A&P Help me understand this picture....

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by Wobistdu, Jul 12, 2009.

  1. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest

    [​IMG]

    Found this on flickr searching through D90 and the nikkor 55-200 F4 lens

    Exposure: 0.004 sec (1/250) Aperture: f/5.6 Focal Length: 200 mm Focal Length: 201.6 mm ISO Speed: 3200

    Is this lens really that shitty? Under bright lights at a game, ISO 3200, and he can't even stop the ball in mid air?

    Please help a noob understand. I guess a f/2.8 lens would make this a better shot yes?
     
  2. Drunken Karnie Midget

    Drunken Karnie Midget In Yeo We Trust, All Others Pay Cash OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    39,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Dirty Canada
    It's not the lens that stops action, it's shutter speed. When a pitcher is throwing a ball as fast as he can to first base, that ball is going to be moving in the vicinity of 70-80mph. 1/250th isn't gonna be fast enough to freeze the ball perfectly.
     
  3. turbodude

    turbodude Just a photographer OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    10,118
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    ISO doesnt make things freeze, Shutter speed does. Looks like a night game, doesnt look all that bright to me. But yes 2.8 lens would have been able to bump the shutter speed faster to get the ball frozen, but you may not neccessarily want that, I personlay would want to show some movement, so it doesnt look like a ball is floating in space.
     
  4. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest

    [​IMG]

    Exposure: 0.005 sec (1/200) Aperture: f/7.1 Focal Length: 102 mm Focal Length: 103.7 mm

    Same lens not too bad i guess
     
  5. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest

    but with that aperture and lighting he isn't able to crank up the shutter speed correct?
     
  6. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest

    yeah that's a good point
     
  7. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest

    thanks for the input guys

    i'm kind of kicking around getting this lens cuz it isn't that expensive and it will be somewhat decent for a 200mm lens

    however i'd be using it primarily for daylight pics of stuff that isn't in fast motion
     
  8. Drunken Karnie Midget

    Drunken Karnie Midget In Yeo We Trust, All Others Pay Cash OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    39,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Dirty Canada
    if he's shooting at 5.6, he's probably trying to give himself a little room on his DoF in case he's slightly off focus. and yes, you don't always want to perfectly freeze motion, only keep it from being out of control. freeze the man, and showing action in the ball helps the photo tell a story. Freeze the man, and the ball, and it throws everything into an abstract. it just looks weird to the human brain.
     
  9. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest

    i will have to remember that.

    my d90 arrives tuesday and it will definitely see a baseball game or two :bigthumb:
     
  10. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest

    also nice to see a crew that answers a total newb question without flaming them to death

    :cuddle:
     
  11. Drunken Karnie Midget

    Drunken Karnie Midget In Yeo We Trust, All Others Pay Cash OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    39,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Dirty Canada
    Have fun :bigthumb: which lens is it that you're looking at? 70-200/2.8?
     
  12. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest

    nah i can't afford that yet

    right now the 55-200 VR
     
  13. Drunken Karnie Midget

    Drunken Karnie Midget In Yeo We Trust, All Others Pay Cash OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    39,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Dirty Canada
    you look at Tamron, or other 3rd party manufacturers?
     
  14. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest

    ken rockwell seems to think the 55-200 is decent

    it would completely my newb set of lenses along with the 50/1.8 and the kit 18-105 i think
     
  15. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest

    tamron scares me, but i would gamble to get the 17-50 or 28-75 2.8's
     
  16. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest

    u thinking like the 18-200 tamron?
     
  17. turbodude

    turbodude Just a photographer OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    10,118
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    you had a legitimate question, but if you came in showing pictures of flowers and grass, saying how are these pictars, you would see another side of us :)

    BTW we all start from somewhere, take what this crew says to heart, we can be harsh, but it makes you a better photographer in the long run. Trust me OTAP has helped me get to where i am today. And still got a long ways to go
     
  18. Drunken Karnie Midget

    Drunken Karnie Midget In Yeo We Trust, All Others Pay Cash OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    39,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Dirty Canada
    Just because they aren't Canon or Nikon (in your case) doesn't mean they should scare you. Tamron's a great builder, just check back here, or other review sites about any particular lenses. There's a few you should avoid, of course, but that goes for any builder, including canon and nikon. The 70-200/2.8 tammy is a great budget lens that'll give you the reach and speed you're looking for. Nikon glass is crazy expensive, and that's mostly due to name only, they're glass isn't producing much better results than their cheaper canon/3rd party counterparts.
     
  19. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest

    That's awesome. I joke around and act like a dumbass in the main forum, but I'll def try to keep it straight in here. Lots of talented people it seems.

    It would be nice to have 2.8 in that range. Will def look in to. I'm trying to hold off from buying like 6 lenses, cuz I need to get good with what I have first.

    The kit lens and the 50mm/1.8D will be enough to start i think
     
  20. Drunken Karnie Midget

    Drunken Karnie Midget In Yeo We Trust, All Others Pay Cash OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    39,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Dirty Canada
    Have fun with that 50... i've been wanting to pick up one for my 50D for a while now. I spend most of my time shooting wider than that with my Tammy, so i want to play with a fixed length, and really work on my composition.
     
  21. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest


    yeah my friend who's been shooting a d80 for years said i need to start on only the 50mm and learn about composition before getting lazy and just focusing on crap

    plus i'd really like to learn good bokeh with it
     
  22. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest

    def get one... canon 50's are cheaper than nikon. sub $100
     
  23. FusionZ06

    FusionZ06 /\__/\__/\__0>

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    86,918
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Sunshine State
    The 50 if a very fun lens. I shot with it a lot during the wedding. Shooting around 2.8-4.0 that thing is super sharp.
     
  24. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest

    :bowdown:

    will feel funny walking around trying to use my feet to zoom :rofl:
     
  25. Drunken Karnie Midget

    Drunken Karnie Midget In Yeo We Trust, All Others Pay Cash OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    39,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Dirty Canada
    if you want bokeh, shoot wide open, and be fairly close to your subject. That's it. No secret or trick to it. Some lenses produce better bokeh than others. the 50/1.4 (?) iirc, is known as the cream machine for a reason.
     

Share This Page