Primes, couldn't live without them...

[unofficialPete]

For the doubters, a couple of snaps from earlier, try and do this with your zooms.... :clown:

yes I realise you could do it with a f/2.8 and ISO 3200 but I don't have that :rasp:

 

[Brown.]

would help the laymens if you could explain that you have not had to use flash or tripod....as prime lens have massive max apatures......... compared to wide angle zoom lens

 

[planetx]

my 80 - 200 mm.F2.8 and my 35 - 70 mm f2.8 could do that.
A nikon d3 with a f5.6 zoom could do that

 

[McBunny]

so what lense is it ?

 

[Andy.]

Canon EF 85mm F 1.8 USM... at a guess.

 

[McBunny]

Canon EF 85mm F 1.8 USM... at a guess.

so it is lol usually when i save the images there is no exif data but there was this time

 

[unofficialPete]

my 80 - 200 mm.F2.8 and my 35 - 70 mm f2.8 could do that.
A nikon d3 with a f5.6 zoom could do that

Very true, as stated at the bottom, and yup ISO 6400 or 12800 whatever the D3 can do is all good but at 5x the total cost of the rig I was using without a lens hmmmmm


And yup was the 85 f/1.8, great peice of kit, shame all the d40 users will never get to feel the full advantage of primes

 

[unofficialPete]

p.s. ISO 12800 + f/1.8 or even find a f/1.0 prime and you could see in the dark :clown:

 

[McBunny]

p.s. ISO 12800 + f/1.8 or even find a f/1.0 prime and you could see in the dark :clown:

but the image would be so soft or you would see nowt but noise lol

 

[unofficialPete]

Has anyone you know ever looked at an image and said, oooo thats noisy I don't like it?

Saying that ISO 1600 on an underxposed shot on a 350D makes me cringe lol

 

[McBunny]

when i looked at your pics above i went hmm noise

 

[Sym0n]

when i looked at your pics above i went hmm noise

+1

 

[unofficialPete]

Thats because your/were amateur shooters who nit pick and pixel peep (well I do anyway), I've never had a freind or family comment on the noise in an image, the content is far more important, better to have noise and a picture than a clean blurry mess IMO.. in an ideal world those pictures would be cleaner and they will when I get Neat Image 'working' but my point is, primes and high ISO make these kind of shots possible for those who buy slow zooms and wonder why they get black blurry images...

 

[McBunny]

oh i agree bud very true

 

[unofficialPete]

apologies for the ramble lol, 5 minute rule meant I couldn't edit it down , i'm just having a moment of justification for all the spending i've done lol

 

[ukaskew]

p.s. ISO 12800 + f/1.8 or even find a f/1.0 prime and you could see in the dark :clown:

but the image would be so soft or you would see nowt but noise lol

Not on a D3, the high-ISO performance on that thing is insane...

http://ishootshows.com/2007/09/02/nikon-d3-iso-25600-samples-from-ifa/

The ISO 1600 shot almost looks better than a standard ISO 200 shot from my D50.

 

[Lagerlout]

Primes for the f**king win. I only have the lowly nifty fifty, but's still my weapon of choice. lol.

 

[ukaskew]

Loved my 50mm so much I felt it was worth the risk getting a bigger prime (300mm f4) and I love that as well. Could never understand it before, but now I have one I couldn't be without it.

So much more fun being limited in terms of range, really makes you think about the photo you are taking.

 

[dick]

tungsten WB sweetcheeks?

 

[unofficialPete]

tungsten WB sweetcheeks?

I'll have to check, was just cack lighting, I've used the curves to get the colours a bit better, should have shot RAW really but not worth the extra effort to be honest..

 

[unofficialPete]

Loved my 50mm so much I felt it was worth the risk getting a bigger prime (300mm f4) and I love that as well. Could never understand it before, but now I have one I couldn't be without it.

So much more fun being limited in terms of range, really makes you think about the photo you are taking.

mmm a 300 or 400 would be very nice, after the 40D though and Lee filters, walk around lens and macro :clown: