Do you shoot?

Shoot me a PM. And I don't drink BTW.

 

Yeah that explains the brokeh. If you shoot Nikon, I'd also suggest a new or used 80-200 2.8 if you can live without VR. It's 90% of the new 70-200 and half of the price.

REALLY like this shot.

 

It's funny you should mention that lens as I've currently got five items on my wish list for photography equipment and I can't decide between that one and the 70-200. Like you said, it's all about the price but the reviews I've read for the 80-200 make it seem like it might be worth it for me to save up and get the 70.

How big a difference is there between the two and, since I'm just starting out, would you recommend just saying to hell with it and getting the 80 for now?

I have a wedding booked at the end of August and while I doubt I can save the $2,500 or so for the 70, I can definitely have the 80 by that point.

 

I have a feeling if I was cropping that and I took out the people to the right, I might put them right back in.

How does that vertical picture look in black and white? I just think the subjects look too bleached in that current state, but that bronze is cool.

 

Yeah, I would have preferred to be in a better spot, but that would have required me to stand in front of the guys who were getting paid. I was just messing around with my camera -my wife was 8 1/2 months pregnant and didn't go so I played photographer all day.
I've worked my ass off trying to learn about light, composition, postproduction and the such. I lack the confidence to think I could do some work on the side. I'm sure I could find a gig for a couple that can't afford a pro, but I'd be terrified to do it because I don't have the proper equipment. I don't think I'd dream about shooting a wedding unless I had at least two bodies, a good mid-range lens (I have a Nikkor 50 mm 1.8 and the same lens schieza said, plus a 2.8 14 mm wide-angle from work that I mess around with).

 

If you want to start picking up work on the side, I'd start with portraits: families, seniors, kids. Gets you good experience and a bit of folding cash and doesn't come with all the headaches of wedding shooting. I quit shooting weddings all together this year, with a couple of exceptions for family/friends. Best decision I ever made.

 

One of our photographers, Chris Knight, got this shot of Nationals farmhand Devin Ivany in the Harrisburg Senators' 2011 season finale. I've had it pinned up in my cubicle ever since.

 

I would say the 80-200 is as sharp as the 70-200, and I would say it focuses just a tad slower. The 80 runs on the old gear system as compared to the 70 which has a silent wave motor in it. It will focus just as quick on your D7000 (I looked at your exif data). The 80 is also lighter and smaller.

The only reason to get the 70 is if you need the vibration reduction feature. VR is nice but it's useless for moving subjects and thusly sports photography, and I don't have too much experience with it, though I've played around with one of my lenses that has it. VR does come in handy with still subjects and slower shutter speeds (below 1/100) in low light, so ideally, it could be useful for wedding photography.

I downloaded and looked at the exif data of both your photos, and it looks like you were using a 50 1.8 lens, which you know doesn't have VR. The first photo you posted was shot at f2.8 with 1/160 shutter speed, so you could have taken that exact photo with an 80-200, and VR would not have affected it at all.

Since you have a D7000 and took those photos at 6400 ISO with no noticeable grain to me, I would definitely recommend just getting a new 80-200 instead of paying twice as much for a new 70-200. The D7000 is great for low light, and I don't think you'll ever shoot at slow enough shutter speeds to get any benefit from VR.

 

Yeah, I shot those at 6400 because, at the time, I didn't have a flash. I've since bought a Sb700 which I love so I don't think low light shooting will be too big a problem for me. I'm mainly interested in the 80-200 because of the savings so we'll see how I feel once I have enough money stocked away to make that decision. Thanks.

 

My new favorite shot. Never took photos in the snow before.

 

That's a pretty good photo, Matt.

 

Thanks. Freezing cold. Obviously, if there's snow, it's cold, but that was the wettest snow I've been in for a while.