Dress for Success: Gear Poll

Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Location
San Jose, CA
Re: You can never have too much hair, money, or focal length

Steve S said:
Frank, I think you need a 300 f4 :D
I surely do, Steve, but it's not the top of my list. Birding isn't my only interest, and it's the least likely to pay its own way. I should get good glass for my money shots first. That means the 300/4 comes after the Nikon 28-70 f/2.8 and 85/1.4.
 
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
609
Location
Ottawa, Ontario
D100 and Sigma 80-400mm OS - will get a 1.4 TC when I can scrape up some $ after getting a CF tripod and ballhead and maybe a SB800 first.

If I include the missus's camera then can add a D70 and Nikkor 70-300mm D (my hand-me-down to her from before the Sigma) :)

One day I'll get a 600 or 800 or some kind - one day.

Neil
 
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
4,741
Location
SE Florida
I can understand that, but

but why the 85 f1.4, when for about 1/3 the money, you can have the 85 f1.8, which is only 1/2 stop slower. That said, I have heard Ron R saying that the 1.4 is at it's best at F5.6 or less, and the 1.8 is at it's best @f5.6 or more. That's not to say either one of those doesn't take great pics at about any reasonable open to mid aperture, they do. Now, the 28-70 f2.8, that's a real gem, that gets by far the most use in my studio.
UncleFrank said:
Steve S said:
Frank, I think you need a 300 f4 :D
I surely do, Steve, but it's not the top of my list. Birding isn't my only interest, and it's the least likely to pay its own way. I should get good glass for my money shots first. That means the 300/4 comes after the Nikon 28-70 f/2.8 and 85/1.4.
 
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
1,901
Location
Montreal Quebec Canada
D100, Sigma 100-300 f/4, Sigma 1.4X converter. I'm lusting at the Sigma 500mm f/4.5 but my budget's controller tells me that she will go on time-illimited strike if I plunge for the lens now. :(
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
15,253
Location
Marysville, WA
daodang said:
D100, Sigma 100-300 f/4, Sigma 1.4X converter. I'm lusting at the Sigma 500mm f/4.5 but my budget's controller tells me that she will go on time-illimited strike if I plunge for the lens now. :(
Hey, Dao, the 500 is one awesome lens, my "most often used" when not shooting sports, and even then sometimes for sports as well. I got lucky, got mine just before the $500US price increase last year. To keep MY CFO happy I made it 1) a birthday present and 2) sold my 300 f2.8 Tamron and a couple of other things. The only regret I have is that is has to go in for service. The barrel has gotten loose and it will no longer focus if I rotate it the "natural" vertical direction.

If you get down this way you are more than welcome to give it a go.
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Location
San Jose, CA
Re: I can understand that, but

Steve S said:
but why the 85 f1.4, when for about 1/3 the money, you can have the 85 f1.8, which is only 1/2 stop slower.
In a word, bokeh. For studio work, the difference between the two lenses isn't that important, but I specialize in environmental portraits, and for those kind of shots, the quality of blur is a big factor.
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2005
Messages
3,497
Location
South SF Bay Area, CA.
D70 with 70-200VR + 1.7 TC, so 340mm is my limit, and it's fine for me, for now.

When I get the D2X (yeah, right! Some time next year ... or later), that will turn into a 680 f/4.8 equivalent... not too shabby. Then again, I am not trying to stalk hummingbirds, or eagles... just yet. :lol:
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom