Jump to content
Forum upgrade is live! Read more... ×

Recommended Posts

That'd be the 50mm f/1.8 with an Ebay rubber hood ($5 :P)

 

The F80 I haven't used in years! It says it's got 2 shots left though it's probably expired by now.

 

Least happy about the 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 as rubbing vaseline on the sensor would give you a sharper picture than using that lens. I found a softening filter for it (dad must've bought it)...don't know why you'd need it though lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The F80 I haven't used in years! It says it's got 2 shots left though it's probably expired by now.

You should finish the roll off and get it processed. Film doesn't disintegrate instantly on its expiry date.

 

As long as the camera hasn't been in direct sunlight for days, the film should still be OK.

 

Also, if you haven't used that F80 in a while, how much would you want for it? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, if you haven't used that F80 in a while, how much would you want for it? ;)

Heh, I was just thinking that : D. Still in good nick? PS, if you hate that 24-120, I've got an 18-135mm you could replace it with. It doesn't have VR, but you can't accuse it of not being sharp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You bunch of hungry bastards :P hahah

 

Yeah the F80 is in great condition, so much so it looks like it's never been used. Still got the box :)

 

I think dad wants to hang onto it though...sentimental value? *shrugs* He used it more than I did lol.

 

Isn't the 18-135mm a DX lens?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the 18-135mm a DX lens?

Yep, but that'd be fine on your D80. I got it as a kit lens with my own D80, and it served me faithfully for shots like these:

 

Posted Image

 

Posted Image

 

Posted Image

 

Posted Image

 

 

Not saying buy mine in particular, but if you're looking for something affordable in that range it's not a bad lens to go with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not saying there's anything wrong with it :) Great photos btw! Goes to show that it's the person behind the camera that's most important lol

 

And I haven't seen much news on the 10-24mm Nikon?

Edited by Oomph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not saying there's anything wrong with it :) Great photos btw! Goes to show that it's the person behind the camera that's most important lol

 

And I haven't seen much news on the 10-24mm Nikon?

Cheers! I'd like to think I've got a bit better since those were taken, but I know my equipment has : ). Haven't had a chance to shoot any fires recently, though : (.

 

I haven't really looked at the 10-24mm. It's not a range I want to use that much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goes to show that it's the person behind the camera that's most important lol

Fuck, is THAT what I'm doing wrong?

 

I knew it. /wrists

 

While I'm posting, does anyone have any recommendations for a resource I can use to learn about lenses? I see a lot of numbers and acronyms thrown around here, and they mean nu-zing :P

 

--edit-- to me

Edited by Takoma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool, that lens tech page will come in handy.

 

I'm still struggling with the focal length descriptions, though. For example, what I know of macro photography is that it's intended to produce images life size, or magnified. Like taking extreme close ups of insects. Right? But then this is apparently a macro lens, and it's listed as 200mm. I have a 55-200mm lens, and that's a zoom.

 

What do these focal length measurements mean, and why are they seemingly arbitrary between different lenses? (I know they're not, but it seems that way.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically, macro refers to having the subject replicated at 1:1 on the sensor.

 

At some point in the 90s, the lens companies decided that "macro" now extends to having the subject replicated at 1:1 on a standard print. So you get a lifesize print, as opposed to lifesize on the sensor (or film frame). This is largely irrelevant with digital, but the bastardisation of the term continues.

 

A true macro lens with a long focal length means you don't need to be as physically close to your subject to get the 1:1 magnification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I don't exactly like referring to Ken, here we go:

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikortek.htm

 

 

Edit: Found this on the way :P

http://www.bahneman.com/liem/blog/article...._Rockwell_Facts

A warning for Tak - most photographers think Ken Rockwell is a knob. Take what he says with a grain of salt.

 

Isn't he the left-handed-Nikon guy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool, that lens tech page will come in handy.

 

I'm still struggling with the focal length descriptions, though. For example, what I know of macro photography is that it's intended to produce images life size, or magnified. Like taking extreme close ups of insects. Right? But then this is apparently a macro lens, and it's listed as 200mm. I have a 55-200mm lens, and that's a zoom.

 

What do these focal length measurements mean, and why are they seemingly arbitrary between different lenses? (I know they're not, but it seems that way.)

To add to what Squall said, the difference between your 200mm lens and that macro 200mm lens is the macro is able to focus a lot closer to the subject. Most lenses, especially longer focal lengths, can't focus very close. FYI, Nikon calls their range of macro lenses 'Micro'.

 

 

Although I don't exactly like referring to Ken, here we go:

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikortek.htm

 

 

Edit: Found this on the way :P

http://www.bahneman.com/liem/blog/article...._Rockwell_Facts

A warning for Tak - most photographers think Ken Rockwell is a knob. Take what he says with a grain of salt.

 

Isn't he the left-handed-Nikon guy?

 

Not sure, but I know he says the D40 and 18-200mm lens is all anyone ever needs, and if you have more expensive equipment you're an idiot and you're trying to compensate for being a bad photographer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool, that lens tech page will come in handy.

