Not sure about the 18-105 but I know they have an 18-135

 

meh...i dont think or know any professional photogs that use tamron

 

Plenty do. And who's to say a lens makes a photographer professional? That's a pretty ignorant statement. Are you suggesting he pay 3x more for the beef that Nikon makes? Just so he can have a lens that more "pro's" use?

 

If by 17-50 you mean the Tamron, and 18-70 the Sigma, then yeah I'd say that's a better choice in my opinion. I've had some bad experiences with Sigmas. 30mm f/1.4, 17-70 f/2.8, but they do have a nice warranty program.

The Tamron 17-50 is plenty awesomeness.

 

a pro photog wouldn't use that glass because its inferior...

we pay more for lenses because they have better glass...i didn't tell him to go buy the top of the line lens, but to buy inferior glass, knowing its inferior glass is just stupid

and no where did i say glass makes the person a professional or not

 

Alas - I was looking at the nikon 18-70 us the tamron 17-50

 

but arent u pro? u said earlier and also shoot with an 80$ lens? correct me if im wrong?

 

That $80 lens is the Canon 50mm f/1.8. Much better than a equivalent Sigma or Tamron lens.

 

18-105 is the kit lens for d90. they are decent... a nice lens for walk-around. i still want to pick up a 50 1.8 though. or if i have the money, 85 1.4.

now, how about more pics?

 

ok got it.. but thats still inferior and inexpensive right?

 

here's an older photo I took.

in regards to the 80mm, maybe I have a bad copy, but its meh..

its very inconsistent with auto focus. some photos come out tack sharp some of them come out soft, there doesn't seem to be a reason for it?

 

i'd rather shoot with a plastic canon lens than a tamron lens

 

moar pics pls!



i shot these with my 70-300mm III f/4-5.6. personally i dont like this lens. its noisy, slow to focus, and suffers from noticeable chromatic aberration. i need a new long zoom.. and also a new body with big MP for prints.. and a new walkaround lens with a bigger aperture.. and.. and.. and..

 

but if ur all about spending more for better glass as stated in a previous post then why wouldnt u go with the metal mount 50mm 1.4>?

just out of curiosity if indeed spending more means better pictures as YOU stated earlier? not to be a d slapper but shouldnt u practice what u preach?? oh godly professional one

 

Better than the Sigma 50mm f/1.4? Definitely not speaking optics.

 

I'd rather shoot with a canon 28mm f/1.8 rather a sigma 30mm f/1.4. That's because I've had problems with it.

I really want to argue about some things you say, but then I agree with it as well as disagree to a certain extent.

I think it's dumb to say a pro won't use off brand because a lot of nikon folks use the sigma 10-20 for the UWA, and plenty of pro's do it too. That's just one example. Getting into super tele, there are some good alternates to L glass or High end Nikon glass. It's up to the photographer. Seriously, I see way more rubbish from L glass on all of these forums I'm a part of than i do see good pictures from mediocre lenses. So it really does depend on the person operating the camera, from what I've seen anyway.

 

i actually thrive on the arguments in this thread i know its sad but its justall so bittersweet.. lol pics?

 

Arguing is fun, but there comes a point where one person is just being condescending. I'll post some old ones:


And this is how I started out with off camera lighting. A little creativity and improvising:

 

^^ That's a really cool shot

Man ever since I got my D300, I kinda wish I just made the jump to the FX sensor >.<

Oh well maybe next year

 

my wheel, and photoshopped gold for fun