Softness of Lens?

calengor

Here's my list of things that I would like to get in the future:
D750 and Sigma 24-105 f/4 to start with, as I figure that'll get me through my trip to Colombia as a general purpose lens
85mm f/1.8 nikon
and eventually the sigma 50 1.4

manhattanboy

If you really want to be a photographer, you should just bite the bullet and buy good gear. In the long run you will save money by constantly not trading up, and in the short run you won't be discouraged by all your photos looking crappy. If you're just starting out, you aren't a genius like those folks who are given the challenge on Digital Rev.
[ ... ]
So ask yourself: am I just shooting for fun or am I serious about this. If the answer is the latter, you don't necessarily have to break the bank, but you might want to try harder than an entry level camera and a kit lens.

I admire all the work PitchBlack does and I agree wholeheartedly with him that buying the best gear in the beginning will save money in the long run assuming that you can presage what you will need in the future.
I was giving honest advice under the impression that the OP was shooting just for fun.

but the OP is taking pictures of deer, trees, leaves, and seedpods. He's trying to take nice pictures and take pleasure in the art of photography. A little time shooting raw and perfecting in post isn't going to hurt him.

However, I still think more time spent on learning and practicing with the existing gear is useful. One does not need a Ferrari to learn to drive well Personally, I wish I had invested even more time with the "crappy" gear early on as it would have made me better realize what I really like and dislike in a particular lens or camera purchase (e.g. Do you really need that 2.8 zoom or is the f4 version good enough?). One example of my own mistakes is my 85 1.4. Its a great lens and of course can take beautiful pictures, but its not really what I find useful most of the time for what I'm shooting. The OP has a 7100, which is a fantastic camera! I would argue that renting a fancy lens for shooting expeditions would give the OP the best of both worlds...allowing him to experience first class glass, but also not committing him to one lens before he tries it out in the field and is dead set on it.

I will leave you with an interesting story:

And there is a (likely apocryphal) story that tells the tale of an encounter between famous novelist Ernest Hemingway and famous photographer Ansel Adams. In the story, Hemingway is purported to have praised Adams’ photographs, saying, "You take the most amazing pictures. What kind of camera do you use?"

Adams frowned and then replied, "You write the most amazing stories. What kind of typewriter do you use?"

"Amateurs worry about gear; professionals worry about money; masters worry about light."

tcole1983

I don't think many would disagree with spending the funds to get good equipment especially lenses. I have cheaped on my bodies but haven't found it to be a limitation. However learned quickly to spend the money for lenses I wanted. Do I have the best? Maybe not THE best but they are pretty good and not cheap. Overall they fit my needs. If funds are an issue I think some of the newer variable aperture lenses are probably better than results from the 55-200 which hasn't ever been that great. I know it is because it is inexpensive but I always thought there were some better super zooms options out there.

heartyfisher

I have a different story.. I know a guy who is a keen photographer.. I don't really know what gear he has its just a crappy low end crop frame canon and kit lense. However he has a remote trigger for what he does he needs it. What does he do? He takes lots of portraits both self and models and PP the &^%$ out of them. They were really bad and cliché. over saturated .. deamons and angel fighting in apocalyptic landscapes. !! You know the type.. PP was badly done too you can make out the areas where the background and the people meet and the wings etc you know ..


but over months he got better and better.. he tones things down. His PP skills improves his models got pretty his photography got better getting his lighting correct OOC.

This is now over 2 years since he started.. he is now published in a couple of magazines .. and starting to get paid work. He has run a couple of workshops. And he still has his crappy camera and lense. He still has a long way to go .. but tenacity and passion is good. His latest image included below. yup still not sharp.. :-) but sharpness is not everything. I think the portrait is lovely.



"There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept."
Ansel Adams

PS: sorry @pitchblack.. I updated my post with the portrait photo just before your post below.

manhattanboy

This is an interesting discussion. Appreciate everyone's views, as its what makes NikonRumors forum fun.

calengor

I have a ton to learn, and I'm not sure what the end goal is at the moment. I joined 500px recently to see more of what others are doing out there, especially in portraiture. I do know that I'd like to move up to full frame to gain the lower noise and narrower depth of field. Better lenses are undoubtedly the key to sharpness, though.

