Well, surprise of surprises..it's happytheman. :tup:

I mostly lurk. :happydance:

Wow! This was posted in potn and was shot with that 10-22! :eek:

http://www.psychogoat.com/linked/_MG_0286_web800_1.jpg

I can trust your recommendation. I'll order one up. :tup:

No one has one to rent here. I'll buy one from B&H like you said. I have bought from them before, great prices and service. :tup:

Thanks! :tiphat:

:tup:

BTS with my trusty 40MM pancake.

NSFW

That's purty! I'm looking for a decent lens for my Nikon D5100 that takes sharp pics like that, but doesn't break the bank. Any suggestions?


I survived Zdayz 2013... (barely)

Most of what is considered quality glass is unfortunately pricey. What ya willin' to part with, mon frere?

yea nikon unfortunately doesn't offer much in the way of "midrange" glass. it's either their lower end stuff (which is typically better than canon's) or their pro glass which is big $$$

Huck, most of the lenses out there can get you great results. It really depends on the focal length you need and the maximum aperture. Faster aperture lenses usually raise the price but aren't always as sharp as the cheaper lenses. Zoom lenses also tend to be more expensive than primes. If you want sharper images, each lens usually has a sweet spot in terms of the right aperture to use. The first thing you should consider is the focal length. If you want a wide angle or fish eye, Nikon offers the 10.5mm or the 10-24mm...both of which are kind of pricey. Unfortunately, so are other zooms close to them like the 16-85mm and the 18-200mm. Both zooms are leaps better than the kit lens though, so it's worth considering. The only lenses that are relatively inexpensive and works with your camera I can think of is the 35mm f/1.8 & 50mm f/1.8. You can always go with Sigma lenses which run a bit cheaper.

I'd also look at 500px is Photography and check out what others have done with the equipment they have. Type in "landscape+D5100" in the search. It usually shows the meta data for each pic.

Question for you guys. What is the difference between some of the different polorizer filters. There are cheap ones for $7 by tiffen and $88 one by B&W. Any experience with the cheaper ones?

I use the cheaper ones, can't speak for the pricey ones, but they work fine. I'm sure the glass and overall quality would be much better for the expensive ones. The cheap ones are just that... cheap. I've got a few different sizes from a few different companies, all work fine.

You tend to lose image quality with the really cheap ones. That's why I usually don't bother with any clear filters on my lenses. I'd pick the B&W or Hoya filters over the cheap ones unless you're just experimenting. The cheap filters will work, but they're not worth it if you plan to keep your filters for a while. The cheap ones sometime use plastic instead of glass. Truthfully though, you have to really look and know what to look for to tell the difference when comparing end result images.

Also, if your lenses have different filter sizes, buy the one for your largest lens and get some step down rings to fit the smaller ones. Usually 72mm or 62mm. This way, you don't have to buy more than one filter. The larger filters, obviously, tend to be a bit more expensive.

you can consider this one:

Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X116


Sample:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8447/7...59343e45_b.jpg

370z NISMO getting its kicks on Route 66
 

http://www.the370z.com/members/shutt...k-route-66.jpg

http://www.the370z.com/members/shutt...down-shack.jpg

It looks pretty good in the middle of the desert, so good that it makes the $2.5 million home in the background look all busted up and broken down. (Photo by G. A. Volb/Shutterjock)

I just want to say that the 18-200 is my favorite lens I have right now. It's super versatile, and I love that I don't have to carry anything other than my 35mm in my bag with this thing.

Though it ain't cheap, for around $700 you can pick up the Nikon Nikkor 28mm f/1.8 prime lens, the only drawback I'm still learning to work around when I'm indoors is that it's effectively a 42mm lens on my compact D5000.

Also, some polarizers are linear, some are circular. Additionally, there's the 10 dollar range and the 50 dollar range for polarizers. Unless you're selling photos you're taking... go low price.

...But don't forget to buy the correct size for your lens... different filters sizes avail for diff lenses and makes.

