Hello Lasse, Thanks for the kind comments. I do enjoy shooting people. The more I do it, the more comfortable I get. You do have to be very upbeat with them to get/keep them in a good mood.
For the play Cast shots - FA 50/1.4 @ 200 ISO The Rehearsal - 8430-8454 : Sigma 55-200/3.5-5.6 @ 800 ISO - shot wide open 8455-8468 : FA 135/2.8 @ 800 ISO shot at f:6.7 8469-8472 : Sigma 55-200/3.5-5.6 @ 800 ISO - shot wide open 8473-8537 : Sigma 55-200/3.5-5.6 @ 1600 ISO - shot wide open or 1 stop down 8539-8584 : Tamron 70-300/4-5.6 @ 1600 ISO - shot wide open or 1 stop down 8585-8592 : FA 135/2.8 @ 1600 ISO - shot wide open 8593-8619 : Tamron 70-300/4-5.6 @ 1600 ISO - shot wide open 8620-8622 : FA 135/2.8 @ 1600 ISO - shot at f:4 8623-8746 : Tamron 70-300/4-5.6 @ 1600 ISO - shot wide open 8747-8766 : FA 135/2.8 @ 1600 ISO - shot around f:4 Performance All shot on FA 135/2.8 @ 1600 ISO the close shots were with a Kenko 1.5X AF converter All shots of the play were done manual focus, center weighted metering and either manual mode or Aperture priority. For the Youth Dance shots, I use two Alien Bees B800 monolights shot into 48" shoot thru umbrellas. -- Best regards, Bruce Thursday, November 4, 2004, 4:37:17 PM, you wrote: LK> Bruce, LK> Thanks for the Sigma samples. Surprisingly good (for such a cheap lens). LK> However, I also browsed around your site a bit, and just want LK> to tell you how much I liked your people photography. It's obvious LK> that you have a talent for seeing and bringing out joy in people. LK> Also, congratulations for having the opportunity to work with so many nice people. LK> (I was looking at the Oborns, the Youth Dances and the LK> Midsummer Night's Dream pictures.) LK> Btw. What was your lens(es) for the Midsummer pictures, LK> rehearsals and performance, what ISO were you able to shoot at? LK> Also, what kind of flash set up did you use for the posed Youth Dance shots? LK> Thanks, LK> Lasse LK> From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> LK> To: "Don Sanderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> LK> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 1:15 AM LK> Subject: Re: Tamron 28-75/2.8 arrived! WooHoo!! >> Yes I meant 55-200. It is designed for the APS sized sensor. That is >> why it is so small for the zoom range. I did some quick tests between >> it and my Tokina 80-200/2.8 and Pentax 80-320. The Sigma was about as >> sharp as the Tokina. The big difference is speed vs size/weight. >> >> Also the Sigma is built much cheaper - will not last as long, but it >> is quite inexpensive. >> >> Many times a very small, light walk-around kit for me is the DA 16-45 >> + Sigma 55-200. Those two lenses cover quite a wide range of focal >> lengths. Here are a few sample shots from the 55-200: >> http://www.daytonphoto.com/Galleries/gfm/imgp9415.htm >> http://www.daytonphoto.com/Galleries/gfm/imgp9460a.htm >> http://www.daytonphoto.com/Galleries/gfm/imgp9474.htm >> http://www.daytonphoto.com/Galleries/gfm/imgp9544.htm >> http://www.daytonphoto.com/Galleries/gfm/imgp9558a.htm >> http://www.daytonphoto.com/Galleries/gfm/imgp9561.htm >> http://www.daytonphoto.com/Galleries/Misc/bkd_0005.htm >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Bruce >> >> >> Thursday, November 4, 2004, 2:57:03 PM, you wrote: >> >> DS> You may have answered my next post before I write it! (physic?) >> DS> I just had out MY Tokina 80-200/2.8! And "lugging" is a good >> DS> term to use for it. >> DS> I am looking for a lighter zoom in the same range to carry >> DS> for "everyday" use. >> DS> I have the F 70-210/4-5.6 and though it's a very good lens >> DS> I am looking for something a bit more "modern" to use. >> DS> Getting rather tired of the "boy that's an ugly one!" >> DS> comments. ;-) >> DS> I'll take a look at the Sigma, did you mean "55"-200? >> DS> Wierd range, but so is 16-45. >> DS> I've been playing with the Tamron 28-200, it doesn't seem >> DS> too bad stopped down a couple. >> >> DS> Don >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 4:41 PM >> >> To: Don Sanderson >> >> Subject: Re: Tamron 28-75/2.8 arrived! WooHoo!! >> >> >> >> >> >> Your reaction seems to be the same as most of us. I had the Tokina >> >> lens at one point and based on size/weight and optical quality, the >> >> Tamron is a real winner. It is mounted on my *istD quite often. >> >> >> >> One other suprisingly decent little lens is the Sigma 55-200/3.5-5.6 >> >> DC. Very small, quite sharp and good manual focus. Also very cheap. >> >> Mine is part of a small travel kit when I don't want to lug around the >> >> Tokina 80-200/2.8. >> >> >> >> >> >> Bruce >> >> >> >> >> >> Thursday, November 4, 2004, 2:12:46 PM, you wrote: >> >> >> >> DS> I was a little leery of this lens because it was so much >> >> DS> smaller and less expensive than the 28-70/2.8 ATX. >> >> DS> It is smaller and lighter, it's also beautifully built. >> >> DS> Zoom and focus (including MF) are firm and smooth. >> >> DS> AF is quiet and fast, and on the "D" that viewfinder sure >> >> DS> is bright! >> >> DS> It's a very good looking lens and so far the test shots >> >> DS> I've taken have been very sharp, well exposed, with >> >> DS> accurate color. >> >> DS> Flare control seems very good and Boket is quite >> >> DS> pleasing. >> >> DS> Focus to 13" (.33m) at all FLs is respectable. >> >> >> >> DS> This will probably become my standard lens very quickly, >> >> DS> replacing several slower short zooms. >> >> DS> The ATX at 810 grams would not have gotten lugged >> >> DS> around nearly as often as this one at 300 less. >> >> DS> Between this, the 16-45 and a Tamron MC7 TC a good >> >> DS> multipurpose kit won't be bad to carry around at all. >> >> >> >> DS> Thanks to all who suggested it. ;-) >> >> >> >> DS> Don >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
