NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8G AF-S ED VR II

OR

Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX DG OS APO HSM AF

?!?!?


I haven't done much research yet but a significant difference in price.

I forget but is one of those a crop body lens and one a full frame? I never remember what all the letters and numbers in the model numbers mean.

As with many things, you get what you pay for with photographic equipment. There are many favourable reviews written concerning the 120-300mm, but I can't believe it will out-perform the 300mm VR in image quality, especially wide open at f2.8. Having said that, it should be more than good enough for a 11x17 print. I think it's good value for the price.

As it happens, Sigma just sent me 2 suitcases filled with lenses earlier today for testing. Unfortunately, the 120-300mm was not among them. They did send me two brand new 50-500mm (Canon & Nikon) lenses to try, and they are okay when stopped down by a stop or two, but still softer than both of my 500mm f4 Canon & Nikon lenses.

The Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 OS are very sharp, seemingly at least as sharp as the Canon & Nikon versions, but they feel cheaply made, are slower to achieve focus, vignette like crazy at f2.8, OS is not as efficient as IS or VR and are not weather sealed - they lack a rubber O-ring seal at the rear. At up to $1000 cheaper than the Canon & Nikon versions however......well, that's your decision. :)

Ronin, both lenses are for FF.

Where can I get cheap prints from developed film, Senna? Like cheap as possible just to see em and decide which ones I want to keep.
Posted via RS Mobile

Costco, Walmart or maybe even Black's? It's usually not cheap to get prints done from developed film though.

I bought a cheap Canon flatbed scanner (LiDE 700F) at Futureshop for $79 that also scans film. It's not the best, but at least you'll know what's on the film.

Yeah, I figured buying a scanner was the most economical option.

300mm f/2.8G VR it is! Good bye beloved vehicle and hello big lens :) Gotta get wimberley head and gitzo tripod for this massive lens.

Wtf? Selling car for lens? Why??
Posted via RS Mobile

For the Sigma lovers

^^
That's if somebody buys it, which I'm sure nobody will. There's not much demand for an old 1997 Honda Prelude even if it is in excellent condition.
I'm unemployed, can't seem to land a job and my vehicle has been parked for almost four months now. Although I don't want to do this, I guess I'll have to part out the rare JDM and optional OEM parts and sell the vehicle once its back to stock. I might end up parting out the entire car until there is only a shell left. I wouldn't mind purchasing some camera equipment and use that instead of watching my vehicle collect dust on the driveway.

Hehe... I wouldn't call the 300mm a massive lens.

Here's a review by Photozone of the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8, albeit on Canon.
Sigma AF 120-300mm f/2.8 APO EX HSM DG OS (Canon EOS) - Review / Lens Test

ok ok, its not massive but it's a fairly large lens and it will get me a few neat and up close photos of that darn owl! Everytime at Boundary Bay, I'm about 10 seconds too late when the Short-Eared Owl sits on the fence post closest to the trail. I have lots of patience and I can wait motionless for hours but there are times when I want to give up and try again the next day. Maybe I can purchase a TC as well for a little more reach. So maybe with the 300 and TC I can shoot a few photos of the owl when its sitting on the little posts within the middle of the BC Hydro property. I always see several owls resting within that little area.

Have you seen the Long-Eared Owl at Boundary Bay, Senna? I haven't seen it anywhere but a couple mentioned it to me a few days ago as they were walking their dog a little later in the afternoon.

Euro, I'll be honest, like senna says its a great lens and will get you close to some things but I really don't think a 300mm lens is that long for birding if that is your intention. Sometimes I don't think a 7D with a 500L and a 1.4 is enough reach for a lot of birds I'd like to reach. Just because you have a 300 2.8 doesnt mean the birds come closer to you. Just my opinion, and it's totally upto you.

400 f/5.6 wasn't enough, even when the light was good.

also, i can't get much closer to the birds either. i'm usually as close as i can get, hence the bigger lens now.

quick question, is there a reason when i open my camera pics , theres always 2 files of the same pic? theres a CR2 file and JPEG file, and the CR2 file is just pointless cus i cant do anything with it...i always have to delete the file so i can just have JPEGs and not get confused..anyway i can fix this?

it's in your camera settings. you've got "RAW & JPEG" chosen, so just change it to JPEG only, if that's what you want. CR2 is Canon's "name" for it's RAW files.

ohh ok..i think i found it. decided to just stay with RAW

Dust Donut

any opinions on this? in addition to this seal, aren't there other parts that need to be weather sealed?

Microsoft actually released a codec so you can view RAW files without opening in PS or LR.

Download Microsoft Camera Codec Pack from Official Microsoft Download Center

Tokina 11-16mm (Nikon) - $650

:facepalm:

Just wondering, but do you Nikon users shoot with auto ISO on?

I'm new to photography, and I'm trying to learn with aperture mode. However, sometimes I'm really confused as to what ISO mode I should be using, and sometimes I have to stand around for a while until I find the right setting. Today I tried it out, and it seems auto ISO makes it much easier to shoot, especially in areas with variable light levels.

I understand that's more of a situational thing? I mean for shots where you want the background darker, then it's good to turn it off. Right now I have it on a max ISO of 800.

I was reading on the settings of my camera (D80) on Ken Rockwell's page, and he says he uses auto ISO.

i manually adjust my ISO, its just a preference for me and I'm used to it by now

Auto ISO on Nikon sucked until recent cameras (like the D600). It didn't take into account what focal length you were at.

Auto ISO is okay, but you gotta make sure that in the settings you're choosing the appropriate shutter speed so you don't get any motion blur.

If your minimum auto-iso setting speed in camera is set to 1/20s but you're using a 50mm, even though AutoISO is on, you're gonna get blurry pictures. General rule of thumb is 1/FocalLength, should be your minimum shutter speed.

I was just playing around with my camera on manual.

So if I'm shooting at 35mm, the minimum shutter I should use is 1/30? And if the photo is too dark, bump up the ISO?

Is there a ISO threshold that I should not cross? It seems to be that on my camera, 800 is probably the highest I want to hit.

EDIT: Did more comparisons, and when my camera is on point and shoot mode, it seems to wanna use a lower shutter count than the 1/focal rule. Does that matter?