DNP0i$onou$ Clubh0us3 - TCSS Part II

[skylover]

deep la..... even if it is sigma, it's still expensive..
imagine all nikon, I think can eat grass forever liao..
haha.. even so, those glass must slowly get 1 by 1..
u got any antidote bo?

lolx.. I'm afraid I have none.. DD123 already poison me with Tokina 11-16 already. No help liao.. :sweat:

 

[notsoclever]

Sorry for the ugly watermarks - I need to protect them from unlawful misuse... :bsmilie:

Anyway, I wasn't prepared for his appearance... he just appeared in front, and I was scrambling to set my DSLR for portrait shoot and high ISO... I just finished shooting this:

You gotta admit the Ferrari red is damn attractive up close!

Nice pix. F1 fever hit SIN agn!! :thumbsup:

 

[kriegsketten]

@kriegs,
wow.. sure is nice.. they allow ppl to try sitting
in it?

Thanks!

Nope, they had people nearby waiting to pounce on those who even tried to touch it!

 

[kriegsketten]

Nice pix. F1 fever hit SIN agn!! :thumbsup:

Try THIS fever for a size:

Seconds before my family and me devoured it all....;p I have to say... they are all BERRY good! :bsmilie:

Edit: this is what we had for dessert this evening...

 

[daredevil123]

@dd123,
hi.. very nice evaluation u've written there.. looks like
the lens require even more testing in the matrix metering
before I decided to put my money in it..

on the other hand, he reason why I am so keen is because
I have already decided what is my arsenal of lens is going
to be.. let's just say, if everything goes well, I'm most likely
going to get myself a Tokina 11-16, Sigma 20, Sigma 24-70,
Sigma 70-200.. so right now I'm stuck in whether to choose
Sigma 24 and change my intended arsenal or choose the
Sigma 20 and stick to my current dream set up..

p.s. helpppppppppp

It is very hard to help you since everyone has different preferences.

Waaa you are going full sigma ar?

But seriously, why do you want to get the 24-70? or the 70-200?

I recommend the tamron 17-50/2.8 or the new Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS instead... And consider the 50-150mm, also since you are on APS-C.

You need to understand why you need all these F2.8 lenses. Take it easy. slowly work out what you need. I realized I do not neet a F2.8 tele lens at this point. So a cheapo 55-200 will work for me now.

 

[Smiles88]

Wa we must be honoured. You are going through such pain to talk to us LOL

Wah lao. Neve think about me... I purposely go Macdonald/coffee bean for WiFi 1 leh...

 

[skylover]

Wah lao. Neve think about me... I purposely go Macdonald/coffee bean for WiFi 1 leh...

lolx.. okok la.. u very wei da also.. ^^

 

[Smiles88]

Okok. Thanks. BTW I think the current thread title is ok. What bro ZCA meant was, since no one against it now, don't need to bother changing it.

 

[skylover]

Okok. Thanks. BTW I think the current thread title is ok. What bro ZCA meant was, since no one against it now, don't need to bother changing it.

lolx.. oh.. haha.. recently too much work pile up.. brain dead.. :sweat:

 

[kriegsketten]

Okok. Thanks. BTW I think the current thread title is ok. What bro ZCA meant was, since no one against it now, don't need to bother changing it.

Urm... I think it only means "the title looks okay, no need to change it"... Not about anyone against or not...

However, I do find it a bit of a hassle to recall it exactly off memory if we were to refer anyone to come find this thread from other DGs. No biggie really, if the majority okays with it, I'll go along with no change... small matter lah... :bsmilie: (I just like to grumble sometimes)

 

[WhiteFields]

It is very hard to help you since everyone has different preferences.

Waaa you are going full sigma ar?

But seriously, why do you want to get the 24-70? or the 70-200?

I recommend the tamron 17-50/2.8 or the new Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS instead... And consider the 50-150mm, also since you are on APS-C.

You need to understand why you need all these F2.8 lenses. Take it easy. slowly work out what you need. I realized I do not neet a F2.8 tele lens at this point. So a cheapo 55-200 will work for me now.

hmmm.. reason bring that I love the feel of shallow dof.. moreover, I
quite like portraiture photography.. the bokeh that 'popped' the subject
really amazes me.. and Sigma is my alternative to Nikon, will have to
chew on grass forever if I go for Nikon..

besides that, those Sigma lenses are quite good actually.. talking about
17-50, I prefer the Sigma though.. and what do u feel about the 70-300 instead?

