Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i never buy any glass not nikon . while initially it is cheaper the difference in resale value can be huge . the better nikon lenses hold their value so well . some of the lenses i have had i sold for almost what i paid years later .
on the other hand any tamron or sigma stuff i bought took a beating when sold
I don't think that photo shows bokeh. It displays fairly shallow depth of field, yes, but I think it's a stretch to call it bokeh, let alone good bokeh...the term's a bit fuzzy (haha, I made a pun) but I don't see much pattern in the background blur. Foreground flowers look good, though.
Yeah now that I look at it again, I think you're right. It's certainly nowhere near what most DSLR lenses can give you when shot wide open or near wide open.
it is like we have people in photography forums who post half baked photo's that look unfinished and they expect some brownie points when they say it is straight out of camera .
sorry but half baked photo's get no extra points if they are not up to snuff .
it is like we have people in photography forums who post half baked photo's that look unfinished and they expect some brownie points when they say it is straight out of camera .
sorry but half baked photo's get no extra points if they are not up to snuff .
OK, I'd agree with you that that shot is nowhere near DSLR quality. For flower shots with strong bokeh, a cell phone is basically useless (at least the ones I've used). I posted the pic to show that you can get sharp focus and reasonably shallow DoF with a cell phone (not to try to get a high five).
well ,bottom line is you can take close ups with a cell phone that are in focus . but that is where the comparison ends for me but then i am a macro photographer and love bugs ..
i never buy any glass not nikon . while initially it is cheaper the difference in resale value can be huge . the better nikon lenses hold their value so well . some of the lenses i have had i sold for almost what i paid years later .
on the other hand any tamron or sigma stuff i bought took a beating when sold
There is a manual lens that is second to none in low price and sharpness (used for astrophotography using FF cameras), and that is The Rokinon 24mm f/1.4 ED AS UMC.
it may be true but there are few exceptions to after market lenses taking a beating when you want to sell them .
i learned that the expensive way early on by buying on price because sigma and tamron were cheaper . i won't buy any lenses today other than the higher end nikon glass .
i sell every few years as my needs may change .
it may be true but there are few exceptions to after market lenses taking a beating when you want to sell them .
i learned that the expensive way early on by buying on price because sigma and tamron were cheaper . i won't buy any lenses today other than the higher end nikon glass .
i sell every few years as my needs may change .
I don't disagree with you. The Rokinon/Sanyang/etc. lens above is a lens one would use for astrophotography, and probably landscape photography (if you want like manual focus for the latter), at 1/3rd of the cost of the best Nikon and Canon counterparts.
I have two f/2.8 Tokina super-wide angle lenses, one for a cropped-sensor Canon camera, and another for a FF Canon. Since I bought a FF camera, I haven't been using the one for the cropped-sensor one. The only use for this lens is for photographing the Auroras, and landscape photography. All my other lenses are Canon.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.