The Lightsphere

[D40]

I do not have one of these handy to try so I was wandering if any of you have used this enough to give me a good discription of how well it works? I have made and tried the BetterBounceCard and it does work well. I do see the idea behind the BetterBounceCard in that instead of waisting the light that goes behind the photog it bounces it forward. This would seem to send more light forward than the lightsphere? I need to decide which is a better choice because while I have made the BBC I do not have a nice rubber band that you get when you buy the kit ($24). The LS is around $50 I think. If the LS works better than I have no problem spending the extra to get it. Thans

 

[JerryPH]

I have a diffuser with my SB-800, it works about the same. I say save the money for something better.

 

[Imgfascination]

I just posted a question about the lightsphere too.

I think I am going to go with a diffuser too.

 

[EOS_JD]

I like the fong lightsphere. Cloudy or clear they both work well.

 

[JIP]

why not use them both. One is free one is what $50 they both have their uses so if you got the money why not go for it.

 

[D40]

I love your answere JIP, it makes to much sence The only ploblem is I do not have that special band that makes it easy to put the card on and off the flash. I will try to find a way of doing that.

JIP: On a side note... how do you like your 18-70mm kit lens to compliment your 70-200?

 

[DHammer]

I use the lightsphere alot. I have both the clear and the cloud and they both have their uses. I have used his whale tail also and its very good too.

 

[JIP]

I love your answere JIP, it makes to much sence The only ploblem is I do not have that special band that makes it easy to put the card on and off the flash. I will try to find a way of doing that.

JIP: On a side note... how do you like your 18-70mm kit lens to compliment your 70-200?

Well I guess decision made then just go to the Fongestore http://store.garyfonginc.com/lightsphere.html and order away. The lens is crap I hate it. I don't mean to be harsh but really as soon as I can afford the 17-55 2.8 I will replace it I wish I had never bought it but the 17-55 was not out when I did make my purchase. For that matter neither was the D200 wich I would rather have bought.

 

[JerryPH]

don't mean to be harsh but really as soon as I can afford the 17-55 2.8 I will replace it I wish I had never bought it but the 17-55 was not out when I did make my purchase. For that matter neither was the D200 wich I would rather have bought.

The Sigma 18-50 DC EX HSM Macro f/2.8 is about 1/3rd the price... is sharper than the Nikkor 17-55, has macro (which the Nikkor doesn't have), is fast and gives awesome pictures.

The one area where you lose out is buld quality. If you don't roll around in the sand or go swimming with your Sigma, it makes no difference.

 

[D40]

Thanks I did think of the Sigma seeing as I will have the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 to go with it. Thanks for your honest answere JIP That is what I need to hear.

 

[JIP]

Honestly, for me unless I cannot afford the Nikon or it is not available in a Nikon I would not buy a Sigma. I had one in the past and it was not bad but not the lens for my needs.