The Samyang can do a full 360 in four shots while the Nikon takes six. The distortion pattern on the Samyang makes it easier to defish using software too.

 

[Butler]

Ah. I suppose that would make sense. I just have my flash which I either use on the off the shoe. I wouldn't like to stop down that much and lose all the DOF, you know? That and it would pick up every nitty gritty detail and trust me these people can look sloppy and sweaty! :atsmile:

 

[Nocturnal310]

the hollow squarish building in the first pic...i have seen it in real life while i was travelling in europe...is it paris?
Quote:

Just a quick update for those I talked to about my 70-200 f2.8 purchase. A few weeks ago I purchased a cheap Tamron (1/3 price of a Nikon branded alternative) and just wanted to show a few photos after my first shootout with it, nothing special - I do not consider myself a good photographer either.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[nikongod]

I went to hang out with some folks from a camera forum, and had a great time. 
 
One of the guys at the meet had a Noct-Nikkor 58 F1.2 lens. No, I take that back. Its not a "lens" - "lens" describes what is in front of a holga, this is more like a light magnet. 
 
Some pictures from inside a poorly lit bar. A few 15-40W lightbulbs overhead, and natural light on an overcast day through the windows. 
 

 
Ok, this lens is a PITA to focus on my D200. I doubt its ever an easy lens to focus, but the D200 makes it extra hard. 
 

 
Corona... It was in the middle of the table and far enough away that I thought that the non-existent DOF would make shooting it easy... yea right. It took 6 photos of "bokeh of corona" and this was the best of them. It could be better.
 

 
One of the guys who came to the meet, from about 3-4ft away. 

 

[Butler]

1.2?! Dear god… I could imagine that almost being inconveniently fast! Such soft pictures, so much bokeh and such a deep depth of field. WTB sharp focus and clarity amirite?

 

[liamstrain]

1.2 isn't too fast to focus if you have a good viewfinder (FF with split prism) or have it slapped on a rangefinder (often easier to focus in dim light).
 
The Noct-Nikkor is a great lens. Very unique bokeh... and yes, that extremely narrow depth of field - going in a flash from razor sharp, to creamy smooth... 

 

[nikongod]

Quote:

1.2?! Dear god… I could imagine that almost being inconveniently fast! Such soft pictures, so much bokeh and such a deep depth of field. WTB sharp focus and clarity amirite?

 

I would not call this lens soft. 
Open the picture of the guy in a new window. I uploaded full size - you can see individual hairs on his face & pores in his skin. 
Its not a soft lens, soft lenses blur all of that together. 

Quote:

1.2 isn't too fast to focus if you have a good viewfinder (FF with split prism) or have it slapped on a rangefinder (often easier to focus in dim light).
 
The Noct-Nikkor is a great lens. Very unique bokeh... and yes, that extremely narrow depth of field - going in a flash from razor sharp, to creamy smooth... 

I'm a bit bummed at how much you have to spend to get a split prism focus screen for a digital camera, even for the D*00 series. Maybe I'l get one when the D800 comes out and I get a D700. 
 
The guy who owns the lens had it on an F3hp, which was an absolute joy to focus.

 

[Butler]

You're right. I didn't mean soft. I meant narrow depth of field.
However, because of the aperture if he was further away from the subject- despite being in focus- it would be soft.

 

[liamstrain]

If he is in focus, he is sharp (unless the aperture is at f22 or smaller, then it would soften due to diffraction...), if he is not the subject - then yes, his distance to it would affect his sharpness ...