Gerry_the_Merry
Well-Known Member
RJSTYLES - these are stunners. Great choice of the moment and great imagination. Congrats.
The essence of photography
- Thread starter ajay124
- Start date
Great thread. I have gone from a Canon 5D Mk II to an Olympus OMD EM5 and not regretted it one bit. Just using two primes and my neck does not hurt anymore
Staxx
Which primes do you use? I guess you bought OMD EM5 from outside of India. Correct?
Very Very Striking pics, Loved the Vividness and the Stark"ness" you have post processed them right ?
what package do you use ?
Last edited:
Great thread. I have gone from a Canon 5D Mk II to an Olympus OMD EM5 and not regretted it one bit. Just using two primes and my neck does not hurt anymore
I was very very seriously considering going the OMD5 way. Loved the 45mm prime. But decided to try out Full Frame for some time.
the Mirrorless cameras are only going to improve with time.
Thanks man, the 3rd one was taken using a wide angle lens. No filters as such just underexposed and shot in RAW.
kittu been a hobbyist for like 6/7 years now unlikely that I would do it for monetary gains.
Thanks pal.
I shoot RAW and yes post processing is definitely needed.
My gear is a small list
Nikon D300s
Nikkor 70-300mm VR
Tokina 12-24mm
Nikkor 18-105mm VR
and borrow stuff from my friends too. I would love to own a 70-200mm some day from Nikon, one of the best I would love to have in my walk around kit.
Here's a an old one from Thirtahalli,one of my favorites
The same one shot with a polarizer
ajay124
Well-Known Member
The 70-200 is out of reach for most amateurs. I was planning to buy it but then I came across the 80-200 2.8. No VR but otherwise more or less the same results. Price of a new 80-200 is 65K. You can find used ones for 30-35K. VR is not important for me as I use a monopod or tripod all the time.
Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D (new)
Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D (new)
"My primary interest is to go do wildlife photography, but 18-55 won't do good. I am currently saving for this"
kevian
Before I clicked on "this" I kind of knew what lens you would be looking at
The 70-300 VR will cost you 25-28K. The 70-300 non VR will cost you 6K. Personally I would never dream of paying the extra 20K merely for VR. I would rather buy the non VR version for 6K and a buy a Manfrotto 679B monopod (3K) for image stabilization. Save yourself 20K and go for the non VR 70-300. You lose out on the VR function and get a plastic mount instead of a metal one. These are probably the only real difference between the two lenses.
Hello Ajay,
Off topic,but since you mentioned / suggested non vr 70-300 with a monopod(and save monies) i thought i should take your help in bailing me out in my current dilemma.
My current gear : Canon 550d,18-55 & 50mm 1.8
Now the dilemma
Wanting to buy a tele photo lense.This is mainly to take photographs of birds and once in a while wildlife photos.I am interested in Macro photography as well.
Since i don't want to spend much money on this lens,the following lenses came to my mind.
1. Tamron 70-300 Di Ld - 8.5k (This has a macro option even though it is 1:2)
2. Sigma 70-300 APO DG - 14 k(This also has macro option)
3. Tamron 70-300 VC - 28K(dont have macro option but has VC)
Pls help me in deciding from the above list.I am leaning towards the first option.Taking a risk of buying a non VC lens and adding a mono pod.
Since I read your comment on Non VR lens,i am gaining confidence.
Need your help in deciding.
Thanks.
Dijeesh.
ajay124
Well-Known Member
dijeesh
I am not very familiar with Canon/Sigma/Tamron gear. Therefore I cannot specifically recommend any lens. But the reasoning I adopted for selecting my wide angle and telephoto lenses would be valid for all brands.
