Shutterstock Photographer Forum :: View topic

supertramp · Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2012 10:56 pm

This is mostly for all you newbies and rookies that have asked, "Is this sharp enough?"

Tripod as much as you can. A tripod/monopod is the cheapest and possibly the most reliable way to sharpen your image.

Use the best lenses you can afford. I know some can't afford Pro Grade lenses, then go for the second best. There are some good lower priced lenses out there but you need to do your homework to find out what they are.

So, here is an example of what a pretty sharp image looks like. And this could have been sharper if I had used f5.6/f8.

Shot with my Canon 5DII and ef70-200mm f2.8L IS II. Stats are 100 ISO, f2.8, 1/320s, 145mm, tripod. No sharpening, only a WB, highlight/shadow adjustment.

Thanks to my daughter for posing to see what this new lens can do.

saisnaps · Joined: 29 Jul 2010 Posts: 105

I am one of those struggling to get focus issues resolved.

Lense... Was wondering if tamron 90mm macro f2.8, or nikon 85mm f1.8. Both are priced in the same range. I had a chance to borrow the nikon 85mm f1.8, and it did give me a more desirable result compared to the 18-105mm kit lense and 50mm f1.8 for portrait pictures. That was my own experience of what is the contribution of the lense.

Please suggest which is a better lense. OR do you have any other suggestions. I focusing to work on people photography. The budget is around USD 500/-

kenny123 · Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 5:17 am

Non VR Nikkor 70-300 crappy kit lens on 7 year old Nikon D50,hand-held, 400 iso,1/4000sec @ F11-sometimes you just have to master what you have,

bsluijk · Joined: 08 Jul 2011 Posts: 123 Location: Netherlands

saisnaps · Joined: 29 Jul 2010 Posts: 105

Thanks Kenny for your reply.

I wish, I had one of you next to me when I shoot to catch me red handed, and show me how I am goofing.

hhltdave5 · Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 7:17 am

I have been using the Tamron 90 2.8 for about 6 years now and love it. I use it for about 95% of my food and table top images. It also makes for a pretty darn good portrait lens.

Here are some crops and examples of it.

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=57109360

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=9921739

digigandalf · Joined: 11 Jun 2005 Posts: 5419 Location: Twinsburg, OH

I second Dave's recommendation of the Tamron 90.

greenfield54 · Joined: 21 Jun 2009 Posts: 2619 Location: Philippines

I shot this with a 60s era Mamiya Sekor 55mm/1.8. Shot at full aperture thus the shallow dof. Note the droplet near his chin. I also have the partner 135mm/2.8. Both I use for stock work 95% of the the time. I use extension tubes or a Nikon bellows for macro. My late father bought them with a Mamiya Sekor 500 DTL slr. The set have outlived all my other film cameras and works perfectly (mechanically) to this day.

banepetkovic · Joined: 03 Mar 2012 Posts: 135

robhainer · Joined: 03 May 2010 Posts: 2773 Location: Dallas, GA, USA

If I was going to be stuck with just one lens for stock photography for less than $500, I would get the Tamron 17-50 2.8, the version without the vibration compensation. Most of my shots are done with that lens; as long as you shoot f4 to f8, the images are good and sharp.

pharm · Joined: 09 Jul 2006 Posts: 9406 Location: Never quite sure

jeffbanke · Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 11:06 am

fraiseap · Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 12:41 pm

I have finally found a use for my sister in law. She will have the same effect as a 7ft Octabox but is a lot cheaper (especially as my brother pays for her food)

jeffbanke · Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 1:17 pm

marcusvdt · Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 10:52 pm