Author Topic: Greetings from beautiful Jersey City! (Read 7804 times)

Frank in JC · « **on:** April 21, 2008, 01:02:04 PM »

There's a marina at the end of my street so I finally took a long exposure at high tide. The ripples were small and perpendicular to my line of sight, so I was able to get almost perfect streaks in the water. We don't have much natural geographic beauty, but the sight of downtown NYC across the Hudson River still amazes me. Unfortunately, the "Bon Vivant" on the right just wouldn't sit still for me.

crop/tweak:

(Edit: I replaced this with a sharper version)

JD · « **Reply #1 on:** April 21, 2008, 01:03:39 PM »

Cool pictures.

phanophish · « **Reply #2 on:** April 21, 2008, 02:19:50 PM »

Nice Stuff Frank. Looks like a relatively haze free night as well.

Sanjay · « **Reply #3 on:** April 21, 2008, 02:57:39 PM »

That's great Frank, what lens?

I did long exposures this weekend with my new Nikon 17-55, and man am I disappointed. The flaring on the glass is horrible.

Frank in JC · « **Reply #4 on:** April 21, 2008, 03:19:45 PM »

Quote from: Sanjay on April 21, 2008, 02:57:39 PM

That's great Frank, what lens?

I did long exposures this weekend with my new Nikon 17-55, and man am I disappointed. The flaring on the glass is horrible.

It's the 85mm f/1.4 stopped down to f/11 (it's "supposed" to be for portraits, but I keep putting off buying the 70-200). I did several other images that night with the 17-55, but no flare. I do get serious flare shooting directly into the sun, however. Still, it's my favorite lens... seems to consistently nail contrast, color, and detail.

Phano, yeah, the haze really starts kicking when the weather gets warmer. It spoils every tourist photo taken!

Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 flare

...But when the same lens can capture subtle images like this, I'm not complaining! (ISO 400, 1/40th sec @ f/2.8, w/ Noiseware)

Sanjay · « **Reply #5 on:** April 21, 2008, 03:51:56 PM »

Here is my flare... For both of these the flare extended almost all the way through the frame, and there were spots in the sky with just white dots. I was quite unhappy. I'm thinking about switching for the new 24-70... not as wide but if it doesn't have the flare issue... I still need to try a concert with it.

larger unedited image: http://flickr.com/photos/sanjaysuchak/2431439205/sizes/l/

larger unedited: http://flickr.com/photos/sanjaysuchak/2432254028/sizes/l/

another case of flare: http://flickr.com/photos/sanjaysuchak/2432254666/sizes/l/in/photostream/

BJ · « **Reply #6 on:** April 21, 2008, 04:21:00 PM »

Quote from: Sanjay on April 21, 2008, 03:51:56 PM

Here is my flare... For both of these the flare extended almost all the way through the frame, and there were spots in the sky with just white dots. I was quite unhappy. I'm thinking about switching for the new 24-70... not as wide but if it doesn't have the flare issue... I still need to try a concert with it.

larger unedited image: http://flickr.com/photos/sanjaysuchak/2431439205/sizes/l/

larger unedited: http://flickr.com/photos/sanjaysuchak/2432254028/sizes/l/

another case of flare: http://flickr.com/photos/sanjaysuchak/2432254666/sizes/l/in/photostream/

sanjay, are you using a uv filter? I read a page (maybe posted here on ts somewhere) where a guy did alot of tests with filters, and certain ones can cause flare (even plain old UV filters). I have gone with Hoya eversince, whether or not it makes a difference, I dont know b/c I get the Hoya with each lens, i don't know, but it makes me feel better. also, congrats on your photo "Dupont at Dusk" NICE

btw..excellent photo here!

Sanjay · « **Reply #7 on:** April 21, 2008, 04:28:40 PM »

I took the filters off for these... they were worse with it... I did have a Hoya UV filter on before.

Thanks for the compliments!

Frank in JC · « **Reply #8 on:** April 21, 2008, 04:36:04 PM »

Quote from: Sanjay on April 21, 2008, 03:51:56 PM

Here is my flare... For both of these the flare extended almost all the way through the frame, and there were spots in the sky with just white dots. I was quite unhappy. I'm thinking about switching for the new 24-70... not as wide but if it doesn't have the flare issue... I still need to try a concert with it.

The dark areas unfortunately give the flare a good place to show up. I would expect to see it with concert lighting too, but it might be more excusable. It was kind of a shock when I first got the lens home, pointed it at a light fixture, and saw the nasty flare people warn about.

