All Forum Comments
1. Lighting & flash (perhaps) - too many faces in the shade in these.
2. Get (or zoom) closer !
3. Number your shots so it's easier to offer C&C !
4. Ask and get multiple shots of your subject so you can choose the best e.g. the last shot only one face is visible (this isn't exactly 'street' so shouldn't be a problem (offer them a card with your name & email address so if they want shots you can send them what you have).
5. Work on your composition (or cropping)
6. What camera & lenses do you have .... and which did you use ?
Nice shots to see - thanks for posting !
2. Get (or zoom) closer !
3. Number your shots so it's easier to offer C&C !
4. Ask and get multiple shots of your subject so you can choose the best e.g. the last shot only one face is visible (this isn't exactly 'street' so shouldn't be a problem (offer them a card with your name & email address so if they want shots you can send them what you have).
5. Work on your composition (or cropping)
6. What camera & lenses do you have .... and which did you use ?
Nice shots to see - thanks for posting !
Comment by Frogfish posted on Rugby Fans - Scotland v. Wales at 17/02/2011 - 09:17
prsjnb wrote:
Prof. Pat Pending
Well wouldn't say I was happy with the 55-300's AF - that and the fact it's a slow lense and I want even sharper shots are the reasons for the upgrade ! Can't fault the 55-300 for the money though.Frogfish wrote:
Why so, Dick D? I wouldn't describe the Siggy as being 'slothful' when it comes to focussing and I imagine it would out-pace the 55-300mm, which you seem to have been happy with apart from the IQ until now, with ease.Mike-P wrote:
100-300mm is not HSM in Pentax mount.
Drat. Foiled again Muttley.100-300mm is not HSM in Pentax mount.
Prof. Pat Pending
Now where's Penelope gone
Comment by Frogfish posted on Telephoto Options Help at 16/02/2011 - 21:39
Mike-P wrote:
100-300mm is not HSM in Pentax mount.
Drat. Foiled again Muttley.100-300mm is not HSM in Pentax mount.
Comment by Frogfish posted on Telephoto Options Help at 16/02/2011 - 16:51
Pwynnej wrote:
For motorsport - Sigma 100-300 f4 or a TC'd 70-200 (non-HSM) - gave up both for what I thought was a better all-in-one option (the 60-250) and a Nikkor 70-200 for the D3. The AF is so slow on the DA*.
I was just looking at the 100-300 f4 today as an option to the 60-250. What's your opinion on the AF & IQ both at wide and especially tele ? I'm beginning to think I would really like a Sigma HSM lense because of the AF speed.For motorsport - Sigma 100-300 f4 or a TC'd 70-200 (non-HSM) - gave up both for what I thought was a better all-in-one option (the 60-250) and a Nikkor 70-200 for the D3. The AF is so slow on the DA*.
Comment by Frogfish posted on Telephoto Options Help at 16/02/2011 - 16:47
Oops - lost this thread for a while !
Nice shots DCWeather - I have the same mirror, the Tamron 500 BB.
amd7000 - It really is quite a sharp lense and usually shots crop well. If you need length and don't want to spend a lot then it's well worth trying so long as you are aware of the caveats ; that's it's fully manual, only way to use it for action shots or BIF etc. would be to pre-focus, and you sometimes get a nervous or dough-nutty bokeh. It is however far better than the 55-300 over longer distances (maybe 35 - 50m or more), the 55-300 better over shorter, fixed f8 (not a problem with the high ISO capability of the K5, Kr and Kx(.
Worse case scenario though is you buy it and re-sell at around the same price you paid for it ! I paid GBP 135 for mine, in superb condition but missing the filter set. I won't sell it even when I get a better telephoto as it's always going to be good as an emergency back-up .... and I do love that super smooth focusing ring !
Taken last week :
Nice shots DCWeather - I have the same mirror, the Tamron 500 BB.
amd7000 - It really is quite a sharp lense and usually shots crop well. If you need length and don't want to spend a lot then it's well worth trying so long as you are aware of the caveats ; that's it's fully manual, only way to use it for action shots or BIF etc. would be to pre-focus, and you sometimes get a nervous or dough-nutty bokeh. It is however far better than the 55-300 over longer distances (maybe 35 - 50m or more), the 55-300 better over shorter, fixed f8 (not a problem with the high ISO capability of the K5, Kr and Kx(.
Worse case scenario though is you buy it and re-sell at around the same price you paid for it ! I paid GBP 135 for mine, in superb condition but missing the filter set. I won't sell it even when I get a better telephoto as it's always going to be good as an emergency back-up .... and I do love that super smooth focusing ring !
Taken last week :
Comment by Frogfish posted on New lens or 1.4/1.7 teleconverter? at 16/02/2011 - 03:30
Mille19 - you struggle in low light with the DA*300 on the K5 ?! I find that hard to believe - I was trying to shoot BIF today (they came out crap but that's another story) with the 55-300 on a K5 at ISO5,000 - 6,400 at 5.6 and 1/1,600. Surely you wouldn't need anything like those parameters for much slower humans !
Comment by Frogfish posted on Telephoto Options Help at 15/02/2011 - 19:32
Aperture of course but for a quick conversion without opening up A3 then RAW PHOTO PROCESSOR is excellent ... and free. Not sure if this has a PC incarnation (I use it on a Mac).
Comment by Frogfish posted on So what *can* process K5 RAW files? at 14/02/2011 - 21:06
Andyales wrote:
Thanks for the link, I have always fancied night shooting but will have to wait until I can afford another lense.
Yes, thanks for the link Smutty !Thanks for the link, I have always fancied night shooting but will have to wait until I can afford another lense.
Andy - why do you have to wait ? Shooting in the dark / low light isn't about the quality of the lense so much, it's about long exposures. Give it a try with your 18-55.
Comment by Frogfish posted on A link to a detailed guide to Night Photography - for City-Scapes or Land-Scapes at 13/02/2011 - 09:55
I would say that you need to decide on which camera you are going to buy first .... because that could easily influence which lenses people would advise you to buy.
I have both the K7 and K5 and due to the low light / high ISO ability of the K5 I'd be happy to use an f4 or slower zoom on it, whereas with the K7 (where IQ - due to noise - deteriorates quickly over 800 ISO) I think f2.8 zooms are more worthwhile.
So for the K5 I'd say the 17-70 could be a great choice, whereas with the K7 a Tamron 17-50/2.8 would be a better choice..... and so on.
The 10-20 (older model) is a great lense to have !
I have both the K7 and K5 and due to the low light / high ISO ability of the K5 I'd be happy to use an f4 or slower zoom on it, whereas with the K7 (where IQ - due to noise - deteriorates quickly over 800 ISO) I think f2.8 zooms are more worthwhile.
So for the K5 I'd say the 17-70 could be a great choice, whereas with the K7 a Tamron 17-50/2.8 would be a better choice..... and so on.
The 10-20 (older model) is a great lense to have !
Comment by Frogfish posted on Newbie lens advice please at 11/02/2011 - 13:42
