Hi from germany

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
T

the solitaire

Feeder Fish
Sep 5, 2008
107
0
0
47
germany
Hi, I'm relatively new to the aquarium hobby, but started photography about 10 years ago.

I currently use a Nikon D200 with 105 fixed focal but previously used a D70s and 55mm f3,5 micro, occasionally with PK-13

I live in germany for the moment but originally have a set of dutch travelling documents. Skipped countries quite often in the last few years but when I moved to germany about 2,5 years ago I decided to stay for a while. ast year november I got my first fish tank (with crayfish) but soon found out that due to the crayfish carrying eggs I would need more tanks.

I now have 4 fish tanks with PNG inhabitants.

What I do not yet have is a TTL flashlight to use with my gear.

chilatherinaspec.jpg


batmanfishatlunch.jpg


gpseudo1.jpg


peknyi2.jpg
 
Hello, buddy! Welcome to APF!
Glad to see you here…:-P Looking forward for your impressive photos…B-)
 
AQUASAUR;82479; said:
Hello, buddy! Welcome to APF!
Glad to see you here…:-P Looking forward for your impressive photos…B-)
Click to expand...

Judging from the phoos seen in this forum there is still quite a bit about lighting techniques for me to learn :)

Regarding aquatic photography I consider myself a newbie. I'm in the process of purchasing new gear and added a set of SB flashes to the list as well as reflecting foil and a softbox. After puurchasing lenses though I'm on a bit of a tight budget for the moment.
 
The 14-24 is worth every penny I paid for it twice over.
On the D200 it becomes an (almost) 20-35 which is my preferred range. I once had a 20-35 but unfortunately lost it along with an FM body :/

The 28-70 is a lens I hardly ever use. My girlfriend currently uses it along with the D70s and she prefers the lightweight build of the lens. The optical performance is near equal to the Nikon 28-70 of that time. On digital lateral CA's are a bit more pronounced from the few test images I made with the 24-70 (which is a completely different lens indeed).

I'm currently considering a f1,4 50mm and f1,8 85mm to fill in the gaps the 28-70 leaves me with. Personally I hardly miss the 28mm range. The only replacement which would come to mind would be a f1,4 28mm AF nikkor for which I would have to look on the used lens market.

In this case I would gladly exchange the zoom advantage for an extra f-stop and the penalty of having to swap fixed focals. The benefits of a f1,4 85mm however compared to the f1,8 version can be neglected IMHO. The price difference can't be.
 
the solitaire;82790; said:
The 14-24 is worth every penny I paid for it twice over. On the D200 it becomes an (almost) 20-35 which is my preferred range.
Click to expand...
14-24 will be in my bag one day in hopefully near future when it becomes readily available as used on nikon forums. That 2.8 f stop can really help, especially in dark indoor situations.

The 28-70 is a lens I hardly ever use. My girlfriend currently uses it along with the D70s and she prefers the lightweight build of the lens. The optical performance is near equal to the Nikon 28-70 of that time. On digital lateral CA's are a bit more pronounced from the few test images I made with the 24-70 (which is a completely different lens indeed).
Click to expand...
12-24 and 28-70 are on my camera most of the time. I love the feel, weight, quality, quickness, sharpness of 28-70. I know lots of folks went through other 3rd parties and placed nikon in a higher bracket. My goal is to replace it with 24-70.

I'm currently considering a f1,4 50mm and f1,8 85mm to fill in the gaps the 28-70 leaves me with. Personally I hardly miss the 28mm range. The only replacement which would come to mind would be a f1,4 28mm AF nikkor for which I would have to look on the used lens market.
Click to expand...
I have 50 1.8 which is used probably less than 10 times :) but then again ... it only cost me ~$100. I do have 85 1.4 and it is in its own category when compared to 1.8. We call "The Creme" machine because bokeh is super amazing. I took lots of portraits with that lens and I love it ! Expensive but well worth each $$$.
 
At the time I use the 105 VR micro for portrait stuffs and am indeed impressed by bokeh this lens has to offer. With a f1,4 wide open I can think of some cool stuff to do.
Since I'm considering purchasing something in the range of the 70-200 sometime in the future (I could settle for the 80-200D-ED for that matter, apart from teleconverter compatibility) I'm not quite sure whether or not I'd wish to spend a large amount of money on having a prime in a range where I have a zoom as well.
Any micro nikkor being an exception of course. Ever since I've seen first results (even on digital) with my 55 micro nikkor which I carry along since 1998 I'm convinced that optically those lenses are so good that they are an auto include in a photographers gear. Practically they are of course 100% different from zoom lenses since they offer close range focus.

In the past few years I noticed that the range between 35mm and let's say 100mm is range which I skip by swapping right over it most of the time. The 28-70 I have (Sigma) is rarely used. For my personal reference I could replace a zoom with 2-3 faster primes for this range.
(On a sidenote, the few times I had the 28-70 on my FM2 I zoomed from 28-35 and from there straight through to 70.

From your comment though I'm convinced that once I find a used f1,4 85mm I'd pick it up without further consideration :)
 
the solitaire;82795; said:
At the time I use the 105 VR micro for portrait stuffs and am indeed impressed by bokeh this lens has to offer. With a f1,4 wide open I can think of some cool stuff to do.
Since I'm considering purchasing something in the range of the 70-200 sometime in the future (I could settle for the 80-200D-ED for that matter, apart from teleconverter compatibility) I'm not quite sure whether or not I'd wish to spend a large amount of money on having a prime in a range where I have a zoom as well.
Any micro nikkor being an exception of course. Ever since I've seen first results (even on digital) with my 55 micro nikkor which I carry along since 1998 I'm convinced that optically those lenses are so good that they are an auto include in a photographers gear. Practically they are of course 100% different from zoom lenses since they offer close range focus.

In the past few years I noticed that the range between 35mm and let's say 100mm is range which I skip by swapping right over it most of the time. The 28-70 I have (Sigma) is rarely used. For my personal reference I could replace a zoom with 2-3 faster primes for this range.
(On a sidenote, the few times I had the 28-70 on my FM2 I zoomed from 28-35 and from there straight through to 70.
Click to expand...

What I currently have is what I consider the "minimum" if you can afford it.

12-24 f/4 - landscape; indoor; up-close
28-70 f/2.8 - bokeh is insane ! walk-around type lens
85 f/1.4 - perfect portrait lens; there is nothing better
105 f/2.8 VR - excellent macro lens; 60mm too small for my taste
70-200 f/2.8 VR - there is nothing better in that range;

Dust collectors ...
18-70 f/3.5-4.5
50 f/1.8

From your comment though I'm convinced that once I find a used f1,4 85mm I'd pick it up without further consideration :)
Click to expand...
Indeed ! 85 f/1.4 is in its own class. Lens build itself can be or should be improved but the output is without a doubt ... insane !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom