@nobigdeal
Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
nobigdeal
Participantjustkat I would agree with the others who said the focus is the main issue. You got it dead in on her back but not on her face.
/that sounds dirty π
ParticipantWhat NBD said…. Except I haven’t gotten them for my 70-300 yet, but have used them alot on my 55-200. I like them as far as general purpose, but they have been gathering dust as of late since I’ve been using the bigger glass and extension tubes.
That’s the part I can’t figure out. Why would you ever use one of these when a set of extension tubes:
a) costs about the same (non OEM)
b) doesn’t introduce any new glass and therefore doesn’t affect image quality
c) gives you more flexibility (different combinations)
and
d) will work with any lens you own?(a) I don’t have extension tubes. Why? I don’t know LOL)
(b) Yes they do affect image quality alot but thats ok. If you are going for an artsy fartsy effect more than a super sharp macro shot or you want a strange DOF shot these are the filters you want.
(c)see (a)
(d) see (a)
I bought these at Ritz camera on clearance for 10 bucks. had them about 2 years before I even took them out of the plastic and played with themI don’t have a true macro lens so I have to do with what I got π
To be clear, I wasn’t attacking you or anyone, I was just wondering if maybe I had missed something when I read all this stuff a couple years ago and settled on a set of extension tubes. More power to you (especially if they were $10!) I definitely lean toward the super-crisp, mostly realistic side of photography so I tend to shy away from more abstract effects.
No offense taken bro π I agree I would rather have a true macro lens and am going to go buy a set of tubes tomorrow. I don’t know why I don’thave any. They are not very expensive.
The filters are just something I picked up to throw in the camera bag that make a different effect.
ParticipantWhat NBD said…. Except I haven’t gotten them for my 70-300 yet, but have used them alot on my 55-200. I like them as far as general purpose, but they have been gathering dust as of late since I’ve been using the bigger glass and extension tubes.
That’s the part I can’t figure out. Why would you ever use one of these when a set of extension tubes:
a) costs about the same (non OEM)
b) doesn’t introduce any new glass and therefore doesn’t affect image quality
c) gives you more flexibility (different combinations)
and
d) will work with any lens you own?(a) I don’t have extension tubes. Why? I don’t know LOL)
(b) Yes they do affect image quality alot but thats ok. If you are going for an artsy fartsy effect more than a super sharp macro shot or you want a strange DOF shot these are the filters you want.
(c)see (a)
(d) see (a)
I bought these at Ritz camera on clearance for 10 bucks. had them about 2 years before I even took them out of the plastic and played with themI don’t have a true macro lens so I have to do with what I got π
ParticipantI have a set of macro filters. +1 & +2 don’t do a whole lot. +4 does a lot. Like you said, it moves the focusing distance on my 70-300 from about 4 feet to about 6 inches. They are really soft and the DOF is very narrow but they can produce a nice shot if you use them right.
These shots were all taken with a 70-300 and a +4 magnifying filter.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21629306@N00/sets/72157616347233721/
May 3, 2009 at 5:31 pm in reply to: Lenses to rent for Yellowstone/Unita Mountains/Monument Vall #22660ParticipantI’d say definitely get something wide. The 16-35 should do nicely but you may still want to go wider than that for some of the vistas you’re going to find. Instead of the 28-300, I’d get the 100-400 if it’s available and then skip the teleconverter. You’ll have the whole range pretty well covered with good glass if you do that. Have a fun trip!
What he said…
Wide! 16-35 is good. Maybe a fisheye 10mm if you like that sort of shot.
100-400 definitely better than 28-300 for those shy wild aminals.
ParticipantFor weeks now I have been too busy to sit down and Shoot for contests… I want to participate again! *waaaa*
C’mon man!! Where are your priorities! Whats more important? Work? Making money? Feeding your family?
Or taking pictures for a contest on Fark? Get with the program!
Seriously though, come back we miss you and you missed some cool themes!
I bet if you look through your archives you could find stuff to enter.
ParticipantTrue. I pretty much only shoot color 120. I haven’t looked into what it would cost me to get the setup to process that.
I have 5 rolls of 120 that I developed a couple weeks ago. Unfortunately my scanner shit the bed when I went to scan them. π
Saving up for new scanner now.
ParticipantI buy my 120 film from B&H, or look for lots of expired film on ebay. I really love working with expired film, as you never know precisely what you’re going to get. If you have a scanner, try to find a local lab that will just process and not print the film. You’ll save a bundle, and then can scan it and print it yourself.
You can also just buy your own developing equipment and chemistry. It;s not very expensive and 120 B&W film is pretty easy to develop.
ParticipantWelcome! Always great to have fresh faces here!
Participantcool!!
even if you cant get film anymore I would have stll spent the moneyParticipantSince we are a worldwide group I would say yes.
ParticipantUnfortunately, the first night I took the scope out, the tracking drive gears started grinding and skipping. If all had gone to plan, you’d have seen photos of the great orion nebula, the andromeda galaxy, and a galactic cluster…. but… Oh, well. I’ll just have to hope any “gaseous” or “incandescent” themes hold off until after I get my new and/or repaired tracking drive back from Meade.
Too bad I bet they would have been sweet. Not that the ones you posted werent great.
Isn’t it typical that when the theme you wanted comes up your equipment dies.
I knew soosh wouldn’t disappoint too.
ParticipantWell, at least one of my entries is going to be a closeup of nattΕ (fermented soybeans, with a very sticky and stringy mucus-like substance between the beans)
It is a bit hard to hold food in one hand with chopsticks and use my SLR in the other hand…
ParticipantNice shots soosh, you shoulda put em in anyway late or not.
Get well soon man.
/got all my druggie days out of my system a long time ago.
//teh weed gives me panic attacks now so I have to suffer through the painParticipantMy 70-300 IS USM every bell & whistle Canon lens sucks ball too. I think it is just a 70-300 thing. It does ok as a medium distance lens but don’t expect great shots at anything over 40 feet away.
-
AuthorPosts
