1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  1. JJ!

    JJ!

    Messages:
    3,438
    Edit My Images:
    No
    What focus points are people using for sports. I'm usually using single point but wondering how reliable is 3D tracking?
     
  2. snerkler

    snerkler

    Messages:
    9,631
    Edit My Images:
    No
    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.
     
  3. bzukau

    bzukau

    Messages:
    5
    Name:
    Bruno
    Edit My Images:
    No
  4. markgodley

    markgodley

    Messages:
    303
    Name:
    MG
    Edit My Images:
    No
    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?
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2017
  5. sep9001

    sep9001

    Messages:
    4,512
    Name:
    Kev
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    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.
     
  6. markgodley

    markgodley

    Messages:
    303
    Name:
    MG
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Your right, it was the none vr version.
     
    sep9001 likes this.
  7. Eloise

    Eloise

    Messages:
    814
    Name:
    Eloise
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I have the Tamron 70-300 (the VC version, the non-VC is not as good). Can't comment on how it compares to the Nikon version, but heres a couple of examples.
    [​IMG]DSC_1831.jpg by Eloise, on Flickr
    [​IMG]DSC_0935.jpg by Eloise, on Flickr
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2017
    markgodley likes this.
  8. T_J_G

    T_J_G

    Messages:
    2,912
    Name:
    Tim
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    If you want a cheap 70-300 to get you by, @minnnt had a Sigma 70-300 that was about £100. Hopefully he'll take a break from his Lycra and let you know what version it was.
     
    markgodley likes this.
  9. snerkler

    snerkler

    Messages:
    9,631
    Edit My Images:
    No
    The Tamron's good, but the Nikon VR is better. I'd heard that there's not a great deal to choose between them but I've recently had hands on with the Tamron and whilst it is good I found that it's not as good as the Nikon, even if I tried it in liveview to negate any focus fine tune errors. Also, the Nikon is better built. However, at nearly half price the Tamron is a no brainer imo if buying used. However, as mentioned you can pick up used Nikon for around £250-275 in excellent condition and I'd rather have one of these over the Tamron. Forget the non VR nikon.
     
    markgodley likes this.
  10. sep9001

    sep9001

    Messages:
    4,512
    Name:
    Kev
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    @markgodley,

    Did you 28-105 come with a lens hood?

    Thanks
     
  11. siblingchris

    siblingchris

    Messages:
    1,353
    Name:
    Chris
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    http://www.tamron.eu/uk/lenses/sp-af-70-300-f4-56-di-vc-usd/

    I have the tamron 70-300 and like it a lot. Ok it's not a super fast lens, but what it offers at the price point and the VC is excellent. I think perhaps there is a newer version or an f2.8 out now though?
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2017
  12. siblingchris

    siblingchris

    Messages:
    1,353
    Name:
    Chris
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Sorry it's the 70-200 f2.8 I was thinking of
     
  13. markgodley

    markgodley

    Messages:
    303
    Name:
    MG
    Edit My Images:
    No
    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.
     
    sep9001 likes this.
  14. rob-nikon

    rob-nikon

    Messages:
    3,903
    Name:
    Rob
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    I hired the Nikon 300mm f4 PF from lense 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.
     
    snerkler likes this.
  15. sep9001

    sep9001

    Messages:
    4,512
    Name:
    Kev
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Thank you, yes looking online that is what I have read. People have suggested hb-27 or a 62mm rubber hood.

    Not sure if I should get one or not.
     
  16. snerkler

    snerkler

    Messages:
    9,631
    Edit My Images:
    No
    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 :eek: :LOL: In real life it seemed bigger than these images ;)

    http://users.skynet.be/van.hooveld/Reviews/nikkor28105.htm
     
    sep9001 likes this.
  17. Ed Sutton

    Ed Sutton

    Messages:
    3,594
    Name:
    Dave
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I have that lens hood for my 28-105. I've never used it.:D
     
    sep9001 likes this.
  18. LewisHall

    LewisHall

    Messages:
    530
    Name:
    Lewis
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Took a few more picture of the missus earlier while the sun out.. thought id give the prism a go!

    1.
    [​IMG]

    2.
    [​IMG]

    3.
    [​IMG]
     
    snerkler likes this.
  19. LewisHall

    LewisHall

    Messages:
    530
    Name:
    Lewis
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Whats the thought on the ones below..... don't know which ones are better out of 4 & 5 and then out of 6 & 7 as there quite similar!

