First shot taken on the night of the 27th of February 09. Second one taken tonight, the 2nd of March 09. Unfortunately, the weather is turning, so I doubt I will see the moon for a while now. I can only keep my fingers crossed that I do.
Until next time....
3 comments:
impressive photos. that sigma is looking better and better the more i read about it.
i've got some more questions for you, though. here goes.
1.) i definitely want a nikkor 50mm. i've been doing some reading while my camera and lens have been in the shop, and 50mm lens seem to be a requirement for an serious dSLR owner/user. i'm looking at both the f/1.8 as well as the f/1.4. i know you suggested the f/1.8, but have you had any experience with the f/1.4? if not, it's cool. i can't lose with either one, but the added f stop is $150 to $200 more expensive. the f/1.8 has an aperture ring as well, right? i just love shallow depth-of-field and the low-light and speed of these two 50s, so naturally i would desire the f/1.4 over the f/1.8.
2.) you also suggested those digital concepts macro lens filters. i was just about to buy them when i read about a lens-reversing ring (nikon br-2a) that produced some pretty amazing shots with nothing more than a 50mm lens. any experience with such an attachment? also, you can buy another attachment (nikon br3) that allows you to screw on a filter to the rear lens when using the lens-reversing adapter. i'm wondering - bear with me for a minute - if you can obtain quality macro shots by reversing the lens, THEN use the br3 to attach those digital concepts macro lens filters to the rear lens for some ridiculously magnified shots. how cool would that be?! what do you think?
3.) speaking of those digital concepts macro filters... what lens do you think they would be more suitable for? i've got the 18-105mm d90 kit lens, and i'm going to order one of the aforementioned 50mms within the week. this, of course, wouldn't be a problem if only those 50mms had 67mm filter threads our 18-105mm. do you see my predicament? i'm not sure which lens would fair better with those filters: the 18-105 or one of the 50s. i suppose i could just buy two sets, but that seems foolish. i know you said you those filters will inevitably cut down on the incoming light, so i'm thinking the f/1.4 or f/1.8 50s would fare better in that regard. then again, i'm not sure which lens has a closer/smaller minimum focusing distance. does that number really even matter anyway? for instance, i saw that the minimum focusing distance for the sigma 120-400 was 150cm and immediately i said to myself "macro!", though i might be holding too much significance in that number.
4.) sigma 120-400mm or 150-500mm? ah, nevermind. i can't drop a thousand dollars on one lens right now anyway. maybe later. haha.
anyway, thanks in advance for dealing with my verbose ignorance. clearly i'm a novice. i'm just trying to find that perfect balance between cost effectiveness (not cheapness) and high-quality (not professional-grade) macro photography and just photography in general. and thanks for your last couple posts. as usual, they were very helpful and informative. it just took me forever to respond. thanks again.
Thanks Dillon and wow, where to start.
From the questions you are not as much of a beginner as you think are. Maybe less so than me!
Ok.
1. I hear what you are saying, should I stump up the extra for the 1.4. From reading the I got the feeling that the 1.8 was more than a match for the 1.4. Some said that it is even better than the 1.4. At the price it is hard to justify the extra.
2. I have no experience and no understanding of the reversing ring, but would love to find out what you think if you go that route.
3. Which lenses to get the screw on for. I never thought of using it on the 1.8. The only draw back with the prime is that it is prime. If you are set up o a tripod, it involves a lot of moving about to change the shot or go closer. The zoom on the 18-105 does have its uses.
4. Easy -120-400mm. Do you really need the extra 100mm and you lose out on the f number.
Hope that helps
Greg
haha. yeah, i'll probably just stick with the f/1.8 unless i'm feeling extra frivolous that day.
i think i might pick up those lens-reversing attachments (as well as the the digital concepts filter for the 18-105) just to experiment. i've heard lots of good and some bad. my only concern is the fact that many people are saying, due to the ridiculously tiny depth-of-field, if you plan on reversing your 50mm lens, you pretty much need at least a macro focusing rail and if not that, a full nikon bellows unit (rare, $400+). unless i drink too much coffee throughout the day, i've got surgeon hands (i'm not actually a surgeon, so don't think i'm being cheap!) so i feel kind of confident hand-holding a reversed lens. we'll see. if i end up buying the attachments, i'll definitely share with you my experience, especially when compared to those diopter filters which i'm certainly buying.
and i agree with your opinion on the sigmas. the focal length multiplier of our cameras will turn that 400mm into an equivalent 600mm zoom anyway, which is quite enough. enough for you to get impressive photos of the moon's surface anyway. this lens is definitely on my list, but i've got too much other shit to deal with/pay for right now. i absolutely cannot wait to get my camera back. i just want to use it all day, especially with spring just around the corner in the north-eastern united states.
it sure does help. thanks a lot. i'll be checking back for more posts.
Post a Comment