If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I'VE DONE SOMETHING TERRIBLE !
Chloe writes:
On 9/03/2012 3:36 AM, Annika1980 wrote: On Mar 6, 4:00 pm, wrote: On 5/03/2012 2:34 AM, Annika1980 wrote: On Mar 1, 12:11 am, tony wrote: You've formed a Tennessee Ashton Kutcher fan club. Shame! It's worse than that. I put a Nikon 14-24 f/2.8G lens on my FAB 5D2. I feel so dirty! Here are a few pics I've taken with that combo in the past 3 days. http://bretdouglas.smugmug.com/Photo...1767869_vdPZhq It was said in Popular Photography when Canon first introduced streamline 35mm bodies way back when A1's ruled that if you could use Nikon glass on a Canon body, you'd have the perfect camera. Chloe That may have been true back in the day, but not now. The Nikon 14-24 is the only lens that bests anything that Canon offers. My advice is to rent this lens for a few days and watch your photography improve immediately. Then cry your eyes out as you drive to the UPS store to send it back. Here's the news flash mate... I've owned one since 2009. Any Nikon shooter working full frame needs one of these for real estate or inside event shots. The only way to stand in a corner and get the whole room in without it looking like you're in a fish bowl. Wrong. I was shooting my kitchen (which is unfortunately small) last night with my Sigma 12-24mm full-frame on my D700. Now, first, I *do* get just a little barrel distortion at 12mm that's visible when I carefully set up square to a wall and there are reference lines all through the picture. But this is easily corrected in Photoshop. (The Nikon lens is clearly much better, but at that price it had darned well better be. The Sigma is what I could afford, and for about $800 when I bought it I'm very pleased.) Serious Annika. No working professional (well not unless you call wedding photographers professionals) can do without one. Ditto that for a 24-70 f2.8 and 70 -200 f2.8. There's a few fixed length lenses I've got for preference with head shots but these are the essential glass I never leave home without and Canon have no answer for. Not a working professional, so I can't claim to be a counter-example. But Oleg Volk doesn't have anything similar to the 14-24 (he's shooting Canon), and Kyle Cassidy doesn't, and they both ARE working professionals. (I've got the 24-70 and the 70-200/2.8 from Nikon, and they're really really nice, certainly. Both were upgrades to Tokina lenses I was pretty happy with on film, back when.) -- David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I'VE DONE SOMETHING TERRIBLE ! | Alan Browne | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | March 6th 12 06:40 PM |
I'VE DONE SOMETHING TERRIBLE ! | William Hamblen | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | March 4th 12 07:50 PM |