Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BackdoorArts" data-source="post: 540603" data-attributes="member: 9240">Not sure why you're using an ND2.&nbsp; You're in Exposure Compensation range there.That said, as was mentioned this isn't the kind of lens that's going to perform well on stuff like this.&nbsp; It would help if we had EXIF on some so we knew where you were in the room range and what your settings are, but regardless that lens has a huuuuuuge focal range - effectively it's a 27-450mm lens.&nbsp; That's almost ridiculous.&nbsp; The fact that you didn't have to pay thousands of dollars for it tells you that the optics are going to be a compromise at various places throughout the range, and at various apertures at each.&nbsp; It's the kind of lens that is great when you're on vacation and want to be able to shoot everything you could ever possibly find to shoot and get more than adequate results.&nbsp; But it's not an art lens by any stretch, so as you push it in places it's going to show its weaknesses.&nbsp; And I say this having never shot with it - that's something you need to expect from any budget, wide-range zoom lens.&nbsp; I had the 28-300mm for a while and liked it a lot.&nbsp; But I don't have it any more because of things like you're finding here.What you're also learning is why so many people shoot with primes when they want the best results.&nbsp; One focal length means minimal internal movement and designers can optimize optics for that focal length.&nbsp; I love my zoom lenses because I'm lazy.&nbsp; But I've learned to love my primes because I'm also (supposedly) a photographer.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BackdoorArts, post: 540603, member: 9240"] Not sure why you're using an ND2. You're in Exposure Compensation range there. That said, as was mentioned this isn't the kind of lens that's going to perform well on stuff like this. It would help if we had EXIF on some so we knew where you were in the room range and what your settings are, but regardless that lens has a [B][I]huuuuuuge[/I][/B] focal range - effectively it's a 27-450mm lens. That's almost ridiculous. The fact that you didn't have to pay thousands of dollars for it tells you that the optics are going to be a compromise at various places throughout the range, and at various apertures at each. It's the kind of lens that is great when you're on vacation and want to be able to shoot everything you could ever possibly find to shoot and get more than adequate results. But it's not an art lens by any stretch, so as you push it in places it's going to show its weaknesses. And I say this having never shot with it - that's something you need to expect from [I]any[/I] budget, wide-range zoom lens. I had the 28-300mm for a while and liked it a lot. But I don't have it any more because of things like you're finding here. What you're also learning is why so many people shoot with primes when they want the best results. One focal length means minimal internal movement and designers can optimize optics for that focal length. I love my zoom lenses because I'm lazy. But I've learned to love my primes because I'm also (supposedly) a photographer. [/QUOTE]

Verification