I take it as a compromise. It probably wouldn't do the things it does so well in this zoom range if the design didn't also make it susceptible to flare. Some lenses would have washed out the color and contrast in the dock picture with the sun in the background.

Sanjay · « **Reply #9 on:** April 21, 2008, 04:41:16 PM »

Good point... thanks for the insight...

I guess it still is one of the best lenses I've used.

stirinthesauce · « **Reply #10 on:** April 22, 2008, 10:10:55 AM »

beautiful pic, Frank

Frank in JC · « **Reply #11 on:** April 22, 2008, 03:44:09 PM »

Thanks for the comments, guys. Planning ahead and checking a tide table made all the difference. Planning... who knew?

Sanjay · « **Reply #12 on:** April 22, 2008, 05:09:06 PM »

Frank, I'm curious what your lens stable has in it? You always make fantastic images and I know that has more to do with skill than anything but I am curious as to what you use since we both have a D300.

Frank in JC · « **Reply #13 on:** April 23, 2008, 08:44:22 AM »

Quote from: Sanjay on April 22, 2008, 05:09:06 PM

Frank, I'm curious what your lens stable has in it? You always make fantastic images and I know that has more to do with skill than anything but I am curious as to what you use since we both have a D300.

Thanks a million for the compliment, Sanjay. You do really nice stuff as well.

I think this is everything. Aside from the Lensbaby, they're all Nikkors.

manual focus, full frame:
35mm f/2 AI-S
50mm f/1.4 AI-S
Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 non-AI
Lensbaby 3G

autofocus, full frame:
50mm f/1.8 (packaged with my first SLR, a Nikon N50)
85mm f/1.4

autofocus DX:
10.5mm f/2.8 fisheye
12-24mm f/4
17-55mm f/2.8
55-200 f/4.5-5.6 VR (definitely a toy, but surprisingly not a piece of junk)

Obviously missing is the 70-200 f/2.8, but that's just a matter of time.

I also use a Gitzo 2530 tripod and 1276M off-center ball head when I feel like lugging it around (which is rarely). I highly recommend the tripod, but the ball head leaves a lot to be desired... I'm looking into getting an Arca-Swiss, RSS, or Markins.

How about you--what glass do you use?

Sanjay · « **Reply #14 on:** April 23, 2008, 11:02:07 AM »

That's quite a nice bit... I see you have a nice mix of primes and zooms. At the moment I'm all about the zooms, but I've been thinking about going to all primes for increased quality and lower F-stops. However I don't think that I would find it convenient in the least for me. I also used to have that 55-200 VR lens, ordered it and returned it to B&H just to try out VR, pretty nice lens, just a worthless focal length for me I think unless it's a 2.8

Manual Focus (IE never used)
50mm f1.4 AI-S
105mm f2.5 non-AI (Soligor??? From my mom's camera)

Autofocus
50mm f1.8 AF
17-55mm f2.8 AF-S
80-200mm f2.8 AF
28-70mm f2.8 AF (tokina, trying to sell now that I have my 17-55)

Strange thing about the tokina is that I put both lenses (nikon and tokina) at 50mm, 2.8 and 1/60th of a second and focused on a lampshade. I honestly could not tell which lens I preferred from that. They were both equally sharp at 100% crop, the tokina was a bit darker and had more contrast, but the Nikon was lighter and you could see more of the fiberous detail... It makes me think that I should maybe hold onto it.

If I were to switch to primes, for the cost of what I have above in autofocuses I could get some nice primes... but we'll see. I see myself sticking with zooms and getting the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 and then upgrading my 80-200 to a 70-200 and I'd have much of the focal length covered.

As for the tripod I just have a slik tripod which is a great tripod, but the ball head cannot support the D300 and the 17-55 at portrait angle... so I either have to get a bracket (not gonna happen) or just but a real tripod. I don't use it very much.

Frank in JC · « **Reply #15 on:** April 23, 2008, 04:47:54 PM »

Given how good the pro zooms are, I think prime lenses are better left for special applications. The downside to the zooms is the potential for internal reflections, barrel & pincushion distortions, and "slower" f/2.8 apertures. Fortunately for most photographs those things aren't visible. The 17-55mm is distorted at 17mm, but unless there are long, straight lines near the edge of the frame it's not blatantly obvious. Other than the fisheye, this lens has pretty much lived on the camera since I got it.