For wide angle I wanted a 2x zoom with a focal range like 10-20, 12-24, 18-35 etc. My preference was for buying a Nikon or Tokina lens. Tokina's 11-16 and 12-24 are both considered to be excellent lenses. But both are DX lenses, which were ruled out the moment I bought a full frame camera. Nikon's FX wide angles like 14-24 and 17-35 are quite expensive. Therefore I got interested in a middle of the road lens from the film era. The Nikkor 18-35mm AF D 3.5-4.5. The best days of this lens might lie in the film era, but it a pretty good lens on the current generation of digital cameras. It is still in production and is made in Japan. It weighs 300 + grams, which is neither too heavy, nor too light. One of the forum members (shivam) was already using it and was quite happy with the results. At 28K it was quite affordable. Prices have gone up recently and current price after discount would be around 32K.
Sample pic from my flick stream:
chandigarh calling | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
For telephoto use, I was hunting for the older version of 70-200, but I did not come across anyone selling a used copy of this lens. I tried and rejected the 55-200. The 70-300 VR has never interested me as I find it to be overpriced for what it offers. I finally came to the conclusion that since I always shoot with a monopod or a tripod, I don't really need image stabilisation. I have seen many pros using expensive VR lenses on their tripod. Every article I have read on the internet in this context, mentions that VR should be switched off while using a tripod. Yet most folks don't seem to be aware of this basic fact. Personally I have come to the conclusion that a majority of DSLR buyers in India (and perhaps abroad) never really bother to learn the basics of the equipment they buy. Buying an impressive looking kit seems to be their main objective. When they are still unable to shoot satisfactory pics they tend to start hunting for more equipment. A goodman workman never blames his tools. This maxim should be kept in mind by every one who is attempting to take better pics. I am not familiar with other brands but virtually any entry level Nikon DSLR + kit lens is capable of taking jaw dropping pictures.
For your telephoto needs look for a non VR, pro level Canon, Tokina, Sigma, Tamron telephoto lens and buy a decent monopod like Manfrotto 679B or a tripod like Manfrotto 190XPROB.
I am not very familiar with Canon/Sigma/Tamron gear. Therefore I cannot specifically recommend any lens. But the reasoning I adopted for selecting my wide angle and telephoto lenses would be valid for all brands.
For wide angle I wanted a 2x zoom with a focal range like 10-20, 12-24, 18-35 etc. My preference was for buying a Nikon or Tokina lens. Tokina's 11-16 and 12-24 are both considered to be excellent lenses. But both are DX lenses, which were ruled out the moment I bought a full frame camera. Nikon's FX wide angles like 14-24 and 17-35 are quite expensive. Therefore I got interested in a middle of the road lens from the film era. The Nikkor 18-35mm AF D 3.5-4.5. The best days of this lens might lie in the film era, but it a pretty good lens on the current generation of digital cameras. It is still in production and is made in Japan. It weighs 300 + grams, which is neither too heavy, nor too light. One of the forum members (shivam) was already using it and was quite happy with the results. At 28K it was quite affordable. Prices have gone up recently and current price after discount would be around 32K.
Sample pic from my flick stream:
chandigarh calling | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
For telephoto use, I was hunting for the older version of 70-200, but I did not come across anyone selling a used copy of this lens. I tried and rejected the 55-200. The 70-300 VR has never interested me as I find it to be overpriced for what it offers. I finally came to the conclusion that since I always shoot with a monopod or a tripod, I don't really need image stabilisation. I have seen many pros using expensive VR lenses on their tripod. Every article I have read on the internet in this context, mentions that VR should be switched off while using a tripod. Yet most folks don't seem to be aware of this basic fact. Personally I have come to the conclusion that a majority of DSLR buyers in India (and perhaps abroad) never really bother to learn the basics of the equipment they buy. Buying an impressive looking kit seems to be their main objective. When they are still unable to shoot satisfactory pics they tend to start hunting for more equipment. A goodman workman never blames his tools. This maxim should be kept in mind by every one who is attempting to take better pics. I am not familiar with other brands but virtually any entry level Nikon DSLR + kit lens is capable of taking jaw dropping pictures.
For your telephoto needs look for a non VR, pro level Canon, Tokina, Sigma, Tamron telephoto lens and buy a decent monopod like Manfrotto 679B or a tripod like Manfrotto 190XPROB.