 

I'm still struggling with the focal length descriptions, though. For example, what I know of macro photography is that it's intended to produce images life size, or magnified. Like taking extreme close ups of insects. Right? But then this is apparently a macro lens, and it's listed as 200mm. I have a 55-200mm lens, and that's a zoom.

 

What do these focal length measurements mean, and why are they seemingly arbitrary between different lenses? (I know they're not, but it seems that way.)

To add to what Squall said, the difference between your 200mm lens and that macro 200mm lens is the macro is able to focus a lot closer to the subject. Most lenses, especially longer focal lengths, can't focus very close. FYI, Nikon calls their range of macro lenses 'Micro'.

 

 

Although I don't exactly like referring to Ken, here we go:

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikortek.htm

 

 

Edit: Found this on the way :P

http://www.bahneman.com/liem/blog/article...._Rockwell_Facts

A warning for Tak - most photographers think Ken Rockwell is a knob. Take what he says with a grain of salt.

 

Isn't he the left-handed-Nikon guy?

 

Not sure, but I know he says the D40 and 18-200mm lens is all anyone ever needs, and if you have more expensive equipment you're an idiot and you're trying to compensate for being a bad photographer.

 

But isn't that true?

 

 

 

 

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well a zoom lens is a compensation for a lazy photographer. :P

 

Here is my stuff that sees usage and is not in pieces

Posted Image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck, I feel so inadequate in these forums.

 

I have ONE camera. THIS camera.

 

That's it.

 

/hangs head in shame

And yet you take great pictures. Don't worry about it :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure, but I know he says the D40 and 18-200mm lens is all anyone ever needs, and if you have more expensive equipment you're an idiot and you're trying to compensate for being a bad photographer.

But isn't that true?

 

People sometimes to try to compensate for a lack of skill with a lot of equipment, but you can't deny the better image quality pro series gear gives you. It's just some people don't know how to use that quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well a zoom lens is a compensation for a lazy photographer. :P

 

Here is my stuff that sees usage and is not in pieces

Posted Image

It is my firm belief that EVERY household in Australia owns or has owned at least one mattress with that nasty orange print on it.

 

I suggest that you trigger ALL those flashes simultaneously. Try to set something on fire with pure light. >:)

Edited by SquallStrife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well a zoom lens is a compensation for a lazy photographer. :P

Some of us work for a living, and like to tell our bosses we did get the shot, rather than "Oh no, I was changing from my 50mm to my 85mm at the time" : p.

 

Plus, have you ever weighed a 70-200mm f2.8 lens? Carrying that blunderbuss around isn't something a lazy photographer does.

 

Oh wait, of course you wouldn't have, Tokina didn't make any of those in the '70s : D.

Edited by orinjuse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well a zoom lens is a compensation for a lazy photographer. :P

 

Here is my stuff that sees usage and is not in pieces

Posted Image

It is my firm belief that EVERY household in Australia owns or has owned at least one mattress with that nasty orange print on it.

 

I suggest that you trigger ALL those flashes simultaneously. Try to set something on fire with pure light. >:)

 

Already thought of that, I plan on making a better beamer for wild life fill... also would like to stack fresnel sheets or use a lens and focus the flash down to a single point and fire full power at something.. maybe your window while you're sleeping >:)

 

 

Well a zoom lens is a compensation for a lazy photographer. :P

Some of us work for a living, and like to tell our bosses we did get the shot, rather than "Oh no, I was changing from my 50mm to my 85mm at the time" : p.

 

Plus, have you ever weighed a 70-200mm f2.8 lens? Carrying that blunderbuss around isn't something a lazy photographer does.

 

Oh wait, of course you wouldn't have, Tokina didn't make any of those in the '70s : D.

 

Is it heavier than my RB67? :P

 

The olympus SLR on the left has a 65-200mm f/4 on it :P

 

I do have a zoom lens though, the 12-24mm as you can see there :P

 

I believe in zooms for extreme focal lengths, really want the 300-800mm f/5.6

 

But I do plan on getting the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 II, though I might just end up with the 120-400 or 150-500.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well a zoom lens is a compensation for a lazy photographer. :P

 

Here is my stuff that sees usage and is not in pieces

Posted Image

It is my firm belief that EVERY household in Australia owns or has owned at least one mattress with that nasty orange print on it.

 

I suggest that you trigger ALL those flashes simultaneously. Try to set something on fire with pure light. >:)

 

Already thought of that, I plan on making a better beamer for wild life fill... also would like to stack fresnel sheets or use a lens and focus the flash down to a single point and fire full power at something.. maybe your window while you're sleeping >:)

 

Four at once? TAAAAAME!

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well a zoom lens is a compensation for a lazy photographer. :P

 

Here is my stuff that sees usage and is not in pieces

Posted Image

It is my firm belief that EVERY household in Australia owns or has owned at least one mattress with that nasty orange print on it.

 

I suggest that you trigger ALL those flashes simultaneously. Try to set something on fire with pure light. >:)

 

Already thought of that, I plan on making a better beamer for wild life fill... also would like to stack fresnel sheets or use a lens and focus the flash down to a single point and fire full power at something.. maybe your window while you're sleeping >:)

 

Four at once? TAAAAAME!

:P

 

Taking on 12 at the same time? That's just slutty ;P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×