Camera Labs

Reversed kitlens, right?

_________________
I take pictures so quickly, my highschool was "Continuous High".

Yes sir Citruspers. Kitlens from D40 =)

_________________
Don't have job, Im finding one now for living >.<

"Man's Bestfriend"

_________________
Don't have job, Im finding one now for living >.<

toothpaste, you need to get a flickr so I can see all of your shots in one place.

_________________

toothpaste - lol weird screename - mine is weird too .


Anyway those macro shots are .... krazy.

that spider eating his lunch is ...10/10.


How much would a lens like that cost ? why do people need to buy more expensive macro lenses when they can get quality like yours ? which is all you need and more then enough ?

I think I will be looking into that lens after I check Gordons reviews .
________
buy herbalaire

@ Shagrath

Sir, I do not have Flickr account as of this moment due to I just newly have my dslr. Is it really nice there sir?



@ goldengloves

Honestly, I was moderated here with my previous username, it was more weird & funny^^ Then Gordon helped me out to let it changed. Due to in a hurry, I couldn't think of something else so I came up with this one^^


That spider shot does not have good focus point. As you may notice, the forehead and the eye part of the insect are quite a bit out of focus. It was my first attempt of macro shot though with a new camera.^^


Actually sir, the reason why people shall buy expensive dedicated macro lenses due to ease of usage. This reversing method is quite hard and tricky. Full manual focusing and all other meterings including the flash, no camera shake stabilizer, less weight which would add more shake, and extremely dark view finder which will give extremely hard in focusing. If one can live with that, the it shall be okay(me, I am forced to live with it^^ due to as I have said, I cannot afford dedicated macro lenses). Dedicated macro lenses give full automatic and active meterings and focusing, good weight to help lessen camera shake plus active shake stabilizer, and best of all, bright viewfinder which will trigger you to use smaller aperture sizes to give bigger DOF, and calibrate a good focusing point. Anyway, anyone can correct me here since I am still a newbie in photography, my first dslr is less than a month old yet.

By the way, one also need to "always" clean the back and front lens elements when reversing and inversing to prevent hazard to the sensor.

So thats all sir. Again, this is only a poorboy's macro stuff, please understand for any abnormalities^^


---



"I Will Make Your Paper Wet"



"5 And 25 Philippine Tiny Centavo Coins"

_________________
Don't have job, Im finding one now for living >.<

toothpaste - Thats was a informative reply .


I am also new to photography. You ,... a newbie ? are you sure ? first dslr less than a month old ?? wow , I wonder what your photos will look like in a year from now. I was thinking you were pro. you got great knowledge so far


.Thank you. And keep shooting , and make a flickr account when you are not shooting
________
silver surfer vaporizer

btw , is the spider in your hand ? kool man,

You said the insect the spider has in its mouth is a bit out of focus. I have a question now. If I were to take a shot of lets say 2 different objects that are real close to each other which setting do I need to change in the D90 so I can focus sharply on both objects ?

I am using the 18-105 and I have no idea how to do this.
________
CBF250

Pro? In my dreams^^ honestly sir, yes I am still a newbie. The composition and story of my photos are not that good yet. I got my little knowledge from reading photography sites, forums, and the manual of my camera. And yes, its still less than a month old. I even asked here to what DSLR I should buy. I was once a Canon SX10IS user for 3 months, you can check my previous photos in the Canon SX10IS thread. I sold my SX10IS and my uncle give me money to add up for a dslr.

I wonder whats in there in Flickr though. But Ill make one soon..

_________________
Don't have job, Im finding one now for living >.<

It depends sir. If those subjects are "extremely" tiny, say less than 2mm, you need to magnify more to settle for a good composition. But magnifying more will give more shallow DOF. Reducing the magnification a bit will give bigger room to focused depth of field, thus will give larger span of focused area.

Getting sharp and good focus in desired part of the subject is very tricky. Specially when all are in full manual including the focusing and exposure compensations. Practice sir is they key, just like what I am doing now. And know the camera well =)

By the way, that 18-105mm cannot be reversed right away sir. You need to buy a step down ring aside from the reversing ring accessory due to the filter size of that kitlens is 67mm, rather than 52mm(male groove) of a reversing ring. But possible vignetting will happen if im not mistaken.

_________________
Don't have job, Im finding one now for living >.<

Yeah the 18-105 will vignette even if you zoom in to 105 mms if memory serves. I reversed a 50 mm F/2 lens on it some time ago. I didn't have reversing rings so I just put the whole thing on a table, supported with tape

_________________
I take pictures so quickly, my highschool was "Continuous High".

Hi guys~

Any recommendations for a fast and sharp zoom lens - preferably for macro and portraiture..

I've just recently bought a D90 body with the 50 1.4 lens for starters and would definitely love a more versatile zoom lens. (I'm finding the 50mm a tad too tele for my liking..)

Right now my dream lens would be the 24-70 2.8, but I don't know if I can justify FF glass on a cropped sensor body, nor am I sure about having such heavy frontal loading on a relatively light body.

The 18-200 VRII sounds practical but despite its versatility of range I fear its quality and speed isn't desirable for indoor shots (unless I pair it up with a flash)

Argh, I'm so conflicted for my choice of perfect glass

_________________
Nikon D90 | 50 f/1.4D

If you want perfect glass you'll probably have to settle with the idea of spending a lot on the Nikkor 24-70. If you can live with a bit less, get the sigma/tamron variants.

OR go the middle way and get the 18-105 VR, which performs very well even in low light. Great travel/allround lens, stabilised, and good optical quality (better than the 18-200). For even better optical quality you can get the 16-85 VR, but you will lose some range, and I doubt you will really notice the difference in quality.

_________________
I take pictures so quickly, my highschool was "Continuous High".

With the DX zoom lens you've aforementioned, they might not be as fast as what I want in a lens. 2.8 glass on the other hand.. *drools*

I'm really not sure about what direction I'm taking with my photography.. right now I have no intention in changing to FX, though I *might* in future.

Would the 1.6x crop factor render the 24-70 2.8 lens less practical for my general use?
It'd become a 38-112mm..

Or shall I just give up on zoom and invest in some primes?

_________________
Nikon D90 | 50 f/1.4D

You will lose a bit on the wide side of things, but, right now your widest is 50 mm

You could also get a 17-55 F/2.8 lens, it's a great lens to have on Dx

_________________
I take pictures so quickly, my highschool was "Continuous High".