Shivam
Well-Known Member
Optically, the Sigma lens has better quality than the other two. I prefer lenses without VR since they are not very heavy.
The only VR lens that I use is for portraits (105mm)
My wife on the other hand likes to use even a 500mm lens with VR, especially since she just has to click and I have to carry it around.
ajay124
Well-Known Member
Idle thoughts about photography.
I have noticed that the kind of pics we shoot (or applaud) is heavily influenced by the kind of cinema we watch. A Bollywood film watcher shoots differently from a Hollywood film watcher. Both share a common admiration for spectacular or sensational shots. The real and the ordinary does not seem to interest them very much. Even when an Indian fan of Hollywood films shoots pictures of ordinary, everyday India, he/she tends to look at his subject through western eyes. Personally I have grown up on European art house cinema. I tend to look at the world through eyes which are heavily influenced by Truffaut, Bunuel, Antonioni, Fellini, Bergman, Kusturica, Fassbinder and Tarkovsky. I tend to shun spectacular and sensational shots as I find them too exhibitionistic.
Earlier I used to shoot pictures with the idea of showing it to other people and winning their applause. I chose subjects, camera settings and post processing (exaggerated, over saturated and over sharpened) which would please the folks who viewed my pics. Now I shoot with the notion, that I will be the only audience for my pictures. I do exhibit on Flickr and a couple of other places, but the only opinion or applause I am really looking for is of my own. Some of my favorite writers (Franz Kafka and Fernando Pessoa) wrote scintillating prose and poetry, which they never intended to publish. Their trunk full of masterpieces was supposed to vanish into obscurity when they died. Happily some of it survived. We may not be creating masterpieces, but we should primarily create for ourselves and only secondarily for an audience.
I have noticed that the kind of pics we shoot (or applaud) is heavily influenced by the kind of cinema we watch. A Bollywood film watcher shoots differently from a Hollywood film watcher. Both share a common admiration for spectacular or sensational shots. The real and the ordinary does not seem to interest them very much. Even when an Indian fan of Hollywood films shoots pictures of ordinary, everyday India, he/she tends to look at his subject through western eyes. Personally I have grown up on European art house cinema. I tend to look at the world through eyes which are heavily influenced by Truffaut, Bunuel, Antonioni, Fellini, Bergman, Kusturica, Fassbinder and Tarkovsky. I tend to shun spectacular and sensational shots as I find them too exhibitionistic.
Earlier I used to shoot pictures with the idea of showing it to other people and winning their applause. I chose subjects, camera settings and post processing (exaggerated, over saturated and over sharpened) which would please the folks who viewed my pics. Now I shoot with the notion, that I will be the only audience for my pictures. I do exhibit on Flickr and a couple of other places, but the only opinion or applause I am really looking for is of my own. Some of my favorite writers (Franz Kafka and Fernando Pessoa) wrote scintillating prose and poetry, which they never intended to publish. Their trunk full of masterpieces was supposed to vanish into obscurity when they died. Happily some of it survived. We may not be creating masterpieces, but we should primarily create for ourselves and only secondarily for an audience.
Not taking a dig at you, butttttt......
Give me a sharper lens in that range and I will buy what you said. Here's something that I shot with the 70-300mm VR lens.
A handheld shot.
No VR version used for the below shot
To each his own and I respect your view on that. VR has its own added advantages.
That's a blanket statement to be passed. I have been into this for like donkeys years now, have quite a few professional photographers in my friends circle. Your statement could hold good for a handful of people who have the money to splurge and their knowledge is zilch.
I do rally photo-shoots (K-1000 INRC) and this purely from a hobbyists perspective, never charge a penny to anyone. There was this one instance about 2 years back when I saw a dude using his external flash in broad day light to click pictures. Classic case of what you mentioned above, however not everyone is the same.
Well said, I used to shoot with a puny 3MP camera and a 5MP later only before I moved to the DSLR category in 2005.
Give me a sharper lens in that range and I will buy what you said. Here's something that I shot with the 70-300mm VR lens.
