[jpelg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif I like how the couple is in the background.

Yes! The fact that it was natural makes it very cool.

What do you guys think of the Sigma 24mm f1.8? I think I'd prefer more of a wide-angle on my crop camera (net ~36mm equivalent).

 

[dj_mocok]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpelg /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes! The fact that it was natural makes it very cool. What do you guys think of the Sigma 24mm f1.8? I think I'd prefer more of a wide-angle on my crop camera (net ~36mm equivalent).

I never used Sigma lenses, but it would be a very tough choice between:

Sigma 24mm 1.8 or sacrifice a bit more width to get the speed of Sigma 30mm 1.4

on digital, 24mm for me doesn't really turn out to be that much of a wide angle anyway. I think to be considered as wide angle, the focal length should be at least 17mm or 18mm on digital.

I would probably rather have a Nikon 20mm f/2.8.

 

[Edwood]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Here is a picture I took with my D200 last night at Canter's Deli in Hollywood using my Sigma 30mm 1.4. This is wide open at a 30th, ISO 900. http://www.animationarchive.org/pics/skipcanters.jpg That's jazz guitarist, Skip Heller. See ya Steve

A little oversaturated in the magenta and yellows, but as others have said, very nice composition. Excellent focus for wide open. Not easy with a 1.4 lens. Making me exciting to shoot with my D200 (going to get it this week).

-Ed

 

[bigshot]

Last night I went to a nightclub for a Halloween party. The only light was candles on the tables. I had a flash, but that totally killed the mood. So I asked people to hold candles and shot handheld braced against walls for up to a second. I got a few very interesting shots. They're going to take some photoshopping. When I get them done, I'll post a couple.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpelg /img/forum/go_quote.gif What do you guys think of the Sigma 24mm f1.8?

It's a nice lens, but there isn't much point to macro focusing at 24mm. You get down to two inches from your subject. If you want to shoot macro, better to get something in the 100mm range. The Sigma 30 is better optimized for shooting in low light. I got mine used for $300 which is in the ballpark for the price of the 24mm. Not much difference between 24mm and 30mm anyway.

See ya
Steve

 

[milkpowder]

That was a nice shot Steve. Looking forward to your "candle" shots.

 

[bigshot]

Here are some shots of my visit to the California Institute of Abnormal Arts. The camera here is the D200, lens is the Sigma 30mm f/1.4...


Mummified clown on display


Fun with flash.


One candle. The shutter speed on this was almost a full second. I braced myself against a wall and held my breath.


I like to shoot a bunch of shots rapid succession in different lighting and then cobble them all together in photoshop into one impossible image. This is a collage of available light lit by Christmas lights and three different exposures randomly lit by shaking a keychain flashlight all around over the subject.

See ya
Steve

 

[Poohblah]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's a nice lens, but there isn't much point to macro focusing at 24mm. You get down to two inches from your subject. If you want to shoot macro, better to get something in the 100mm range. The Sigma 30 is better optimized for shooting in low light. I got mine used for $300 which is in the ballpark for the price of the 24mm. Not much difference between 24mm and 30mm anyway. See ya Steve

i find that focusing that close with a wide angle lens is great for exaggerating the distorting effects of wide-angle lenses, not necessarily for the close-up itself. true macro is better left to a nice bellows setup.

 

[lan]

So I shot with the 35mm f/2 this Sunday. Hmm... I haven't analyzed all my photos but there's a certain setting.

-------------

On another note. A new D300 firmware is out.

EXACTLY the things I didn't like about the unit looks to have been fixed.

- The range of settings available for ISO sensitivity settings > ISO sensitivity auto control > Minimum shutter speed in the shooting menu has been increased from 1/250 – 1 s to 1/4000 – 1 s.
- Focus acquisition performance in dynamic-area AF mode has been improved.
- Focus acquisition performance with contrast-detect AF has been improved.

I can stop using Manual mode or Shutter priority hopefully to get higher than 1/250 shutter speed.

I find the AF a bit sluggish compared to D3 / D700 so hopefully this fixes.

Ok... time to find out!

 

[lan]

Confirmed. AF is faster and there are more auto ISO shutter speed options. I'm happy as a kitten playing with a ball of yarn!

 

[milkpowder]

Just upgraded. No opportunity to test AF speed, but the new auto ISO shutter speed options are a wonderful addition. I wish they could let us set the exact max ISO in auto ISO.

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkpowder /img/forum/go_quote.gif I wish they could let us set the exact max ISO in auto ISO.

What do you mean? In finer than 1 stop gradations?

 

[dj_mocok]

Update:
My Carl Zeiss Jena 50mm f/2.8 Tessar DDR that I bought cheap from eBay arrived today.

I didn't expect much considering the price and the fact that it's an M42 mount, that means it will be used with a adapter to Nikon F, but boy was I surprised.
I gotta say that picture quality is damn good, very sharp and contrasty, unlike what I've read about many old lenses are not as contrasty as modern ones.

One thing though, since the adapter is glassless one, the furthest I can focus is maybe roughly around 1.2 metre only. I wish it's a bit further than that, but I am still very happy because I probably use this lens for close distance photography anyway.

Other thing that I notice is this lens can focus very close, and it's almost like a macro lens. I think this purchase is definitely one of the best $65 bucks I've ever spent.

 

[milkpowder]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif What do you mean? In finer than 1 stop gradations?

Yup. I would like the max ISO to be around 2000-2500. That's where the D300's sensor starts losing detail and where chroma noise creeps in noticeably w/ High NR set at Low. What do you think?

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkpowder /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yup. I would like the max ISO to be around 2000-2500. That's where the D300's sensor starts losing detail and where chroma noise creeps in noticeably w/ High NR set at Low. What do you think?

I see what you are saying. I usually use 1600 as max. I agree 3200 isn't as usable. The answer is probably between like you observe but I haven't spent the time figuring that out. I am never in a situation where I needed auto ISO to be over 1600. Usually when I need 3200, it's fixed 3200 and I just use my 5D.