Tamron 24-70 the new one? Used it for a family shoot, thought it was quite good and sharp. Not too contrasty though if anything. I'd rock one.

This. IQ is basically in the Canon mk1 territory, minus some of that L colour rendition. But for the price and the fact that it's the only 24-70 2.8 with VC/IS, it's a great deal. I think the Tamron 2.8 VC zooms (24-70, 70-200) are excellent bang for your buck.

I have a 24-70L MkI that I am probably going to sell - don't use it anymore since I got my Sigma 18-35 Art. PM me if interested.

Considering the Sigma 19mm f/2.8 DN Art as my next lens purchase, will be used mostly for indoor and lower light situations. Would this be a good purchase (will the f/2.8 Aperture be sufficient) or should I spend the extra money on one of the Olympus or Panasonic Primes?

2.8 isn't really sufficient for low light. It helps, but you're still going to be sub 1/50 I think in a restaurant/other low-light type setting. If you have IBIS then that would help some more. But the trade-off for using a faster aperture is the shallow DOF. It's not as bad on m4/3ds, but a pain if you need to get a group shot all in focus.

That said, I'd probably go with the other primes from Pana or Oly.

Thanks again, the GF2 doesn't have IBIS so I will probably go with the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7

I have read that if you use Aperture Priority or Manual Mode you can select the aperture switch to manual focus and turn the camera off and on to get group shots in focus, haven't had the opportunity to try this just yet.

I've never heard of that method. Is that unique to Panasonic?

I am not sure if it is unique to Panasonic, though its origin is a blog dedicated to the Panasonic GF1.

I first read about it here

And the origin is this page about half way down

Ah it looks to be unique. Seems like such an odd way to set hyperfocal distance, but I guess a few switch changes is better than inputting f stop, distance to subjects, iso, etc into an exposure calculator for it.

That said, the guy was using f/8. In low light indoors, you won't be able to take group shots at f/8 at 2m. This will be even more difficult when trying to shoot at a big aperture like f/1.7-f/2, which is what you'll need for indoor low light situations.

Check this site out: Online Depth of Field Calculator

Just as an example, let's say you're using a GF2, 17mm lens @ f/2, and your group is about 4 ft away from you (this may change depending on your situation indoors, but play around with the numbers).

At those numbers, your hyperfocal distance is ~32ft. That's not going to be available to you in an indoor situation, clearly.

That said, your limits of acceptable (this is subjective) sharpness is between 3.5-4.5 ft in front of you. That means that if your group were all standing in a line 4 ft in front of you, they would all be acceptably sharp. Knowing groups though, this is hardly the case and they usually stack infront of each other in rows. So that means they would all have to fit in a 1ft plane to be all in focus at f/2. This plane distance increases as you increase the f number, but you end up increasing your shutter speed (and possibly introducing shake) to compensate. This is why indoor low light photography is quite difficult without the use of some flash.

Hopefully that doesn't confuse you too much, but the more information the better imo. It seems that you may not understand that setting to hyperfocal distance isn't a remedy for everything, and surely doesn't apply to every situation.

Actually taught me a little bit more about aperture and depth of field thanks, I don't anticipate taking to many big group pictures in low light so I'm not really worried about that too much. I was at Craigdarroche castle in Victoria last month and there were some nice photo ops there that I wish I could have taken with out flash but the kit lens couldn't stop down enough and using flash kind of took away from what I hoped the pictures would look like.

Ah gotcha I know how that feels. It's tough because you'll want to use a big aperture, but if you're taking pictures of details (like architecture) they'll likely end up soft because of the shallow depth of field. The trick is to keep shooting and be comfortable with the camera, and you'll be able to figure out in a second what settings you'll likely need to get the picture you want.

Good luck!

Question: I'm noticing a lot of classifieds for older lenses such as the Tamron 17-50 F2.8, Canon EF 17-55 F2.8, and Sigma 18-50 F2.8 for around $250-$500, my question is, are these still good quality lenses to buy (not damaged obviously) or should I continue to save up some more and buy new 18-55 F2.8 range lenses that are $1000-ish?

the newer ones will have IS, the older ones do not.

Generally, 3rd party lenses from Sigma and Tamron will carry less resale value (and a higher depreciation rate) compared to OEM lenses.

With that, the Tamron 17-50 is a cult classic among crop shooters. The newer Sigma 17-50 (with IS) is the best lens in its class, for far less than the Canon/Nikon equivalents (17-55s).

You can't really go wrong. If you save up, you'll be getting a high quality OEM lens. If you choose Sigma and Tamron, you get a great lens at a great price. It all depends on where you want to put your cash.

If you can find one, I had a Sigma 18-50 2.8 "macro". I loved that lens to death and only got rid of it to fund a Canon 10-22. The close focusing distance (while not a true 1:1 macro) really gets you close-up photos without breaking the bank. It was my go-to when shooting crop while I had it.

I had the Nikon version of this lens and I really liked it

Was shooting at the auto show today when a fellow photographer recommended me the Nikon 35mm 1.8G

For car photography, I was wondering how the 50mm 1.8 compares?

Also whats the difference between Nikon 50mm 1.8 and 1.8D?

AF-D has the aperture ring near the mount.

If you're shooting a crop body (which I assume you are), the 50 will act like an 85mm equivalent. In a car show environment you might be able to get away with the working distance, but a 35 might be more versatile overall imo.

Need some advice, I'm currently planning my next lens purchase(s) and I'm wondering if I should go with the Olympus 12-40mm pro or should I invest in a nice set of primes?

I currently have the 14-42 kit, 45-150 panasonic and 40-150 olympus and 20mm panasonic

That's your standard prime/zoom argument- do you want better DOF control (primes), or do you want the convenience that a zoom entails?

I left out IQ because in most cases, pro zooms have identical IQ properties compared to the prime focal lengths they cover.

With high-ISO shooting improving with each camera iteration, 2.8 is plenty wide for most people if you're not shooting for absolute best IQ. But that said, you can still tell the difference between 1.4/1.8 and 2.8, AND you can lower the ISO by a factor of at least 2 in most prime cases leaving your files cleaner. It's up to you to figure out which you value more.

I'm trying to find a new lens for my Nikon d7100 for mostly automotive shots. I use the sigma 17-50 f2.8 nearly every time I leave home and I'm just getting bored of it. I had a 50 1.8 but didnt like the focal length on a DX sensor so traded it too a buddy for a 35 1.8
I'd like to get a new prime as I like the sharpness, do I get an 85 and just get used to the focal range or what. I've seen nice shots with a 105 and 135 but I'm nervous of getting a prime with that distance for auto shots. Any help? :D

If you're looking for sharpness then keep the 35mm because you need some what of a wide angle for automotive . You should just practice abit more because then you'll realize that you don't even need a new lens. :D

105 for auto shots means you'll have to stand ~100 meters to get your car in the frame :lol

I know I dont NEED a new lens, but when all you use is 1 lens it gets to be quite boring ;)

If you only mostly shoot automotive shots, then your 17-55 should be more than enough.

But if you're bored of it / have the cash to spurge, have you consider the other end....and get a Tokina 11-16mm? Shouldn't be that hard to find a used copy for around $400 bucks.

On my DX camera my two most used lenses are my Sigma 8-16. And my sigma 30mm F1.4.

I also have the same Nikon 35mm F1.8, and it's a great lens.

Ya thought about going the wider range too if I didnt find a prime I liked, may just end up picking one up