A handheld shot.
No VR version used for the below shot
To each his own and I respect your view on that. VR has its own added advantages.
That's a blanket statement to be passed. I have been into this for like donkeys years now, have quite a few professional photographers in my friends circle. Your statement could hold good for a handful of people who have the money to splurge and their knowledge is zilch.
I do rally photo-shoots (K-1000 INRC) and this purely from a hobbyists perspective, never charge a penny to anyone. There was this one instance about 2 years back when I saw a dude using his external flash in broad day light to click pictures. Classic case of what you mentioned above, however not everyone is the same.
Well said, I used to shoot with a puny 3MP camera and a 5MP later only before I moved to the DSLR category in 2005.
I have used this lens before and its never sharp beyond 180mm or so. A good lens for starters though.
That's an expensive one to buy.
Last edited:
nshankar
Active Member
I use a sigma 150-500 for birds and consider this lens as VFM option. I did not go for the canon L in similar range as the zoom is push pull type.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ajay124
Well-Known Member
rjstyles
I found the 70-300VR overpriced, because for a few thousand more I was able to find a lightly used 80-200 2.8. For build quality, colors, resolution and bokeh, this is the best lens I have ever come across. I have a lot of respect for D series Nikon primes and micro lenses like 50mm 1.8D, 85mm 1.8D, 60mm 2.8D and 105mm 2.8D. The 80-200 2.8 easily beats all these lenses hands down. My first experience with a pro grade Nikon lens and I have become a believer. I intend to retain the 50mm 1.8D because it is a great lens at a ridiculously cheap price. But in future when I come across lightly used, reasonably priced 24-70, 70-200, 14-24, 17-35 I intend to buy a few or all of them. Apart from the 80-200 and 50mm, these are the Nikon lenses I would like to have.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200.htm
I found the 70-300VR overpriced, because for a few thousand more I was able to find a lightly used 80-200 2.8. For build quality, colors, resolution and bokeh, this is the best lens I have ever come across. I have a lot of respect for D series Nikon primes and micro lenses like 50mm 1.8D, 85mm 1.8D, 60mm 2.8D and 105mm 2.8D. The 80-200 2.8 easily beats all these lenses hands down. My first experience with a pro grade Nikon lens and I have become a believer. I intend to retain the 50mm 1.8D because it is a great lens at a ridiculously cheap price. But in future when I come across lightly used, reasonably priced 24-70, 70-200, 14-24, 17-35 I intend to buy a few or all of them. Apart from the 80-200 and 50mm, these are the Nikon lenses I would like to have.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80200.htm
Shivam
Well-Known Member
This is one of the sharpest lens available for that price. A 'must have' in my opinion for anyone interested in bird / small animals photography.
Very interesting and knowledgeable thread.
My Camera Story:
I bought my first SLR in 2001. It was a Canon. Dont remember the model no. I still have it as an antique. I bought two lenses : 28-90mm and 80-200mm. After two years the camera broke down and cost of repair was more than the camera itself. So, I bought a new SLR. I still have the same till date although I sold the 28-90mm lens. During the Film camera era, it is sad that I didn't try to learn much and ended up just shooting at P and Auto modes.
Enter digital DSLR era and I bought my first DSLR - Canon EOS 400D with a 15-55 IS. I used this lens and 80-200mm for the next 5 years or so. It was a decent camera but it had a below par LCD screen which did not help in judging pictures before transferring them to PC. Further, it would not AF on bulb mode. It had to pop-up flash or just use the ambient light as best as one can.
Recently I sold the above kit and bought a Nikon D7000. I dont see myself such a serious photographer that I will grow to a Full frame any time soon. I bought only the body and bought a 50mm 1.8D prime. My current kit also contains a caselogic SLRC-202 shoulder bag.
Now I am on the lookout for a telephoto lens. I have shortlisted the Nikkor 55-300 VR and 70-300VR. I will not prefer a lens without VR as I will not be carrying a tripod/monopod everywhere I go. I shoot a lot of handheld shots.
