Top flight DSLRs in novice hands

Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Paul Furman wrote:
JT's Keeper wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

Further, the better zooms (aka holy-trinity zooms) are larger aperture
and low zoom ratio which aids in their high (for zooms) resolution.

O.K. I seem to be a little slow today... what exactly is meant by the
holy-trinity zooms?

16-35, 28-70, 70-200 - f/2.8
(or close to that depending on brand and year).
The idea being, those are the only 3 lenses you need to do almost
anything professionally.

With which size of sensor? That looks to me like a 35mm film family of
lenses.

Right, that's full frame. It doesn't matter so much for longer focal
lengths though so only the wide one has typically been done for APS.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Alan Browne wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
JT's Keeper wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

Further, the better zooms (aka holy-trinity zooms) are larger
aperture and low zoom ratio which aids in their high (for zooms)
resolution.

O.K. I seem to be a little slow today... what exactly is meant by the
holy-trinity zooms?

16-35, 28-70, 70-200 - f/2.8
(or close to that depending on brand and year).
The idea being, those are the only 3 lenses you need to do almost
anything professionally.


nitpick
"... as a photojournalist."
/nitpick

Or wedding, or fashion (mostly, I think).

Personally I don't like those lenses. They are big & heavy, not good for
street shooting.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Paul Furman wrote:
JT's Keeper wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

Further, the better zooms (aka holy-trinity zooms) are larger aperture
and low zoom ratio which aids in their high (for zooms) resolution.

O.K. I seem to be a little slow today... what exactly is meant by the
holy-trinity zooms?

16-35, 28-70, 70-200 - f/2.8
(or close to that depending on brand and year).
The idea being, those are the only 3 lenses you need to do almost
anything professionally.

With which size of sensor? That looks to me like a 35mm film family of
lenses.

They are _full frame_ compatible lenses.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Paul Furman wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
JT's Keeper wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

Further, the better zooms (aka holy-trinity zooms) are larger
aperture and low zoom ratio which aids in their high (for zooms)
resolution.

O.K. I seem to be a little slow today... what exactly is meant by
the holy-trinity zooms?

16-35, 28-70, 70-200 - f/2.8
(or close to that depending on brand and year).
The idea being, those are the only 3 lenses you need to do almost
anything professionally.


nitpick
"... as a photojournalist."
/nitpick

Or wedding, or fashion (mostly, I think).

Personally I don't like those lenses. They are big & heavy, not good for
street shooting.

Love 'em (well love my primes more...).

Now salivating over the 16-35 f/2.8 from Sony (Carl Zeiss design).

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

On 2009-02-01 21:42:47 -0800, Paul Furman said:

JT's Keeper wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

Further, the better zooms (aka holy-trinity zooms) are larger aperture
and low zoom ratio which aids in their high (for zooms) resolution.

O.K. I seem to be a little slow today... what exactly is meant by the
holy-trinity zooms?

16-35, 28-70, 70-200 - f/2.8
(or close to that depending on brand and year).
The idea being, those are the only 3 lenses you need to do almost
anything professionally.


- JT
doesn't remember hearing (reading) this term before

For me it is the 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200 mm f/2.8 Nikkors. These are
the lenses I carry nearly all of the time. If I am expecting any
wildlife I also take the 400 mm f/2.8, but the 200-400 mm f/4 is much
more popular. Whatever. I can fill in much of the range between 200 and
400 mm in a pinch with a teleconverter if I have to. I haven't really
had to, though.

But you are correct in saying that these lenses are heavy and bulky. If
weight is an issue, though, I still have the D300 and any number of
smaller, lighter DX lenses. I like DX for that. I also like it for the
crop factor on the 400 mm lens.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On 2009-05-22 07:51:26 -0700, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" said:

In rec.photo.digital Alex Singleton wrote:
On 2009-01-31 16:51:03 +0000, C J Campbell
said:

And, hey, the guy with the D3 was going to photo school. Seems sensible
enough to me.

Indeed, and for all we know, his choice of a relatively cheap lens was
that, with limited funds, he wanted to learn the D3's functons now, but
wait until he's wealthier again before buying the range of lenses he's
after.

Though he might learn more quickly by buying a much cheaper camera and
experimenting with some decent lenses...


Bah ... it's his money and his mistake to make. Even if I had more experience
than I do, I would choose the D700 ... but who wants to replace DX lenses :-(


It seems to me a D200 or D300 would do.

....and if you buy a D300 or D70 body, why would you need DX lenses. The
only DX lens I own is the 18-70mm kit lens which came with my D70. My
D300 & D70 currently share that kit lens as well as a12-24mm, a 24-70mm
f2.8, an 80-400mm VR, a 24-120mm VR, a 35m f2.0, a new 70-300mm VR, all
non-DX. None of my subsequent lens purchases have been DX. Having said
that, there will be an FX DSLR in my future, be it a D700 or its
successor.
--
Regards,
Savageduck

Savageduck wrote:
Thomas T. Veldhouse said:
Alex Singleton wrote:
C J Campbell said:

And, hey, the guy with the D3 was going to photo school. Seems sensible
enough to me.

Indeed, and for all we know, his choice of a relatively cheap lens was
that, with limited funds, he wanted to learn the D3's functons now, but
wait until he's wealthier again before buying the range of lenses he's
after.

Though he might learn more quickly by buying a much cheaper camera and
experimenting with some decent lenses...