As for primes, the 85mm f/1.4 is a gem with gorgeous bokeh. If you want a really nice prime that makes everything pretty this is the one to have. It's a "people-flatterer." DOF is so shallow at f/1.4 that in a portrait, if your subject is at an angle to the camera, only one eye will be in focus. It felt kind of silly using it for a cityscape at f/11, but it turned out to be a good tool for the job.

FWIW, I noticed that Ken Rockwell doesn't recommend either of these lenses... that means they MUST be good!

hypnotoad · « **Reply #16 on:** April 23, 2008, 04:56:02 PM »

Those are some amazing picture guys. Great work!

stirinthesauce · « **Reply #17 on:** April 30, 2008, 01:24:59 AM »

since this thread has migrated towards lenses, I have a comment and also require some feedback.

First, Sanjay, those Tokina lenses are nice. I miss my 12-24. That thing was friggin sharp!

Now, for some feedback...I moved to a full frame and the price jump caused me to sell my super wide and I have yet to replace it. My 24-70 is now wide (moving from 1.6x crop) but in a few situations, I desire wider. Like a 17-35. My initial thought was to sell the 24-70, replace with L glass, and then buy a 17-35, maybe third party, most likely canon. My dilemma is this, my sigma 24-70f2.8 ex dg makes great images. Not as good as my L glass, but very nice nonetheless. And the price jump up will probably leave my wallet screaming if I then buy a 17-35. So, my thoughts are this, buy a 17-35L, keep my 24-70 and eventually swap that out. I feel sorta naked without a super wide. Since I primarily do landscapes, I kinda *need* this lens. Thoughts?

Frank in JC · « **Reply #18 on:** April 30, 2008, 08:05:34 AM »

Quote from: stirinthesauce on April 30, 2008, 01:24:59 AM

since this thread has migrated towards lenses, I have a comment and also require some feedback.

First, Sanjay, those Tokina lenses are nice. I miss my 12-24. That thing was friggin sharp!

Now, for some feedback...I moved to a full frame and the price jump caused me to sell my super wide and I have yet to replace it. My 24-70 is now wide (moving from 1.6x crop) but in a few situations, I desire wider. Like a 17-35. My initial thought was to sell the 24-70, replace with L glass, and then buy a 17-35, maybe third party, most likely canon. My dilemma is this, my sigma 24-70f2.8 ex dg makes great images. Not as good as my L glass, but very nice nonetheless. And the price jump up will probably leave my wallet screaming if I then buy a 17-35. So, my thoughts are this, buy a 17-35L, keep my 24-70 and eventually swap that out. I feel sorta naked without a super wide. Since I primarily do landscapes, I kinda *need* this lens. Thoughts?

I've been thinking about the D3 lately (an unhealthy activity) and what lenses I would want to pair with a full frame body. For what it's worth, a 17-35 would probably be the first lens I put on it, followed by a 24-70. Hey, one of the most significant reasons to use full frame is the ability to go super wide... that should help you rationalize the purchase

Sanjay · « **Reply #19 on:** April 30, 2008, 09:45:45 AM »

What about a nice wide prime, and use the 24-70 as your walk around?

stirinthesauce · « **Reply #20 on:** April 30, 2008, 10:12:06 AM »

Quote from: Sanjay on April 30, 2008, 09:45:45 AM

What about a nice wide prime, and use the 24-70 as your walk around?

I was looking at the canon super wide primes. Don't think I can swing $1700

They do look mighty nice though. Don't see much of an option in the 3rd party region.

Frank, I think your right. Think I'm hunting for a super wide. Just needed an to hear it somewhere else.

BJ · « **Reply #21 on:** April 30, 2008, 10:48:34 AM »

Quote from: Frank in JC on April 30, 2008, 08:05:34 AM

Quote from: stirinthesauce on April 30, 2008, 01:24:59 AM
since this thread has migrated towards lenses, I have a comment and also require some feedback.

First, Sanjay, those Tokina lenses are nice. I miss my 12-24. That thing was friggin sharp!

Now, for some feedback...I moved to a full frame and the price jump caused me to sell my super wide and I have yet to replace it. My 24-70 is now wide (moving from 1.6x crop) but in a few situations, I desire wider. Like a 17-35. My initial thought was to sell the 24-70, replace with L glass, and then buy a 17-35, maybe third party, most likely canon. My dilemma is this, my sigma 24-70f2.8 ex dg makes great images. Not as good as my L glass, but very nice nonetheless. And the price jump up will probably leave my wallet screaming if I then buy a 17-35. So, my thoughts are this, buy a 17-35L, keep my 24-70 and eventually swap that out. I feel sorta naked without a super wide. Since I primarily do landscapes, I kinda *need* this lens. Thoughts?