Here's a shot of a friend's daughter that I took with my 35mm at f/1.8

Golf007sd

Thank you all for providing a health tone in this thread...well done NRF members.

Summarizing many of the things that have been said here and in our other topics, over the years: photography gear plays a vital roll in taking pictures. The quality of the image produced will depend on many factors...some due to the limitation of the photographer, the equipment used, the venue; the subject, light source...etc...etc. However, what is acceptable to the photographer and those it is shared with will differ just a much as the gear used. For those that find themselves "hooked" on photography...be it as a passion or +1, their learning cure is quite steep. From my perspective, If you find yourself in this stage, the additional capital spent on buying professional level equipment (body and/or lens) is the more prudent path to take.

Lastly, if you find yourself admiring a "professional photographers" work, it would be wise on your part to listen and take notes on what he or she say about the gear they use for their work. Your ability to obtain their level of finished product will take time and lots of effort, but you will know one thing that is not the limiting factor: your gear.

heartyfisher

@pitchblack very true. I think he is saving up for the "nice gear". I am telling him to get a D750 ;-) and chuck his canon ! you know me, I love my Nikon gear ! I just need to emulate that guy Max (and you) and get more Passion in my photography ! That "fuzzy concept" quote was more for me than anyone else.

Pistnbroke

I have always been of the opinion that an 18-xxx lens where xxx is over 150 mm goes soft which is why I stuck with the Nikon 18-140 and boy do we do some heavy cropping on ocasions and it holds up very well.

calengor

@PitchBlack - you're correct. I'm not currently willing to spend hours retouching a single photo. I have a full time non-photography job, for one thing, and I don't know nearly enough (read: pretty much anything) about using PS. I use LR5.6 and the NIK collection at the moment. I do have PS through my monthly Adobe subscription, but it's a daunting piece of software. I have been a great admirer of your work since I saw the timelapse video you made retouching the polo players and seeing just how much you changed and the entire amount of work to make an image where it was not obvious that it had been retouched to that extent.

donaldejose

Calengor you are not alone. I cannot spend even one fourth (or maybe even 1/10th?) of the time post processing a single photo that PitchBlack does. Thus, I have to try to get as much of the look I want out of the camera as I can and do a little post processing work. Of course, this means I will never be able to produce what PitchBlack does. Maybe someday when my out of the camera images are good enough and when I don't have so much else to do I can spend more time post processing.

tcole1983

I don't know...I always thought my 18-200 was sharp even at 200 mm. Some examples below.








Sorry some of these were a while ago and my photo editing skills were either poor or non present.

tcole1983

@pitchblack I know. Just showing for comparison. I have realized the 18-200 was a bit more lens than the kits. Metal mounts and decently made. It can be had for a steal now...I should have kept mine to leave on my d5000 now.

calengor

Got to play with the 70-200 f/2.8 VR II on my D7100 today. It was made very obvious that good glass makes a huge difference. Only problem I had was that the camera had some trouble focusing in lower light with the lens at certain distances from the subject, but I just manually overrode it and used focus confirmation.

70mm f/2.8

160mm f/2.8

Golf007sd

Yes, the difference is night & day. Here is one taken on my D7000 /w the same lens.



D7000 70-200 2.8 1/250 ISO 100 @ f/8
Larger image size.

calengor

Not even close, indeed. I will have to own this lens at some point in the future, that's for sure.

tcole1983

Warning: using Nikon pro gear will cause NAS. Between my friends 70-200 f2.8 and buying the 105 f2.8 I haven't purchased any non-gold ring lenses since. It spoils you.

donaldejose

Looking forward to some of your photos with that lens PitchBlack!

[Deleted User]

Fun, a thread about -softness of lenses - ends in - skill and gear -.
Very interesting, but surprising I find it here.

spraynpray

There is that dry Dutch sense of humour Ton - I love it! )

[Deleted User]

We better use humour these days SNP, everybody carried away in this thread and I loved it Good info if you agree or not .... There are a million ways to good results, even with other brands LOL.

spraynpray

...and another million ways of getting bad results with Nikon gear too! :P