| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/27/2007 02:13:06 AM · #1 |
Hello all,
I'm sad to admit that as good as this lens is overall for general photography it is really letting me down in the studio. Focusing by modeling lights only yields poor results when it comes to critical sharpness, often backfocusing in its attempt to find contrast, while other shots are spot on. I'm really disappointed as this is a really sharp lens in any other circumstance, but with my future job being within the realm of a studio I really can't afford unsharp images. Has anyone else had this problem? (low light focusing issues seem to be a pretty widespread complaint on the net). FWIW another guy in my dept (trnqlty) has the same camera/lens combo as I and said he has had the same issue as me.
Thinking about the nikon 28-70 F/2.8 after giving my 18-70 nikon a try to see how it fares first.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2007 02:36:23 AM · #2 |
if the nikon 28-70/2.8 is anything like hte Canon 24-70/2.8L then GET IT!
Message edited by author 2007-02-27 02:37:24. |
|
|
|
02/27/2007 02:41:28 AM · #3 |
Now you mention this, I had a shoot last friday with biteme and we used this same lens and the image's weren't as sharp as I thought they would be. But then again, we used it a couple of months before and then they were sharp... (I used the canon 350D btw)
|
|
|
|
02/27/2007 02:42:55 AM · #4 |
I'm not sure why a studio photographer would be using autofocus in the first place, actually. But I admit I'm old-school. If you practice hard enough, manual focus on the fly becomes second nature, and is much more precise (IMO) as far as focusing on whatever feature is most important to you. Still, I'd agree that the Tammy's a seeker in low light. The difference between the Tammy at 70mm and the canon 70-200 f/4L at 70mm, as far as autofocus precision, is noticeable; and the canon's an f/4 lens, no less, vs the tammy's f/2.8.
I really don't use autofocus that much, though.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2007 02:44:51 AM · #5 |
Personally, I'd never try and use a lens like this for studio work *anyway*.. preferring to use primes when possible for such.
However, also remember that the 3rd parties tend to also have lower Quality Control.. and sometimes you get a lens that doesn't perform quite to spec.. or fails faster than it might otherwise.
Give 10 different people a Tamron or Sigma lens, and you might just get 10 different ideas on how they perform. |
|
|
|
02/27/2007 02:53:30 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'm not sure why a studio photographer would be using autofocus in the first place, actually. But I admit I'm old-school. If you practice hard enough, manual focus on the fly becomes second nature, and is much more precise (IMO) as far as focusing on whatever feature is most important to you. Still, I'd agree that the Tammy's a seeker in low light. The difference between the Tammy at 70mm and the canon 70-200 f/4L at 70mm, as far as autofocus precision, is noticeable; and the canon's an f/4 lens, no less, vs the tammy's f/2.8.
I really don't use autofocus that much, though.
R. |
its hard to properly manually focus without a proper focusing screen and everything, and with my less than 20/20 vision its harder for me to tell if i have it focused properly |
|
|
|
02/27/2007 03:12:43 AM · #7 |
I second the focusing screen comment. I started out on a Nikon FM2 manual focus camera and never had trouble focusing at all. The D70 has a small .75x viewfinder though making it tough to get sharp focus in the eyes which is crucial for portraits (when shooting a torso or full body shot you can forget trying to see if the eyes are focused through the viewfinder). Don't really want to upgrade to the D200 even though that viewfinder is sweet (same size as my Fm2 too) as I think the image quality isn't the leap I thought it would be in terms of resolution (actually it looks softer to me, and yes I have spent some time with one) however it does handle high contrast scenes better without the shadow noise and banding the d70 has. I've never had luck manually focusing autofocus lenses-they seem to have a much tighter sweet spot when rotating the wheel, maybe because the way they are geared for quick response? Maybe I should just get a 105 macro and an 85 F/1.8-probably be cheaper and way sharper for sure.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2007 03:17:07 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Personally, I'd never try and use a lens like this for studio work *anyway*.. preferring to use primes when possible for such.
However, also remember that the 3rd parties tend to also have lower Quality Control.. and sometimes you get a lens that doesn't perform quite to spec.. or fails faster than it might otherwise.
Give 10 different people a Tamron or Sigma lens, and you might just get 10 different ideas on how they perform. |
I prefer primes in studio as well, they give a nice bright image in the finder, even more so than a f2.8 zoom.
It's not so much that the 3rd parties have more lax quality control, it's more that they have not had the advantage of designing the camera half of the AF system, they've had to figure out how it works for eah brand of camera and then design one lens to adapt to many different AF systems. To do that in a way that doesn't involve completely re-engineering the whole lens for each camera mount, they have to make some compromises.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2007 03:31:01 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by Care Bear:
Maybe I should just get a 105 macro and an 85 F/1.8-probably be cheaper and way sharper for sure. |
i have the 105 macro ... it's a sweet lens ... super sharp, fast and great for portraits (no distortion). i've used the 85mm f1.8 and it's a great lens too.
|
|
|
|
02/28/2007 01:31:05 AM · #10 |
| What about the 85L? Talk about a bright VF image. |
|
|
|
03/02/2007 05:42:48 AM · #11 |
Hey, just a quick question, you shoot 28-75 and you are considering an 85mm for portraits...?
If you are already used to the range of a 28-75, why would you be looking at longer lenses?
I have used the Canon variant of an 85mm f/1.8 and it's really, really, really sweet. Blows the pants off of the 50mm f/1.8.
However, I found it quite long. I doubt this will be a real issue in a studio *IF you have the space*, but if you don't have the space, you probably aren't going to be able to knock down a counter or a wall just so you can use a prime.
Check to see what focal length you will be using off your 28-75, then shop accordingly. If you are consistently shooting in the middle of the range, then you aren't likely to be very happy with an 85mm lens.
Noisemaker, the Nikon 28-70 f/2.8 is probably more like Canon's 28-70 f/2.8, rather than the 24-70 f/2.8L.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/28/2025 09:52:29 PM EDT.
