I tend to use single point. If you're panning and not bang on it's going to be blurred/soft anyway. 3D's useful if there's a chance the subject is going to move off the AF point, or when you're holding the camera steady and letting the subject move across the frame.What focus points are people using for sports. I'm usually using single point but wondering how reliable is 3D tracking?
A couple more Puffins from Skomer. Its worth the gamble on the weather booking 9 months in advance.
Puffin Straight On by Rob Cain, on Flickr
Puffin and Sand Eels by Rob Cain, on Flickr
Not used the 70-300 Tamron but have heard good things about it.Anyone used the tamron 70-300?
I'd really like a 70-200 or 70-300. Just don't have the funds for the Nikon 2.8 version at about 10x the cost
There's a Nikon 70-300 too used for £70 - how's this lens compare?
Your right, it was the none vr version.Not used the 70-300 Tamron but have heard good things about it.
Not sure if the price for the Nikon one is correct, if it is the non VC version I would not bother with it.
The VR is a good lens, used for about £240.
Anyone used the tamron 70-300?
I'd really like a 70-200 or 70-300. Just don't have the funds for the Nikon 2.8 version at about 10x the cost
There's a Nikon 70-300 too used for £70 - how's this lens compare?
Anyone used the tamron 70-300?
I'd really like a 70-200 or 70-300. Just don't have the funds for the Nikon 2.8 version at about 10x the cost
There's a Nikon 70-300 too used for £70 - how's this lens compare?
Anyone used the tamron 70-300?
I'd really like a 70-200 or 70-300. Just don't have the funds for the Nikon 2.8 version at about 10x the cost
There's a Nikon 70-300 too used for £70 - how's this lens compare?
Mine didn't, but it did originally come with one as standard (I think). But from what I recall it's f-ugly lens hood tho.
I hired the Nikon 300mm f4 PF from lens for hire. The first was 1.86m away and the second 2.37m away. I wasn't blown away by the 300 f4 PF, it was slower than I was expecting although my normal lens for this stuff is the 70-200 f2.8 VR2 which is like lightening so probably not a fair comparison. It's interesting most of my shared images so far were taken with the 300 f4, though I put this partly down to making the most of the hire (I did change to the 70-200 once the light dropped). I came to the conclusion the 300 f4 gave me the benefit of 420mm f5.6 but 300mm f4 is nearly cover by my 70-200 and 1.4TC. It has to be said the 70-200 + TC at these short focus distances isn't a true 280mm due to the focus breathing, but a zoom does come in handy to frame an image nicely.which lens did you use for these shots?
Thank you, yes looking online that is what I have read. People have suggested hb-27 or a 62mm rubber hood.Mine didn't, but it did originally come with one as standard (I think). But from what I recall it's f-ugly lens hood tho.
Looking into it no lens hood was supplied as standard, but the official one (bought separately) was the HB-18, and here's what it looked like, like a lamp shape In real life it seemed bigger than these imagesMine didn't, but it did originally come with one as standard (I think). But from what I recall it's f-ugly lens hood tho.
Looking into it no lens hood was supplied as standard, but the official one (bought separately) was the HB-18, and here's what it looked like, like a lamp shape In real life it seemed bigger than these images
http://users.skynet.be/van.hooveld/Reviews/nikkor28105.htm
This would've made a great wedding to shoot. I'm not feeling the composition on that one though for some reason.
This would've made a great wedding to shoot. I'm not feeling the composition on that one though for some reason.
Yeah they should've been more central and I should've got the guards to spread out a little more so his shoulder wasn't visible. But they were running late for the car and I couldn't step in any direction for people with camera phones standing as close as possible to me hah.
Rendering of the 35 is really nice.
Yeesh! I hate it when that happens.
If there is I haven't found it, I do what you do I drag it, increase it and then drag it back. Maybe someone can teach us both somethingI'm sure one of you guys/girls can answer this for me...
Is there a way to increase the size of a round radial filter when it's in place but the filter outline goes off the screen? I often find myself having to drag it off to the side then making one side bigger... dragging it back... then having to adjust it again... surely theres a shortcut for this?
If there is I haven't found it, I do what you do I drag it, increase it and then drag it back. Maybe someone can teach us both something
I know that works on brushes, haven't tried it on the radial filters will try later.Unless I'm misunderstanding something you're asking....
square braces [ smaller ] bigger
That works in photoshop but not LR, at least not on my system.Unless I'm misunderstanding something you're asking....
square braces [ smaller ] bigger
Doesn't work on brushes for meI know that works on brushes, haven't tried it on the radial filters will try later.
Just stumbled across a lens which I haven't seen mentioned before.. Nikon 80-200mm 2.8!
Anyone used it on the d750. How do you find it performs? Seem to be able to pick them up for about £250-280