Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Photo Gallery
D810 first shots
Page <<first <prev 3 of 3
Apr 4, 2015 00:11:27   #
lxu532 Loc: Cherry Hill, NJ
 
Ballangrud wrote:
Here's the upload.

Thanks for all your suggestions!!!


Absolutely beautiful!!!

Reply
Apr 4, 2015 00:33:02   #
Gobuster Loc: South Florida
 
A really beautiful photo, thanks for posting. I also have the 28-300 lens and like it a lot, using on a D90 and D610 the results are very good, especially when stopped down to F6.3-F8. It does have some chromatic aberration (mostly at the edges) and some distortion typical of zooms, but these are easily corrected in Lightroom or other similar editors.

Reply
Apr 4, 2015 06:22:30   #
SteveR Loc: Michigan
 
camerapapi wrote:
Could I say that we should understand that the lens had nothing to do with the quality?


How can you say that? This picture brings up the question of the quality of the 28-300mm. Either that or the 810 can shoot through the bottom of a Coke bottle!!

Reply
 
 
Apr 4, 2015 06:47:36   #
oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA
 
SteveR wrote:
...This picture brings up the question of the quality of the 28-300mm. ...


When i upgraded from the 28-300/2.5-5.6 to the 70-200/2.8 i lost a lot of zoom range and had to pay an additional $1337 over the $999 i had already paid but it was worth every cent.

Reply
Apr 4, 2015 13:47:27   #
OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR
 
oldtigger wrote:
When i upgraded from the 28-300/2.5-5.6 to the 70-200/2.8 i lost a lot of zoom range and had to pay an additional $1337 over the $999 i had already paid but it was worth every cent.

Agreed, Old T. I look at lenses in terms of the want/need/can afford triangle.

Here are some for comparison:

24-70mm f/2.8, $1886, $1500 refurb.
*24-120mm f/4.0, $1300, $900 refurb.
*28-300mm f/3.5-5.6, $1050, $780 refurb.
*70-200mm, f/2.8, $2400, $1900 refurb.
* = I have these.

I don't question that the 70-200 and 24-120 are both sharper than the 28-300, but considering the extended range and the price, this is still my first choice for a one lens walk around, and the 28-300 is still the one I recommend for a first lens for anyone going to full frame.

Reply
Apr 4, 2015 14:01:35   #
oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA
 
OddJobber wrote:
Agreed, Old T. I look at lenses in terms of the want/need/can afford triangle.
... the 28-300 is still the one I recommend for a first lens for anyone going to full frame.


A year ago i used to shout from the roof tops:
"Buy better glass, it'll improve anything and the investment holds value."

After a years experience with digital i'm slowly changing my story:
"Make your first sizeable investment in a better body, it'll improve all your lenses and just accept the depreciation in value as the cost of doing business.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 3
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Photo Gallery
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.