[boogerwolf]

DISCLAIMER: I swapped the quote box in the previous posting. I’m an idiot. Orionid did not take the pictures. Had he/she have they would have been of a far superior quality. Sorry ’bout that.

[boogerwolf]

Also, just general info, the second nikon lens I purchased was the kit 55-200mm zoom, I think it was about $180 four years ago. I don’t regret the purchase, it was a good lens, especially for the money, and I had no complaints for a long time

orionid:

I just picked up a Nikkor 55-200 non-VR zoom on an impulse buy. It was a good deal at a closing Ritz Camera. The lowest I found on line was $155+shipping. I got it at Ritz for $139+tax (not bad for a liquidation sale). Here are a picture I snapped with it:

This was after a bad storm at dusk. It tried to mess with the manual settings as much as I could with my limited knowledge. Here is a shot with my kit lens:

Thanks for the advice on everything. Feel free to pick at the pictures all.

[boogerwolf]

A stapler is a device for binding things with staples.
I meant it as a joke. A long time ago, I entered pictures with staplers in them regardless of the theme. I’ve been meaning to start again, but, you know…

The rub with my Tamron AF70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro is that it isn’t very sharp, contrasty or good at autofocusing. The color’s pretty muddy too, and there’s a fringing problem in bright sunlight. And really, when it came down to it, I didn’t really want a telephoto lens. I just felt compelled to because everyone knows that all the macho guys have big telephoto lenses.

The lens also gave me chlamydia.

Sounds like the lens might have stole all your horses and poisoned the water hole.

I didn’t add a stapler to the list ’cause the Swingline is already working overtime!

[boogerwolf]

First of all, no staplers in the list. Totally unacceptable. You need to work on that.

I plead total ignorance: what’s a stapler?

I’m picking up what you’re putting down mofo. I’ll get some knowledge under my belt before I “let that woman in the car”. I guess it might be a good idea to learn to take good shots on the 18-55 before dropping the sheikels on bigger and better glass.

And what’s the rub on the 70-300mm “macro”?

[boogerwolf]

DPreview.com’s lens tests do a great job of showing some of the subtle stuff about how cheap zoom lens looks like crap at 80mm f/4.0 but looks great at 50mm f/8.

It’s nice, clear and easily understandable. It also explains why some people pay used car level prices for L lenses.

Thanks for that mofo. DP Review and DC Resourse are great!

I was pricing some glass at KEH and other spots on the web. I am mainly looking at pre-owned (nice way of saying “used”). When I know enough to be dangerous I’ll be better at this but I sat down and figured out how I’ll be using my camera:

1) General outdoor and candid shots. I think my kit lens should do OK for now.

2) Football and possibly baseball. My son plays both and I have access to the sidelines when he plays football. I figure a 55 to maybe 300mm zoom to get in on the action. Now here’s the question: I’ve never done macro but the way I see it zoom/macro lenses aren’t that big a jump in price from just zoom-only lenes so I might as well get one. Is that flawed thinking? Is 300mm too much?

3) Real estate photography. This is going to be a HOBBY. If I make money at, so-be-it. If not, no big deal. In my slice of the world the MLS photos look horrible so I figured a wide angle lens to get the job done. Here is the rub: Wide angle (and I’m thinking 10-24mm or 10-20mm) are a little cost-prohibitive for me right now. I did some experimenting with my 18-55 around the house and got cool results in medium to large rooms but smaller rooms take some effort. I found a cool website for realestate photography http://www.photographyforrealestate.net

Those are my uses. Pick away at it.

[boogerwolf]

DPreview.com’s lens tests do a great job of showing some of the subtle stuff about how cheap zoom lens looks like crap at 80mm f/4.0 but looks great at 50mm f/8.

It’s nice, clear and easily understandable. It also explains why some people pay used car level prices for L lenses.

Thanks for that mofo. DP Review and DC Resourse are great!

I was pricing some glass at KEH and other spots on the web. I am mainly looking at pre-owned (nice way of saying “used”). When I know enough to be dangerous I’ll be better at this but I sat down and figured out how I’ll be using my camera:

1) General outdoor and candid shots. I think my kit lens should do OK for now.

2) Football and possibly baseball. My son plays both and I have access to the sidelines when he plays football. I figure a 55 to maybe 300mm zoom to get in on the action. Now here’s the question: I’ve never done macro but the way I see it zoom/macro lenses aren’t that big a jump in price from just zoom-only lenes. Is that flawed thinking?

3) Real estate photography. This is going to be a HOBBY. If I make money at, so-be-it. If not, no big deal. In my slice of the world the MLS photos look horrible so I figured a wide angle lens to get the job done. Here is the rub: Wide angle (and I’m thinking 10-24mm or 10-20mm) are a little cost-prohibitive for me right now. I did some experimenting with my 18-55 around the house and got cool results in medium to large rooms but smaller rooms take some effort. I found a cool website for realestate photography http://www.photographyforrealestate.net

Those are my uses. Pick away at it.

[boogerwolf]

Thanks to all of you who responded to my question. If everything holds out I should be starting a photog class at the begining of June. After speaking with the instructor I feel this to be the best way to get me on track.

[boogerwolf]

Wikipedia does a pretty good job of explaining focal length, f-stops, etc concisely. They even have pictures.

You know as silly as this sounds I would have not thought to Wiki all of that. Thanks.

[Author]

Posts