It would be used for family holidays and general shooting. And, ofcos F1 grand prix. I have read that 55-300VR is a slow lens. It takes its own time to AF when compared to 70-300VR. Now this is a relative term . Can someone highlight this difference? Is it worth paying the extra 10K.
These are the lenses that I shortlisted. I am not aware with lenses of other makes. If I can get macro in similar focal range, and VR/OS etc and fast AF then that lens would make sense.
I will buy a tripod eventually although I dont wish to select my lens on this basis. I have shorlisted a Vanguard Espod plus 203AP. Its about 5K or so.
Thanks.
My Camera Story:
I bought my first SLR in 2001. It was a Canon. Dont remember the model no. I still have it as an antique. I bought two lenses : 28-90mm and 80-200mm. After two years the camera broke down and cost of repair was more than the camera itself. So, I bought a new SLR. I still have the same till date although I sold the 28-90mm lens. During the Film camera era, it is sad that I didn't try to learn much and ended up just shooting at P and Auto modes.
Enter digital DSLR era and I bought my first DSLR - Canon EOS 400D with a 15-55 IS. I used this lens and 80-200mm for the next 5 years or so. It was a decent camera but it had a below par LCD screen which did not help in judging pictures before transferring them to PC. Further, it would not AF on bulb mode. It had to pop-up flash or just use the ambient light as best as one can.
Recently I sold the above kit and bought a Nikon D7000. I dont see myself such a serious photographer that I will grow to a Full frame any time soon. I bought only the body and bought a 50mm 1.8D prime. My current kit also contains a caselogic SLRC-202 shoulder bag.
Now I am on the lookout for a telephoto lens. I have shortlisted the Nikkor 55-300 VR and 70-300VR. I will not prefer a lens without VR as I will not be carrying a tripod/monopod everywhere I go. I shoot a lot of handheld shots.
It would be used for family holidays and general shooting. And, ofcos F1 grand prix. I have read that 55-300VR is a slow lens. It takes its own time to AF when compared to 70-300VR. Now this is a relative term . Can someone highlight this difference? Is it worth paying the extra 10K.
These are the lenses that I shortlisted. I am not aware with lenses of other makes. If I can get macro in similar focal range, and VR/OS etc and fast AF then that lens would make sense.
I will buy a tripod eventually although I dont wish to select my lens on this basis. I have shorlisted a Vanguard Espod plus 203AP. Its about 5K or so.
Thanks.
Stumbled upon this video on youtube. It does answer quite a few questions.
55-300 VR is quite slow lens when compared to 70-300mm VR. Now 55-300 VR is out. If there are any other options from 3rd party manufacturers then I shall consider the same.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3TcL0qYM2M
55-300 VR is quite slow lens when compared to 70-300mm VR. Now 55-300 VR is out. If there are any other options from 3rd party manufacturers then I shall consider the same.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3TcL0qYM2M
Last edited:
Sumit I am also looking for something similar and the Tamron seems to be the best bet as it has focused on the telephoto than Macro as well, which nikon and Sigma have done. it is also cheaper by INR 6K than the Nikon
If you do want Macro then Nikon is better, but only for telephoto the tamron seems to be a good bet. Still analyzing this. I also have a preference for VR for Tele as having shot with it on my older Olympus, i have shaky hands and dont usually carry a Minopod/Tripod with me..it is mostly for family events and not for serious photography.
Tamron Lens: Zooms - Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD SP AF (Tested) - SLRgear.com!
If you do want Macro then Nikon is better, but only for telephoto the tamron seems to be a good bet. Still analyzing this. I also have a preference for VR for Tele as having shot with it on my older Olympus, i have shaky hands and dont usually carry a Minopod/Tripod with me..it is mostly for family events and not for serious photography.
Tamron Lens: Zooms - Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD SP AF (Tested) - SLRgear.com!
Last edited:
Get the Award Winning Diamond 12.3 Floorstanding Speakers on Special Offer
