Quick question when I get my 24-70mm f/2.8, it won't render my 35mm f/1.8 useless correct? The larger aperture will still be useful, and the 35mm will still be worth taking with right?
o god why are you getting a $500+ lens if you can't answer this question yourself.
-snip-
In other news, shutter releases are awesome. Tonight I'll do a long exposure (maybe an hour) of the stars and catch their trails as the earth spins (:
Remember that just because you're doing a long exposure that isn't an excuse to get lazy on composition and subject. I hate to use one of my own pictures to say "this is what you should do", but I don't feel like finding a different example when this one works well.
Well composed. Interesting subject. And it has "OMGosh light trails!1!1!"
Basically, what I'm saying is, just because you can do a 30 minute exposure of the stars, doesn't mean it's interesting/good in and of itself. Not to mention the fact that it's one of the most cliched shots ever, I think.
Now if you frame it over something interesting, that's another matter.
You all better be jelly of my digital camera skills. I wish I had a fancy SLR camera but it's very expensive taste on my end if I happened to get one.
I visited the James J Hill house in the St. Paul area of Minnesota tonight with my family from TN and my brother and such not, and I snapped some pictures outside the house and the cathedral that owns the house at this point in time.
-snip pictures-
The thing about these pictures though, is that you seem to have a pretty good grasp on how to frame a building well, and then you just do really bad stuff, like put completely out of focus shrubbery into the frame, put a person walking through into the frame, take really awful tilted pictures of grass, and just, a picture cannot stand on bokeh alone.
I don't use my 18-55 at all, I use my 35mm
also I do plan on upgrading to a full frame camera eventually, so I want to invest in a quality lens system, that will work with it.
I don't think that's really a great reason to spend a
lot of money on really outstanding lenses right now. I mean, it'll be nice, but until you get a full frame camera (and, this isn't really a cheap investment, unless you're looking to get a dinosaur from a couple generations back. I think the oldest full frame camera in the Nikon line worth getting right now is the D700 and those bodies are going for around $1,800 right now...)
I mean, do whatever you want, but full frame lenses, especially zooms, are not going to do you as much good as they could on a full frame body, especially when you consider how goddamn expensive they are.
Basically, I would recommend getting middle of the road glass for a cropped sensor, look into Tamron or Sigma stuff, and you can still get full frame lenses for that that'll work if you ever do upgrade, but I wouldn't recommend buying Nikkor stuff unless you're actually doing professional work and making money off that. Same with a full frame body, really. There's no reason to get one if you're just going to be doing leisure photography. I mean, of course there's reasons to get one, but it's hard to justify the cost if you're not working with high end flash units, in challenging lighting situations, needing to get really quality bokeh, etc.
