I am sure I am going to love it. Longer reach might be great but out of budget here too Ron. Let me know if you end up picking up a converter. That may be in budget.
Tami Jo King's Photo Thread
- Thread starter Tami Jo
- Start date
I am sure I am going to love it. Longer reach might be great but out of budget here too Ron. Let me know if you end up picking up a converter. That may be in budget.
I love my 50 f 1.8 lens for landscapes and people but my zoom for wildlife shots. I would LOVE the Sigma 50-500 but definitely out of budget. I bet that is a fabulous lens. Maybe at some point I may pick it up. I think I am happy with my current lenses with this new addition for awhile...But I am seriously debating the 35 f1.8 G now. I would like another prime that is a bit wider than my 50 f/1.8.
Photowyzard
Senior Member
Some very nice shots, Tami Jo. I was going to comment on your copyright line. I am glad you made it smaller and less obtrusive. These copyright watermarks typically detract from the image.
I typically have mine off the photo. If you want to actually have it on the photo, I would suggest you make it small and put it on the bottom right corner. The typical convention for copyright I have seen used often in print is:
Copyright © 2012, Your Name Here
You don't have to have this large and all over your print. Less is more!
You are much better protected by simply posting a 4x6" image at 72 dpi. It looks great on screen and you can't do much with it other than maybe post it on another web site. You certainly can't print anything at 72dpi much less make money on it. The chances someone will steal an image that size are not that great. Post your pictures to make yourself happy, I wouldn't worry too much about the rest.
Check out one of my images, I don't even put it on the picture itself.
http://nikonites.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=15692&c=3&userid=8344
Hope this is of some benefit to you.
I typically have mine off the photo. If you want to actually have it on the photo, I would suggest you make it small and put it on the bottom right corner. The typical convention for copyright I have seen used often in print is:
Copyright © 2012, Your Name Here
You don't have to have this large and all over your print. Less is more!
You are much better protected by simply posting a 4x6" image at 72 dpi. It looks great on screen and you can't do much with it other than maybe post it on another web site. You certainly can't print anything at 72dpi much less make money on it. The chances someone will steal an image that size are not that great. Post your pictures to make yourself happy, I wouldn't worry too much about the rest.
Check out one of my images, I don't even put it on the picture itself.
http://nikonites.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=15692&c=3&userid=8344
Hope this is of some benefit to you.
I'd seriously debate the 28 G if you are thinking about a bit wider TJ but that is just me...an old fast 20 MF Nikkor on DX will do amazing stuff too look at Pierro.
madcapmagishion
Banned
Why not the 35mm f/1.8 a great lens for under $200.
Amazon.com: Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo
My Nikon 55-300 F/4.5-5.6G VR II arrived yesterday but I missed it. I hate when that happens.It was already delayed a week because of the horrific damage from hurricane Sandy. Anyway, I had to go pick it up today.Gladly of course! I am anxious to be able to test it out this weekend. Unless I happen to get a chance prior to then that is. Stay tuned...
Here's one I really messed up in my dash to test it before all the light disappeared. In my temporary madness I forgot to adjust the EV and it was way underexposed. That will teach me...Missed shot due to my own error. Kicking self now. And I should have slowed the shutter speed down...I tried to salvage it somewhat. I shot off several of these before I noticed and then it was too dark. I think I may need to get one of those magnifiers that slide over your viewfinder. I had a hard time seeing that in the low-light darn it. Can anyone recommend a good one? Or can I just order that from Nikon?
.
.
Last edited:
RockyNH_RIP
Senior Member
RockyNH_RIP
Senior Member
He is a good looking dog, rain or not!
Pat in NH
Pat in NH
Went to the wetlands again this weekend. Had a chance to test the new Nikon 55-300 VR II. I have to see that I enjoy the focal length but it is a bit on the slow side. It also seemed a bit nosier than my other lenses. I missed a few shots I really wanted because it focused and then refocused and wouldnt let me take the shot when I wanted. But all in all I think I am going to get a lot of use out of it. I am just wondering if the Nikon 70-300 VR might have been a bit quicker in speed. Here's a Beautiful Mallard from today's shoot.
madcapmagishion
Banned
I have an older 70-300mm non VR lens (that I just got last week) and find it a bit quicker, than my old 55-300mm VR lens I sold with my D3100.
Thanks Pat, She is a pretty doggie. They are such willing subjects. Perfect to practice on!
I was looking at the 70-300 VR version that I believe is actually a FX lens. But I just couldn't make up my mind. I had heard really good things about the 55-300 VR II so I decided to go with it. How are you enjoying yours so far? With the extended focal range do you find you miss the VR especially at the longer end? How would you compare the focusing speed verses the 55-300?
This is the hawk I was chasing. I'd have gotten an awesome one but the lens just wasn't focusing fast enough. Still had a great time
I find that I have to manually focus if the subject is mostly dark colors, otherwise, like you said, it keeps focusing and refocusing, but I'm still learning.