Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Which lens best to rent?

Apple fanboy

Apple fanboy

macrumors Ivy Bridge
Feb 21, 2012
56,996
56,021
Behind the Lens, UK
Freida said:
I used to have a protective filter on my kit lens with D90 and that was about 60 pounds or so.
Now I have D750 and 85mm 1.8 and I'm not getting any of that. In those 7 years I had the D90 the lens was practically brand new and the filter was unscratched. Not wasting money ever again. Its just money down the drain.
I don't like these psychological products that count on human desire to be careful when something is expensive. Hence why most stores make money on the insurance itself rather than the product. So bad :)
So no, not getting into it.
Click to expand...
That’s a UV filter which isn’t really needed in most circumstances.
The Lee filters I was mentioning are ND or grad filters. Very useful for landscape photography as is a polariser.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kenoh and mpfuchs
F

Freida

Suspended
Original poster
Oct 22, 2010
4,077
5,874
Apple fanboy said:
That’s a UV filter which isn’t really needed in most circumstances.
The Lee filters I was mentioning are ND or grad filters. Very useful for landscape photography as is a polariser.
Click to expand...
can you not do the same effect in post?
 
F

Freida

Suspended
Original poster
Oct 22, 2010
4,077
5,874
Apple fanboy said:
For a grad filter yes. But not for a ND or polariser.
I like to keep the post as minimal as possible and get it close in camera.
Click to expand...
I understand that. To me, I want to have the least amount of gear on me as possible ;)
Maybe one day I'll experiment with ND too but for now I see it as luxury. Hehehehehe
 
kenoh

kenoh

macrumors 604
Jul 18, 2008
6,507
10,850
Glasgow, UK
Freida said:
so a gradient layer wouldn't do the same? Interesting :)
Maybe I should play around with it
Click to expand...

Not if you have clipped the highlights when taking the shot.

In the case of a polarizer, it boosts saturation and removes glare. For water it is what allows you to see the rocks under the surface as opposed to highlights on the surface
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scepticalscribe
F

Freida

Suspended
Original poster
Oct 22, 2010
4,077
5,874
Ok, picked up 24-70 today and boy is this thing heavy and huge as hell. Its literally double the size of my 85mm :)
Hahaha, this will be fun :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: smirking
smirking

smirking

macrumors 68040
Aug 31, 2003
3,942
4,009
Silicon Valley
Freida said:
Ok, picked up 24-70 today and boy is this thing heavy and huge as hell. Its literally double the size of my 85mm :)
Hahaha, this will be fun :)
Click to expand...

As someone else said, you can't go wrong with at 24-70mm. That said, I don't personally like that focal length as a walk around lens because I don't find the 45-70mm range to be all that useful. It's just too modest in terms of reach and any subject in that range I can usually just use my feet.

I recently acquired a new Tamron 35-150mm for my d750. It's excellent through almost the entire range. I'm stunned that it's priced so low. I doubt that lens is available for rental yet, but maybe next time around you can also add that to your list.

As far as 24-70mm's go for Nikon F mounts, the Tamron 24-70mm G2 usually gets the top mark (by a small margin) over the Sigma and Nikon versions in terms of optical quality, but it has one notable drawback. The focus breathing when zoomed in is quite significant and causes you to lose something like 5+mm of reach. It ends up being more like 24-65mm.

Since you complained of weight, I suspect you rented the Nikon 24-70mm. The Tamron and Sigma 24-70mm's aren't nearly as big or heavy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom