Frustrated with my Nikon 24-70mm 2.8G

[goodguy]

The 17-70 gives more range than the 24-70

True, I guess I was more focusing at the 17-59mm, if I would go the Sigma route I would probably go for the 24-70mm, its much, much cheaper (did I say much cheaper) and is shorter but probably if I would stick to zoom I would try the Tamron with its very efficient VC.

I used to shake alot - and that wasn't because I was a musician dancing around either.

Then I started practicing in my basement (read low light) with my VR lens - with the VR on .. then OFF ... I still had issues.
I knew the only way I was going to get the lenses that I wanted was to go the AF-D route which has no VR.

Now, I'm pretty steady but it's been a long road.
This was the start of the road with the help of TPF members
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...-making-yourself-tripod-versus-using-one.html


fyi, after a while I became fairly steady even with my 500mm. Before that I was all over the place.
One the larger lenses I've found that you have to support the lens FIRST and not the body first.

Thank you for the link, very interesting!

Well until you get your technique down it might not be a bad idea to maybe invest a couple of bucks in a monopod - that should do the trick for you nicely. Not quite as convienient as shooting handheld I know, but something to consider my friend.

Got one brother, a Manfrotto

 

[robbins.photo]

The 17-70 gives more range than the 24-70

True, I guess I was more focusing at the 17-59mm, if I would go the Sigma route I would probably go for the 24-70mm, its much, much cheaper (did I say much cheaper) and is shorter but probably if I would stick to zoom I would try the Tamron with its very efficient VC.

I used to shake alot - and that wasn't because I was a musician dancing around either.

Then I started practicing in my basement (read low light) with my VR lens - with the VR on .. then OFF ... I still had issues.
I knew the only way I was going to get the lenses that I wanted was to go the AF-D route which has no VR.

Now, I'm pretty steady but it's been a long road.
This was the start of the road with the help of TPF members
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...-making-yourself-tripod-versus-using-one.html


fyi, after a while I became fairly steady even with my 500mm. Before that I was all over the place.
One the larger lenses I've found that you have to support the lens FIRST and not the body first.

Thank you for the link, very interesting!

Well until you get your technique down it might not be a bad idea to maybe invest a couple of bucks in a monopod - that should do the trick for you nicely. Not quite as convienient as shooting handheld I know, but something to consider my friend.

Got one brother, a Manfrotto

Might be a good place to start for when you need the shot. I'll most likely be carrying my el-cheapo monopod myself more often now that I have the 85 mm prime. Will be doing some test shots at the zoo this weekend to see if I can manage without it but if not it's small enough and light enough that packing it along won't be a huge hardship by any means.

 

[Dao]

Do you have blur issue shooting with the 85mm prime @ f/2.8?

 

[Derrel]

I would like to see a large-sized sample image that shows the shake or blur issue you are having, just to look at it closely and maybe see what's going on.

 

[robbins.photo]

Do you have blur issue shooting with the 85mm prime @ f/2.8?

Nope, haven't had any blur issues with it at all - but then again just got the lens. I'll be packing the monopod with me in case I run into a situation or two where I can't get a high enough shutter speed, just to be on the safe side.

 

[goodguy]

I would like to see a large-sized sample image that shows the shake or blur issue you are having, just to look at it closely and maybe see what's going on.

PM sent

Do you have blur issue shooting with the 85mm prime @ f/2.8?

Nope, haven't had any blur issues with it at all - but then again just got the lens. I'll be packing the monopod with me in case I run into a situation or two where I can't get a high enough shutter speed, just to be on the safe side.

I dont have any problems either with my 85mm, just pure joy from my new lens

 

[yioties]

I want that 85mm so bad but first i think I'm going to get a 17-50 tamron vc or the 18-50 sigma.

 

[Dao]

So you have you no trouble shooting with the 85mm @f/2.8 while blur issue with 24-70mm (assuming 70mm @f/2.8) lens, would it be the additional weight? (350g vs 900g) Other than that, I really not sure.

 

[Braineack]

You guys might get a kick out of this:


VC OFF

VC ON

both at 200mm--hand held.


That shot with VC on, at 1/20, is as sharp as my best shot with VC off at 1/125, which was about the borderline for tact-sharpness.

Like I said, I'm really impressed by VC. It's really cool watching the lens keep the image VERY stable in the viewfinder when it's engaged. It's very apparent--visually--how well it even works. And obviously, the test images speak loads as well.

 

[goodguy]

I want that 85mm so bad but first i think I'm going to get a 17-50 tamron vc or the 18-50 sigma.

If you like landscaping then these Sigma or Tamron will help you a lot.

So you have you no trouble shooting with the 85mm @f/2.8 while blur issue with 24-70mm (assuming 70mm @f/2.8) lens, would it be the additional weight? (350g vs 900g) Other than that, I really not sure.

Actually I believe its not the weight but the length of the lens, the longer the lens is the bigger the chance you will suffer from camera shake.

You guys might get a kick out of this:


VC OFF

VC ON

both at 200mm--hand held.

You sir are a terrible tease LOL

 

[yioties]

My whole thing is i can get both lenses together for less than the 24-70 tamron

 

[Braineack]

You sir are a terrible tease LOL

I'm just spoiled.

Actually I believe its not the weight but the length of the lens, the longer the lens is the bigger the chance you will suffer from camera shake.

I actually find the 70-200 easier to shoot than the 24-70 because the mount makes a great palm rest--so that is coming into play here. I was just too lazy to go grab my 24-70 for the same test.

 

[astroNikon]

You guys might get a kick out of this:


VC OFF



VC ON


both at 200mm--hand held.


That shot with VC on, at 1/20, is as sharp as my best shot with VC off at 1/125, which was about the borderline for tact-sharpness.

Like I said, I'm really impressed by VC. It's really cool watching the lens keep the image VERY stable in the viewfinder when it's engaged. It's very apparent--visually--how well it even works. And obviously, the test images speak loads as well.

Those are the strangest cats ive ever seen. .
They look like a switch.

 

[robbins.photo]

I want that 85mm so bad but first i think I'm going to get a 17-50 tamron vc or the 18-50 sigma.

I got the 85 this payday.. figured I'd pull the trigger on it before the rebate expired. So glad I did - I've only taken a few test shots so far (my zoo walk won't come around till Saturday) but just from my test shots I can see this is going to be an awesome lens. Will also save me a lot of weight, I won't need the 70-200 mm for the indoor shots now, I can use the 85 instead. I can save the 200 mm for the outdoor stuff where I really need the reach. So yes, extremely happy with it and can't wait till saturday when I can get it out and really do some serious shooting with it.

Keep me posted on which lens you go for, the tamron or the sigma - I'm going to be buying one or the other myself most likely next payday so I'd love to hear your impressions of which ever one you end up going with - at the moment I'm leaning somewhat towards the sigma just because I've been pretty happy with the 70-200 mm with OS.

 

[Braineack]

Those are the strangest cats ive ever seen. .
They look like a switch.

Don't worry. I'm going to do a test between the 85mm and my Tamron 24-70. I'll use my "real men love cats" mugs.