Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
disappointed in my Nikon 50 mm 1.8
Page <<first <prev 5 of 7 next> last>>
Jan 28, 2016 20:18:12   #
btbg
 
kenpic wrote:
I am shooting at f4.0 and my shutter speed is approximately 1/500 of a second. Am shooting in Aperture Priority.


If you are shooting at f4 and 500th why on earth are you using the 50 1.8 instead of your 70-200 or 24-70?

50mm isn't big enough for shooting high school basketball. I'm shooting on a D300 f2.8 at 250th and iso 1,600 because any faster iso has too much noise. That means that you have plenty of light at iso 6,400 so i don't understand why you would go away from the lenses that are the industry standard for what you are shooting.

I use an 80-200 for work and when shooting on the baseline I usually have it zoomed to about 120mm. When shooting from other angles I zoom in more. The big idea on sports photos is to fill the frame, hard to do with a 50mm.

Reply
Jan 28, 2016 21:32:34   #
Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia
 
btbg wrote:
If you are shooting at f4 and 500th why on earth are you using the 50 1.8 instead of your 70-200 or 24-70?

50mm isn't big enough for shooting high school basketball. I'm shooting on a D300 f2.8 at 250th and iso 1,600 because any faster iso has too much noise. That means that you have plenty of light at iso 6,400 so i don't understand why you would go away from the lenses that are the industry standard for what you are shooting.

I use an 80-200 for work and when shooting on the baseline I usually have it zoomed to about 120mm. When shooting from other angles I zoom in more. The big idea on sports photos is to fill the frame, hard to do with a 50mm.
If you are shooting at f4 and 500th why on earth a... (show quote)


My thoughts exactly. The 50 is inappropriate for anything but portraits, not sports or wildlife.

Reply
Jan 28, 2016 21:42:48   #
SteveR Loc: Michigan
 
Mark7829 wrote:
My thoughts exactly. The 50 is inappropriate for anything but portraits, not sports or wildlife.


Back in the days of the dinosaurs, when we shot with film, a 50 was one of our basic lenses. When I shot with my ftb, all I had was the the Canon 50 f1.4 and a Sigma 80-300.

Reply
 
 
Jan 28, 2016 22:04:05   #
Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia
 
SteveR wrote:
Back in the days of the dinosaurs, when we shot with film, a 50 was one of our basic lenses. When I shot with my ftb, all I had was the the Canon 50 f1.4 and a Sigma 80-300.


The OP has a fine set of zooms just perfect for sports and wildlife. No idea why the 50 was even purchased. ... oh well. I have a 14-24, 16-35, 70-200, 80-400, 200-400, 500, 16 and a 105 but I don't have a 50. What am I missing?

Reply
Jan 28, 2016 23:57:34   #
SteveR Loc: Michigan
 
Mark7829 wrote:
The OP has a fine set of zooms just perfect for sports and wildlife. No idea why the 50 was even purchased. ... oh well. I have a 14-24, 16-35, 70-200, 80-400, 200-400, 500, 16 and a 105 but I don't have a 50. What am I missing?


Something between 35 and 70.

I suggest the very fine 24-70, which is a great lens and which I used exclusively on our Santa Fe, Taos trip.

Reply
Jan 29, 2016 00:13:58   #
Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia
 
SteveR wrote:
Something between 35 and 70.

I suggest the very fine 24-70, which is a great lens and which I used exclusively on our Santa Fe, Taos trip.


Sorry, I have that one as well 24-70 f.2.8 just did not list it. I think that is the finest lens ever made.

Reply
Jan 29, 2016 00:42:07   #
kenpic Loc: Edmonds, WA
 
I appreciate very much everyone's suggestions, all were helpful. I will try to post a couple of the shots. I pretty much will continue using my 70-200, but wanted to see what the 50 will do. Will keep the lens but won't use it for sports much.





Reply
 
 
Jan 29, 2016 05:30:34   #
redhogbill Loc: antelope, calif
 
Mark7829 wrote:
The OP has a fine set of zooms just perfect for sports and wildlife. No idea why the 50 was even purchased. ... oh well. I have a 14-24, 16-35, 70-200, 80-400, 200-400, 500, 16 and a 105 but I don't have a 50. What am I missing?


SteveR beet me to it!!

:D

Reply
Jan 29, 2016 11:08:29   #
Jules Karney Loc: Las Vegas, Nevada
 
kenpic wrote:
I appreciate very much everyone's suggestions, all were helpful. I will try to post a couple of the shots. I pretty much will continue using my 70-200, but wanted to see what the 50 will do. Will keep the lens but won't use it for sports much.


These photos are really good. Just need to crop more.

Reply
Jan 29, 2016 11:16:36   #
kenpic Loc: Edmonds, WA
 
redhogbill wrote:
SteveR beet me to it!!

:D


I also have a 105. My next purchase will be a new body, probably the 750 (or 760?).

Reply
Jan 29, 2016 11:21:41   #
Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia
 
kenpic wrote:
I also have a 105. My next purchase will be a new body, probably the 750 (or 760?).


Wait for the 850 in September 2016 at 45 MPX, Wi-Fi and a lot more

Reply
 
 
Jan 29, 2016 11:59:06   #
bjprovo Loc: Northeast CT
 
What exactly were you looking for that these pictures were missing?
kenpic wrote:
I appreciate very much everyone's suggestions, all were helpful. I will try to post a couple of the shots. I pretty much will continue using my 70-200, but wanted to see what the 50 will do. Will keep the lens but won't use it for sports much.

Reply
Jan 29, 2016 14:13:46   #
kenpic Loc: Edmonds, WA
 
bjprovo wrote:
What exactly were you looking for that these pictures were missing?


I was getting a "delayed" release, which was causing me to miss the shot. By employing some of the Hedgehog suggestions, that seems to have been corrected.

Reply
Jan 29, 2016 14:15:56   #
kenpic Loc: Edmonds, WA
 
Jules Karney wrote:
These photos are really good. Just need to crop more.


This is "before" any cropping.

Reply
Jan 29, 2016 14:27:26   #
steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA
 
kenpic wrote:
I appreciate very much everyone's suggestions, all were helpful. I will try to post a couple of the shots. I pretty much will continue using my 70-200, but wanted to see what the 50 will do. Will keep the lens but won't use it for sports much.


So, were you were zoomed in tighter than 50mm for these? Glad you worked out the problem.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 5 of 7 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.