Bah ... it's his money and his mistake to make. Even if I had more
experience
than I do, I would choose the D700 ... but who wants to replace DX
lenses :-(

It seems to me a D200 or D300 would do.

...and if you buy a D300 or D70 body, why would you need DX lenses. The
only DX lens I own is the 18-70mm kit lens which came with my D70. My
D300 & D70 currently share that kit lens as well as a 12-24mm,

Sigma 12-24? When I bought that for my D200, the salesman said, are you
sure you want that? It has turned out to be a nice lens, very useful.


a 24-70mm
f2.8, an 80-400mm VR, a 24-120mm VR, a 35m f2.0, a new 70-300mm VR, all
non-DX. None of my subsequent lens purchases have been DX. Having said
that, there will be an FX DSLR in my future, be it a D700 or its successor.


--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

On 2009-05-23 11:37:23 -0700, Paul Furman said:

Savageduck wrote:
Thomas T. Veldhouse said:
Alex Singleton wrote:
C J Campbell said:

And, hey, the guy with the D3 was going to photo school. Seems sensible
enough to me.

Indeed, and for all we know, his choice of a relatively cheap lens was
that, with limited funds, he wanted to learn the D3's functons now, but
wait until he's wealthier again before buying the range of lenses he's
after.

Though he might learn more quickly by buying a much cheaper camera and
experimenting with some decent lenses...

Bah ... it's his money and his mistake to make. Even if I had more experience
than I do, I would choose the D700 ... but who wants to replace DX lenses :-(

It seems to me a D200 or D300 would do.

...and if you buy a D300 or D70 body, why would you need DX lenses. The
only DX lens I own is the 18-70mm kit lens which came with my D70. My
D300 & D70 currently share that kit lens as well as a 12-24mm,

Sigma 12-24? When I bought that for my D200, the salesman said, are you
sure you want that? It has turned out to be a nice lens, very useful.

Yes, the Sigma 12-24mm originally bought for the D70, my only
non-Nikkor. It has served me well.
Here is what it did on the D300;
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0386-2Ew.jpg


a 24-70mm f2.8, an 80-400mm VR, a 24-120mm VR, a 35m f2.0, a new
70-300mm VR, all non-DX. None of my subsequent lens purchases have been
DX. Having said that, there will be an FX DSLR in my future, be it a
D700 or its successor.


--
Regards,
Savageduck

Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-05-23 11:37:23 -0700, Paul Furman said:


you sure you want that? It has turned out to be a nice lens, very useful.

Yes, the Sigma 12-24mm originally bought for the D70, my only
non-Nikkor. It has served me well.
Here is what it did on the D300;
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0386-2Ew.jpg

That is a seriously overdone example of why you should never use HDR on
a anything with lots of black and lots of white in it. Did you have a
reason for this or were you just looking for a dramatic effect?

I trialled a Sigma 12-24 for a week when they were first released and
sent it back. Too many times it failed to focus properly. The Nikon wide
zoom I bought instead has no such problems, even though it cost
considerably more.

IMO the only Sigma lens worth considering for a Nikon is the F/1.4,
30mm. Even this does what the 12-24 does with auto focus but to a lesser
extent. It's a lot easier to manual focus a fixed FL lens than mess
around with disengaging auto.

Funny... I wouldn't have hesitated to buy a Sigma lens for the Canon
DSLRs I sold so cheaply last year to buy into Nikon after 5 years with
Canon but then I discovered the resolving power of most Nikon lenses
exceeded the Sigma lenses by a visible amount when I enlarged the image.

Got any more HDR shots?

Doug

On 2009-05-23 17:54:20 -0700, DMac said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-05-23 11:37:23 -0700, Paul Furman said:


you sure you want that? It has turned out to be a nice lens, very useful.

Yes, the Sigma 12-24mm originally bought for the D70, my only
non-Nikkor. It has served me well.
Here is what it did on the D300;
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DSC_0386-2Ew.jpg

That is a seriously overdone example of why you should never use HDR on
a anything with lots of black and lots of white in it. Did you have a
reason for this or were you just looking for a dramatic effect?

I trialled a Sigma 12-24 for a week when they were first released and
sent it back. Too many times it failed to focus properly. The Nikon
wide zoom I bought instead has no such problems, even though it cost
considerably more.

IMO the only Sigma lens worth considering for a Nikon is the F/1.4,
30mm. Even this does what the 12-24 does with auto focus but to a
lesser extent. It's a lot easier to manual focus a fixed FL lens than
mess around with disengaging auto.

Funny... I wouldn't have hesitated to buy a Sigma lens for the Canon
DSLRs I sold so cheaply last year to buy into Nikon after 5 years with
Canon but then I discovered the resolving power of most Nikon lenses
exceeded the Sigma lenses by a visible amount when I enlarged the image.

Got any more HDR shots?

Doug

Doug, Doug, Doug,

This was not a request for a Doug critique.
If I had asked for your opinion I might have actually phrased things that way.
What I actually did with the RAW file was my business. I posted that
file just to show Paul what I had done with that lens.

I have had that 12-24 for 4 years now with no significant problems.
Your opinion is just that, your opinion. This lens does a reasonable
job for me, and Paul seems to find it satisfactory

Where you ever got the idea that was HDR beats me. In this case your
fine professional eye failed you.
Not even a thought of HDR .
This was just a screwing around shot with a bit of CS4 manipulation,
and this is what I came up with. Nothing special just a wide shot.

If I share any HDR shots I create I will actually note they are HDR, so
don't make assumptions.
--
Regards,
Savageduck