Macaw Headshot

[DustinWPhotography]

Great work. Maybe soft because wide open? Didnt check exif. Love it tho

I did shoot at 5.6. I guess it could be possible that could be the reason, I'm still not sure though.

I used to own this lens. The problem is that this lens suffers from a lack of good microcontrast and CA. So even @ f8 where the lens is at its sharpest, it still looks a little soft. Also depends on the copy you get and how bad or good the lens is, but my lens was extremely bad.

Oh okay, so basically you're saying it's just the lens? Do you have any recommendations for comparable lenses that may be a bit sharper?

 

[Ballistics]

I did shoot at 5.6. I guess it could be possible that could be the reason, I'm still not sure though.

I used to own this lens. The problem is that this lens suffers from a lack of good microcontrast and CA. So even @ f8 where the lens is at its sharpest, it still looks a little soft. Also depends on the copy you get and how bad or good the lens is, but my lens was extremely bad.

Oh okay, so basically you're saying it's just the lens? Do you have any recommendations for comparable lenses that may be a bit sharper?

Pretty much. Comparable in price or focal length? Because as it stands, you get what you pay for. The lens is Nikons 2nd cheapest zoom made.

 

[DustinWPhotography]

I used to own this lens. The problem is that this lens suffers from a lack of good microcontrast and CA. So even @ f8 where the lens is at its sharpest, it still looks a little soft. Also depends on the copy you get and how bad or good the lens is, but my lens was extremely bad.

Oh okay, so basically you're saying it's just the lens? Do you have any recommendations for comparable lenses that may be a bit sharper?

Pretty much. Comparable in price or focal length? Because as it stands, you get what you pay for. The lens is Nikons 2nd cheapest zoom made.

Both really. I don't have a lot to buy any really expensive lens at the moment. It's not really all that much but what lens that somewhat compares to the 55mm/200mm would you recommend around the $400/$500 range?

 

[Ballistics]

Oh okay, so basically you're saying it's just the lens? Do you have any recommendations for comparable lenses that may be a bit sharper?

Pretty much. Comparable in price or focal length? Because as it stands, you get what you pay for. The lens is Nikons 2nd cheapest zoom made.

Both really. I don't have a lot to buy any really expensive lens at the moment. It's not really all that much but what lens that somewhat compares to the 55mm/200mm would you recommend around the $400/$500 range?

For it to be really worth it, you would need to increase your budget to the $1000 mark.

 

[DustinWPhotography]

Pretty much. Comparable in price or focal length? Because as it stands, you get what you pay for. The lens is Nikons 2nd cheapest zoom made.

Both really. I don't have a lot to buy any really expensive lens at the moment. It's not really all that much but what lens that somewhat compares to the 55mm/200mm would you recommend around the $400/$500 range?

For it to be really worth it, you would need to increase your budget to the $1000 mark.

What would you recommend if I could get up to that $1,000 mark?

 

[Ballistics]

Both really. I don't have a lot to buy any really expensive lens at the moment. It's not really all that much but what lens that somewhat compares to the 55mm/200mm would you recommend around the $400/$500 range?

For it to be really worth it, you would need to increase your budget to the $1000 mark.

What would you recommend if I could get up to that $1,000 mark?

You can get a used Sigma 70-200mm HSM OS for around that price used. It's an extremely good lens.

Here's a few samples from the Sigma with a D7000 I took.

Sigma 70-200mm OS - a set on Flickr

 

[DustinWPhotography]

For it to be really worth it, you would need to increase your budget to the $1000 mark.

What would you recommend if I could get up to that $1,000 mark?

You can get a used Sigma 70-200mm HSM OS for around that price used. It's an extremely good lens.

Here's a few samples from the Sigma with a D7000 I took.

Sigma 70-200mm OS - a set on Flickr

Oh wow, it does take really nice shots! I'm not to sure where you go about buying used lens though. I haven't really bought many lens or been doing photography at all for long, I'm still learning my way around everything. I do start college for photography on June 10th and I'm very excited about it. Hoping to learn lots of new things!

 

[Ballistics]

Ebay is a good place to look. Also keh.com sells used lenses, but their stock is pretty limited.

 

[DustinWPhotography]

Ebay is a good place to look. Also keh.com sells used lenses, but their stock is pretty limited.

Sounds good, I will take a look at both. Thank you.

 

[SCraig]

Both really. I don't have a lot to buy any really expensive lens at the moment. It's not really all that much but what lens that somewhat compares to the 55mm/200mm would you recommend around the $400/$500 range?

Nikkor 70-300 is around $500 I think but can be found in the $350 range used. It is an excellent lens to.

Okay, I will try and start doing that. I've never had any kind of photography training at all so I've basically self taught myself everything I know. I am curious though, why do some people like yourself say allow extra room for cropping while others tell you not to crop, that you should always fill up the frame in camera? Is it just personal preference?

Those that tell you not to crop are also most likely those that think only an unedited photograph is acceptable. They don't realize that EVERY photograph is edited in some way and EVERY print they hold in their hand has been cropped to some level.

They may also be the ones that don't understand composition and only know to fill the frame with as much subject as possible.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with cropping a photograph and it has been done since the day printing of negatives was invented.