:tup:

New ones, my faves from my last outing:

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/f...psa4390769.jpg

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/f...psea37a234.jpg

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/f...psf2babf88.jpg

Those look good!
Not so sure about the skin tone on the one where she's looking down at the car.
Retouching looks great, but I'll be really nitpicky and say you should clean up the line on her leg, just above the "I" in shift and remove the light from her sunglasses... or at least just on one side or the other. It looks kind of weird split between the two lenses right at the bridge like that and my eye goes right there and stays there.
I know, I know. I just failed the gay test :supergay:

Thanks man, I appreciate the feedback!

good stuff

I took part in a photo scavenger hunt this summer along with 499 other participants. The photos are in the last stage of reveals and there are some great ones here. The creativity is excellent! Figured you guys might want to check them out. If you head on over to my Google+ page, you should be able to see the shared albums.

https://plus.google.com/u/0/110428526368029607211/posts

The topic subjects were:
PICNIC
BAD HAIR DAY
POPSICLE
STAR(S)
TURQUOISE
BUTTERFLY
WATERMELON
SUNBURN
SPRINKLER
CAMPFIRE

my friend Andy got his (formerly red) GTR wrapped in metallic gold vinyl this past week. i went by to take a few quick pictures. it's gold, i dig it, photo's aren't the best...

http://jpmcgphotography.smugmug.com/...MG_2166-XL.jpg

hoping to reshoot sometime soon with more time, better location(s) and better lighting :)

i'm jealous you guys all find roads that are quiet enough to set up a car and do a shoot. -_-

Sometimes you just have to get up reallllllllly early.

I've been meaning to hit this spot again while the light is good and city hasn't woken up yet.
Please ignore the bad post-processing. I was still shooting JPEG and editing with Paint Shop Pro, and I had no idea what a layer was yet. :rolleyes:

http://www.modachroma.com/the370z/ms3tunnel.jpg

Great shot Eric!!

:iagree:

that's a nice looking shot Luna! The red contrasts well against the background and the composition is great

No need to apologize for the shot. It's nice and clear. A good photo doesn't need much post processing.

IMO it looks fine,,the background actually works with the subject..Nice lighting..

Very nice! Good lines and good lighting!

the background is a little busy for my tastes and the sun was low but harsh. i just need to build a freakin' studio already :rolleyes:

Well I think the background colors match the car and the low sun added some interest ..

Thanks everyone :tiphat:
I think my tastes have changed quite a bit since I took that shot. I do love the composition and angle. I was laying on my stomach for the shot.
On the other hand, I know I really amped up the colour, contrast, and sharpness to the point of being unrealistic. I probably could have stood to open it a bit more to soften the background, but being that I was probably shooting on "the green square", that's what the camera gave me.
It's noisy as all hell, and we won't even talk about the piece of crap, non-focusing Tamron lens I had on the front of my 10D :rofl2:

Heya there... just a photo comment... there is some pretty wicked purple fringing around your highlights. Other than that, iti's a shot i'd be proud to have on my desktop :-D

You think that is something other than the color of the sky?

You shouldnt have said anything..:tup: now that you mention it the light boards could be toned down just a bit,.,.but over all it looks good..

I have to say it again...the shot really looks good! I dont know what problems you are seeing with JPEG..or with post processing,,,if you could be more specific or post it done the way you think it should be done, maybe I could learn something ,.,.but until then i think its excellent

JPEG Discussion
 

I know its not fashionable but I like JPEG..Unless the exposure is way off, there is no need for radical RAW processing,.and frankly call me lazy..but I figure I paid enough for this camera,so let it do its thing and save me the trouble..

Yes RAW has much more flexibility,.,.,.if you encounter a situation where radical processing is needed...but so far I think its more bother than its worth for the great majority of shots..and in the end looks the same.

As for noise, i have a 14x11 print in my hand,,shot at 1600 ISO and I see no noise..and my eyesight is fine..

Plus I can shoot a whole bunch and not worry about buffer overload,.

So anyone care to have a discussion on this? :)

This old dog is always open to learning new tricks!

I think I am going to re-visit it, as I have done with quite a few shots after I've learned new tricks.
And address the CA as mentioned above!