Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: bobburk3
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 35 next>>
Aug 27, 2023 13:17:22   #
Love it. I wonder what he is selling today.
Go to
Aug 27, 2023 13:12:17   #
I love the closeup faces of the dragonflies.
Go to
Aug 27, 2023 13:06:52   #
User ID wrote:
For me, focus is focus, and exposure is exposure, and "never the twain shall meet". Having independent parameters hooked to each other would drive me up the wall !


Yes!
Go to
Aug 27, 2023 13:05:24   #
Longshadow wrote:
I use BBF for focus and lock the <center point> exposure where I want it and recompose.
Once I found out I could use BBF in my camera, I split those functions, never to be re-combine as one function.


I use back button focus all the time on everything I shoot. That way I get the subject in focus and then I can compose the picture without worrying that the wrong area will be in focus.
Go to
Aug 24, 2023 13:32:30   #
whatdat wrote:
Can’t give any input on that lens. I do use an 18-140 Nikon lens on a dx camera and find it a very useful walk-around lens with good results. Just my thoughts.


Is this a sharp lens? Have any examples you could share?
Go to
Aug 19, 2023 20:13:41   #
larryepage wrote:
The 24-120mm lens is not as sharp as the 70-200. If that is your primary criterion, my suggestion is to consider other alternatives. But the 70-200 sets a pretty high bar for sharpness. You are going to have a lot of trouble matching it with a "low cost" lens. Im away from my computer right now, but will post an example when I can get in pisition to do so.


My 70-200 is the f-4 version.
Go to
Aug 19, 2023 19:29:51   #
larryepage wrote:
I have two of these lenses. One is the default lens for one of my D850s, the other for one of my D500s. It would be completely idiotic for anyone to claim that this lens is the equal of either a 24-70mm f/2.8 zoom or a 17-55mm f/2.8 DX zoom, but it would be equally idiotic for anyone to argue that either of those lenses can match the versatility of the 24-120mm f/4.

A lot of folks claim that 24mm is not wide enough on a DX camera like you are shooting. I've found that mostly not to be a problem. I refuse to be enslaved by the sharpness cult, but I do find the results from the 24-120 a little better with a notch or so of saturation boost, whether in-camera or in post processing.

You have to decide whether this lens will work for you. It offers a ton of flexibility and benefits at some costs in performance which are in reality pretty small.
I have two of these lenses. One is the default len... (show quote)


Larry, thank you so much for your thoughts on this lens. I wonder if you would mind posting a couple of your shots taken with this lens. I'm looking for sharpness (I understand what you are saying about being a slave to the sharpness cult). I have a Nikkor AF-S 70-200 that I like. Not the sharpest lens but pretty darn good and a little saturation boost does improve the sharpness look as well as a little sharpness boost in Photoshop. So if the 24-120 is as good as the 70-200, I'm ok with that. I shoot a lot of sports with it and it does pretty good. I have attached a couple of shots that I took with the 70-200 lens and the D7200.


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)
Go to
Aug 19, 2023 14:30:59   #
Orphoto wrote:
They are coming down in price. Should be available for even less than that...so the first moral is don't feel compelled to make a fast decision. I have been meaning to sell mine for about $250 or so.

Secondly, the answer depends on which body you use it with and how persnickety you are. On bodies up to say 24 MP it works quite well and covers an incredibly convenient range. Once you jump into 36 or 46 MP bodies its weaknesses become more apparent. You will hear from quite a few here who are in love with their copy. Take that with a grain of salt. If you do use a higher resolution body consider the later version of the 24-85. Not quite as convenient a range but a fair amount sharper and smaller.
They are coming down in price. Should be available... (show quote)


I saw this used lens at Adorama for $239. Used Nikon 24-120mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S NIKKOR VR. They have added the "IF" to the description of the lens but I don't know if the IF designation is common to this lens.
Go to
Aug 19, 2023 14:25:30   #
Orphoto wrote:
They are coming down in price. Should be available for even less than that...so the first moral is don't feel compelled to make a fast decision. I have been meaning to sell mine for about $250 or so.

Secondly, the answer depends on which body you use it with and how persnickety you are. On bodies up to say 24 MP it works quite well and covers an incredibly convenient range. Once you jump into 36 or 46 MP bodies its weaknesses become more apparent. You will hear from quite a few here who are in love with their copy. Take that with a grain of salt. If you do use a higher resolution body consider the later version of the 24-85. Not quite as convenient a range but a fair amount sharper and smaller.
They are coming down in price. Should be available... (show quote)


I have the D7200 (24mp) and love it. I'm looking for a sharp lens to go with it.
Go to
Aug 19, 2023 13:54:51   #
I would appreciate any thoughts on the Nikon, Nikkor AF-S 24-120 1:4 G ED, N VR lens. I found a good condition used one for $379. Is this a sharp lens? I want it for a general walking around lens, mainly landscapes and cityscapes.
Go to
Jun 15, 2023 07:32:01   #
Royce Moss wrote:
Hi Bob. I have the 7200 and 70-200f/4 too and a vintage 75-300 for when I have some space and don't need to go wide. For landscapes and wide angle a Nikon 10-20 and for tighter spaces and group shots a Sigma 17-50. I have read that the 18-200 and 24-120 are excellent lenses. I use MPB for
used lenses


What is MPB?
Go to
Jun 15, 2023 07:30:10   #
JBuckley wrote:
You got me.
I love military aircraft. Thanks!


As a USAF vet, I have to agree with you. I loved being out on the flightline.
Go to
Jun 15, 2023 07:28:38   #
PAR4DCR wrote:
They keep wanting to kill the A-10 but she is still around.

Don


Best troop support aircraft out there.
Go to
Jun 15, 2023 07:27:25   #
Bluefish wrote:
Good ole teamwork. Sure glad those guys/gals are on our side.


For sure. I totally agree.
Go to
Jun 14, 2023 09:03:01   #
R.G. wrote:
Indeed. Superzoom = compromise (and it's not just the sharpness that's compromised. Fringing, contrast, vignetting, distortion).

Also worth reiterating is that 24-120mm on a DX camera will leave it lacking at the wide end (36mm equiv. - hardly what you'd call general purpose or walkaround).


Just trying to understand all this info about lenses. I have learned a ton through this discussion and am so happy to get replies from such knowledgeable photography people.

What do you mean by "lacking at the wide end"?
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 35 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.