I've been thinking about the D3 lately (an unhealthy activity) and what lenses I would want to pair with a full frame body. For what it's worth, a 17-35 would probably be the first lens I put on it, followed by a 24-70. Hey, one of the most significant reasons to use full frame is the ability to go super wide... that should help you rationalize the purchase

buff...get the 17-35L with your 5d...landscape heaven! and like you said..your sigma is taking very nice photos right now!!! I know there is always room for improvement..but hey..if you are happy, then get another lens, instead of just upgrading 1 lens!!!!

Frank in JC · « **Reply #22 on:** April 30, 2008, 11:33:44 AM »

Quote from: BJ on April 30, 2008, 10:48:34 AM

Quote from: Frank in JC on April 30, 2008, 08:05:34 AM

I've been thinking about the D3 lately (an unhealthy activity) and what lenses I would want to pair with a full frame body. For what it's worth, a 17-35 would probably be the first lens I put on it, followed by a 24-70. Hey, one of the most significant reasons to use full frame is the ability to go super wide... that should help you rationalize the purchase

Yeah, I need to make that purchase like I need a hole in the head.

stirinthesauce · « **Reply #23 on:** April 30, 2008, 11:42:59 AM »

The fredmiranda search begins today. Now to find a deal

Sanjay · « **Reply #24 on:** April 30, 2008, 12:09:48 PM »

yikes I didn't realize there were no third party options... now all I see is an 8mm fisheye.

Go superwide then... If you're just doing landscapes you might be able to bump up from 2.8 to f4L

stirinthesauce · « **Reply #25 on:** April 30, 2008, 12:22:43 PM »

Quote from: Sanjay on April 30, 2008, 12:09:48 PM

yikes I didn't realize there were no third party options... now all I see is an 8mm fisheye.

Go superwide then... If you're just doing landscapes you might be able to bump up from 2.8 to f4L

That's my decision. I have read mixed reviews on the 17-35f2.8L. The 16-35 (especially the mkII)L lens is fucking awesome, but at 1600, I'll pass. May try the 17-35Lf2.8. I may need, at times, that extra light gathering ability for event purposes. Or not, may get the f4L

Frank in JC · « **Reply #26 on:** May 06, 2008, 09:49:53 AM »

This was more of a science experiment. It really needs a subject, preferably a young woman or a kid. Still, I think the stoppage of time is pretty cool.

Sanjay · « **Reply #27 on:** May 06, 2008, 11:01:24 PM »

That's fantastic, so sharp!

Frank in JC · « **Reply #28 on:** May 07, 2008, 02:26:35 PM »

I'm a little surprised at the sharpness since it's a fairly serious crop. The lens was actually zoomed to 17mm to make sure I got everything. Unfortunately my facial hair stubble was supremely well rendered along with the interior of my left nostril. It wasn't a pretty sight!

Jimna · « **Reply #29 on:** May 07, 2008, 07:45:41 PM »

love your shots in this thread, very cool indeed. i really like the one in the first post too.

Frank in JC · « **Reply #30 on:** May 12, 2008, 09:21:38 AM »

Another greeting from JC, this one from a parade of motorcycle riders that lasted over 10 minutes. It was part of a 9/11 responders benefit than ran though a state park directly across from the Statue of Liberty. It was a total surprise to me... I've never seen so many bikes on the road.

Frank in JC · « **Reply #31 on:** June 27, 2008, 12:46:51 PM »

The RAF's Red Arrows performed in NYC on Wednesday (the actual show was in Staten Island). I was waiting in Jersey City, opposite Ellis Island to get the fly-by. This is one of nine jets in the formation. I had to give the 400mm Tokina back to my father, so this is a new toy, a Sigma 300 f/2.8 with a 2x TC. (The Nikon version is WAY too expensive, not to mention sold-out.)

Have a great weekend, everybody.

flipp · « **Reply #32 on:** June 27, 2008, 03:27:40 PM »

Hadn't checked this thread in a while. Some nice new shots posted. Your NYC skyline/reflection is one of a series of pics I rotate as my desktop and since I use Linux, there are no icons superimposed on the shot. Keep posting please.