    4.
    [​IMG]

    5.
    [​IMG]

    Then..

    6.
    [​IMG]

    7.
    [​IMG]
     
    Ateamstuff likes this.
  20. T_J_G

    T_J_G

    Messages:
    2,912
    Name:
    Tim
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    @LewisHall They're nice but IMO there's a bit too much going on over the face, if you wanted to do that then I think you need to be further away and use something like an 85 at f2 or lower to really throw the foreground OOF. Third shot is my favourite of the bunch with the fourth being shot too low for me..
     
    siblingchris and LewisHall like this.
  21. JJ!

    JJ!

    Messages:
    3,438
    Edit My Images:
    No

    Few are a bit too close IMO but I love #2. Best one of the set for me.
     
    LewisHall likes this.
  22. Ed Sutton

    Ed Sutton

    Messages:
    3,594
    Name:
    Dave
    Edit My Images:
    No
    One thing I prefer with the 28-300 over the 70-200 is the closer focusing.

    [​IMG]

    You can get close with the old 20/2.8 too.

    [​IMG]

    And with longer focal lengths you don't always need super wide apertures to get subject separation.

    [​IMG]
     
    juggler and T_J_G like this.
  23. KitsuneAndy

    KitsuneAndy

    Messages:
    3,337
    Name:
    Andy
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    wibbly, Graham, Ateamstuff and 2 others like this.
  24. T_J_G

    T_J_G

    Messages:
    2,912
    Name:
    Tim
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Looks like a nice wedding to shoot!
     
  25. snerkler

    snerkler

    Messages:
    9,631
    Edit My Images:
    No
    This would've made a great wedding to shoot. I'm not feeling the composition on that one though for some reason.
     
  26. KitsuneAndy

    KitsuneAndy

    Messages:
    3,337
    Name:
    Andy
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    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.
     
    snerkler likes this.
  27. photogwannabe

    photogwannabe

    Messages:
    745
    Name:
    Paul
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Yeesh! I hate it when that happens.
     
  28. JJ!

    JJ!

    Messages:
    3,438
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Rendering of the 35 is really nice.
     
  29. KitsuneAndy

    KitsuneAndy

    Messages:
    3,337
    Name:
    Andy
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    All the Nikon 1.4s are lovely tbh
     
  30. KitsuneAndy

    KitsuneAndy

    Messages:
    3,337
    Name:
    Andy
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Ah doesn't really bother me, people want to take their photos, they're the guests and family. I'm just the photographer
     
  31. niko

    niko

    Messages:
    1,555
    Name:
    nik
    Edit My Images:
    No
    the prism effect reminds me of the old cokin filter you can buy (or is that used to be available to buy). i think the pics would be better with out
     
  32. markgodley

    markgodley

    Messages:
    303
    Name:
    MG
    Edit My Images:
    No
    wibbly, Graham, Ateamstuff and 2 others like this.
  33. T_J_G

    T_J_G

    Messages:
    2,912
    Name:
    Tim
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    markgodley likes this.
  34. KitsuneAndy

    KitsuneAndy

    Messages:
    3,337
    Name:
    Andy
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
  35. markgodley

    markgodley

    Messages:
    303
    Name:
    MG
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I'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?
     
  36. snerkler

    snerkler

    Messages:
    9,631
    Edit My Images:
    No
    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 ;)
     
    markgodley likes this.
  37. chuckles

    chuckles

    Messages:
    4,017
    Name:
    Barry
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Unless I'm misunderstanding something you're asking....
    square braces [ smaller ] bigger
     
  38. markgodley

    markgodley

    Messages:
    303
    Name:
    MG
    Edit My Images:
    No
    I 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
     
  39. snerkler

    snerkler

    Messages:
    9,631
    Edit My Images:
    No
    That works in photoshop but not LR, at least not on my system.
     
  40. snerkler

    snerkler

    Messages:
    9,631
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Doesn't work on brushes for me :confused:
    Here's a link to the adobe site on how to use radial filters, no shortcut key to change the size.
    https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/help/lightroom-radial-filter.html


    The Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 does get mentioned from time to time. Lovely lens, was the choice of amateurs and professionals alike before the 70-200mm came out.
     
    markgodley likes this.

Share This Page