 

[WhiteFields]

lolx.. okok la.. u very wei da also.. ^^

ai seh.. 2 thumbs up for smiles88!

 

[Smiles88]

kriegs you're right! Actually tt's what I wanted to bring across, but a bit troublesome to type so long. Hehe.

BTW the WiFi at Coffee Bean of Resort Hotel kind of su-cks. I'm sitting inside and yet I can get disconnected.

 

[Ongoinglearner]

me no have 11-16 I have the Tokina 12-24 f/4

DD123 is the one with this lens, and I think there are more people with it now...

Opps ps, bad memory. Shall we start getting namelist for wednesday meeting (well if the rest want to meet up.).

 

[daredevil123]

hmmm.. reason bring that I love the feel of shallow dof.. moreover, I
quite like portraiture photography.. the bokeh that 'popped' the subject
really amazes me.. and Sigma is my alternative to Nikon, will have to
chew on grass forever if I go for Nikon..

besides that, those Sigma lenses are quite good actually.. talking about
17-50, I prefer the Sigma though.. and what do u feel about the 70-300 instead?

24-70 there are 2 current versions from Sigma. so do know which one you are aiming for.
17-50 from Tamron used to beat the Sigma 18-50 hands down in sharpness. The 17-50 OS is new and I have not tried it. I have the old non-VC version from Tamron.
70-300? that one I rather get the new Nikon 55-300VR. Saw the test pics, very good IQ and price is cheap.


One thing I do hope you understand is that F2.8 do not give you that thin a DoF if that is what you are looking for. Fast primes is the way to go if you like to blur background a lot.

Example... this is as blur as it gets... shot at F2.8. If you want thinner DoF, you need to go prime.

 

[WhiteFields]

24-70 there are 2 current versions from Sigma. so do know which one you are aiming for.
17-50 from Tamron used to beat the Sigma 18-50 hands down in sharpness. The 17-50 OS is new and I have not tried it. I have the old non-VC version from Tamron.
70-300? that one I rather get the new Nikon 55-300VR. Saw the test pics, very good IQ and price is cheap.


One thing I do hope you understand is that F2.8 do not give you that thin a DoF if that is what you are looking for. Fast primes is the way to go if you like to blur background a lot.

Example... this is as blur as it gets... shot at F2.8. If you want thinner DoF, you need to go prime.

thanks for the advice.. maybe with your experience,
u can work out a set up for me if u don't mind? I will
most definitely use that as a reference and work on
it..

from what u mention, a more practical set up is will
be 11-16, 17-50 & 55-300? and if I wanted a nice
thin dof, I will just get the prime of the appropriate
focal length?

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

@dd123,
hi.. very nice evaluation u've written there.. looks like
the lens require even more testing in the matrix metering
before I decided to put my money in it..

on the other hand, he reason why I am so keen is because
I have already decided what is my arsenal of lens is going
to be.. let's just say, if everything goes well, I'm most likely
going to get myself a Tokina 11-16, Sigma 20, Sigma 24-70,
Sigma 70-200.. so right now I'm stuck in whether to choose
Sigma 24 and change my intended arsenal or choose the
Sigma 20 and stick to my current dream set up..

p.s. helpppppppppp

UWA and a trinity of f/1.8 primes, bro...
That's the way to go!! :devil:

 

[daredevil123]

thanks for the advice.. maybe with your experience,
u can work out a set up for me if u don't mind? I will
most definitely use that as a reference and work on
it..

from what u mention, a more practical set up is will
be 11-16, 17-50 & 55-300? and if I wanted a nice
thin dof, I will just get the prime of the appropriate
focal length?

11-16, 17-50 & 55-300 will give you the best bang for the buck.

If you need F2.8 tele, consider the Sigma 50-150/2.8 or if no choice the 70-200/2.8

But for thin DoF work, bro ZCA got it right. Start with 50/1.8, 35/1.8 and 85/1.8

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

If can spend more, then get
Tokina 11-16, nikon 24/1.4, nikon 50/1.4, nikon 85/1.4, nikon 105 DC

BBB :devil:

 

[jeezuinn]

If can spend more, then get
Tokina 11-16, nikon 24/1.4, nikon 50/1.4, nikon 85/1.4, nikon 105 DC

BBB :devil:

The poison guy is back. Those with weak immunity beware :bsmilie: