Anyone into photography? (1 Viewer)

[astroman]

it is bokehlicious http://petapixel.com/2012/10/04/usi...0-and-its-bokehliciously-thin-depth-of-field/

 

[turntaker]

aperture of prime?

I use the cheap one hahah. f/1.8 really good lens for the price. very sharp too

 

[astroman]

holy shit f1.0 L is $5000 http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_sop=3&_nkw=canon+50mm+f1.0&_frs=1

 

[turntaker]

I want to buy the 50mm f/1.4 in the future though

 

[turntaker]

holy shit f1.0 L is $5000 http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_sop=3&_nkw=canon+50mm+f1.0&_frs=1

that's a chunky piece of glass

 

[astroman]

I want to buy the 50mm f/1.4 in the future though

after HSC i wanna buy a nikon d810 and the holy trinity, aswell as all primes at f1.4, lol gotta start saving.

 

[turntaker]

after HSC i wanna buy a nikon d810 and the holy trinity, aswell as all primes at f1.4, lol gotta start saving.

what is the holy trinity

 

[astroman]

what is the holy trinity

basically its the three nikkor lenses that cover all the necessary focal lengths and they are the top of the range lenses made by nikon.

HOLY TRINITY
nikon 14-24mm
nikon 24-70mm
nikon 70-200mm

 

[astroman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IFm2EAIjy8

 

[nerdasdasd]

I currently have a f1.8 50mm

It isn't bad

The low aperture helps in low light situations

(Or is it high)

always get confused

 

[astroman]

f1.8 is great value for money lens, should replace kit lens IMO lol, its just that ppl hate prime's coz of fixed focal length

 

[nerdasdasd]

f1.8 is great value for money lens, should replace kit lens IMO lol, its just that ppl hate prime's coz of fixed focal length

^

Prime lens mean you gotta carry so much shit around....

I got my F1.8 for 180 or something ;D

 

[astroman]

^

Prime lens mean you gotta carry so much shit around....

I got my F1.8 for 180 or something ;D

not really, if you know what you want to shoot you really don't need to pack a shit ton of lenses. i would just use a 35mm, 85mm and a tele zoom

 

[Drifting95]

You need an f2.8 lens minimum for good astrophotography.
I have the tamron 24-70mm 2.8, its really good quality. The canon version is 2x the price but its not worth all that extra money

I was looking at the Tamron, any further comments about it? The main reason i'm interested is because of the IS, it really shits me that Canon are charging upwards of 2k for a 24-70 with no IS.

I use the cheap one hahah. f/1.8 really good lens for the price. very sharp too

I still use it on my 5d mk ii, i don't see a need to upgrade to a f1.4/1.2 tbh.

 

[Drifting95]

I currently have a f1.8 50mm

It isn't bad

The low aperture helps in low light situations

(Or is it high)

always get confused

wtf since when did you buy a 50mm 1.8, thx for telling me

 

[astroman]

I was looking at the Tamron, any further comments about it? The main reason i'm interested is because of the IS, it really shits me that Canon are charging upwards of 2k for a 24-70 with no IS.


I still use it on my 5d mk ii, i don't see a need to upgrade to a f1.4/1.2 tbh.

shallower depth of field bokehhhhh

 

[astroman]

can any1 tell me the difference between a dslr and a mirrorless camera

 

[astroman]

wow thats a nice shot, i was there 2 days ago..

 

[Drifting95]

shallower depth of field bokehhhhh

ik lol but logically f1.2 isn't really useable (well i don't really like the look of basically nothing in focus).

Three Sisters by Daniel_95, on Flickr

Darling Harbour Fireworks by Daniel_95, on Flickr

Observatory Hill by Daniel_95, on Flickr

Sydney Motorsport Park by Daniel_95, on Flickr

IMG_0950 by Daniel_95, on Flickr

 

[Drifting95]

I'm happy this thread is getting some attention