l****h
发帖数: 272 | 1 娃马上就快到一岁。
相机基本选定尼康的D750，定焦镜头在35 f/1.8G ED 和 50 f/1.8G之间犹豫。主要不
清楚哪个焦段更适合室内拍娃，35mm还是50mm。
另外，变焦镜头，看大家推荐的24-70，太贵了，要1千8。有类似的，价格便宜一些的
镜头推荐么？
谢谢！ |
c********r
发帖数: 230 | 2 这两个镜头其实都可以用。撇开其他一切不谈，最主要区别在DOF。
35mm的DOF
Subject distance 10 ft
Depth of field
Near limit 8.84 ft
Far limit 11.5 ft
Total 2.68 ft
In front of subject 1.16 ft (43%)
Behind subject 1.51 ft (57%)
Hyperfocal distance 75.3 ft
Circle of confusion 0.03 mm
50mm的DOF
Subject distance 10 ft
Depth of field
Near limit 9.4 ft
Far limit 10.7 ft
Total 1.29 ft
In front of subject 0.6 ft (47%)
Behind subject 0.68 ft (53%)
Hyperfocal distance 153.6 ft
Circle of confusion 0.03 mm
简单地说，你要拍出同样大小的娃，用35mm的时候你需要离娃更近。你让我选，肯定是
35 1.8，新镜头新技术。
你要变焦镜头主要是干嘛的？ |
l********y
发帖数: 2489 | 3 两个都买就不纠结了哈哈。我现在有35(dx)50和24-70，还是24-70配闪灯靠谱。不过你
娃小不好用闪灯。小声说我准备35DX和50都出了专心用24-70，有意可站内联系…… |
n*****2
发帖数: 1432 | 4 D750的AF-C有够烂，AF-S不错，1.8G用的那些微型马达也足够用。
我之前用D600+50 1.8G拍娃，感觉室内足够，35mm （我有个DX）能照顾到更多就是了
。如果全身照多，或者娃妈还经常要凑上来合影，还是35mm好了。
一岁的娃最好不要用闪灯，宁愿家里多开几盏灯。
不知道你考虑重量没，尤其是如果出去溜娃的话，你可能就是一手相机一手抱娃，这时
候24-70是断手的节奏。
【在 l****h 的大作中提到】
: 娃马上就快到一岁。
: 相机基本选定尼康的D750，定焦镜头在35 f/1.8G ED 和 50 f/1.8G之间犹豫。主要不
: 清楚哪个焦段更适合室内拍娃，35mm还是50mm。
: 另外，变焦镜头，看大家推荐的24-70，太贵了，要1千8。有类似的，价格便宜一些的
: 镜头推荐么？
: 谢谢！
|
n**p
发帖数: 1150 | 5 我会选50以上焦距。跟室内室外无关，我觉得我自己比较喜欢的娃照，都是娃自己
在专心玩的时候，从稍远一点的距离，用偷拍的效果照出来的。
50以下的话，估计大半时间拍出来的都是娃直盯盯盯着镜头的大头照。
这个没有对错之分，看你喜欢什么了。可以先入个变焦，自己慢慢决定。
【在 l****h 的大作中提到】
: 娃马上就快到一岁。
: 相机基本选定尼康的D750，定焦镜头在35 f/1.8G ED 和 50 f/1.8G之间犹豫。主要不
: 清楚哪个焦段更适合室内拍娃，35mm还是50mm。
: 另外，变焦镜头，看大家推荐的24-70，太贵了，要1千8。有类似的，价格便宜一些的
: 镜头推荐么？
: 谢谢！
|
b***u
发帖数: 12010 | 6 35mm拍出来五官会很大吧。
【在 c********r 的大作中提到】
: 这两个镜头其实都可以用。撇开其他一切不谈，最主要区别在DOF。
: 35mm的DOF
: Subject distance 10 ft
: Depth of field
: Near limit 8.84 ft
: Far limit 11.5 ft
: Total 2.68 ft
: In front of subject 1.16 ft (43%)
: Behind subject 1.51 ft (57%)
: Hyperfocal distance 75.3 ft
|
b***u
发帖数: 12010 | 7 一个50mm一个85mm。然后攒钱入tamron 24-70
【在 l****h 的大作中提到】
: 娃马上就快到一岁。
: 相机基本选定尼康的D750，定焦镜头在35 f/1.8G ED 和 50 f/1.8G之间犹豫。主要不
: 清楚哪个焦段更适合室内拍娃，35mm还是50mm。
: 另外，变焦镜头，看大家推荐的24-70，太贵了，要1千8。有类似的，价格便宜一些的
: 镜头推荐么？
: 谢谢！
|
l****h
发帖数: 272 | 8 谢谢大家！
定焦就选35了。变焦主要考虑娃大了后，会到处跑，要个变焦，还不急。
再次谢谢大家！
[发表自未名空间手机版 - m.mitbbs.com] |
j****c
发帖数: 19908 | 9 我娃从生下来第一天我就用闪光灯
你们所谓的用闪光灯不好都是道听途说
【在 n*****2 的大作中提到】
: D750的AF-C有够烂，AF-S不错，1.8G用的那些微型马达也足够用。
: 我之前用D600+50 1.8G拍娃，感觉室内足够，35mm （我有个DX）能照顾到更多就是了
: 。如果全身照多，或者娃妈还经常要凑上来合影，还是35mm好了。
: 一岁的娃最好不要用闪灯，宁愿家里多开几盏灯。
: 不知道你考虑重量没，尤其是如果出去溜娃的话，你可能就是一手相机一手抱娃，这时
: 候24-70是断手的节奏。
|
b****1
发帖数: 3685 | 10 我也一直都用闪光，不过都是跳闪。直接闪是不舒服。
【在 j****c 的大作中提到】
: 我娃从生下来第一天我就用闪光灯
: 你们所谓的用闪光灯不好都是道听途说
|
j****c
发帖数: 19908 | 11 至少我们说无害是有第一手实验数据支持的，那些说有害的只有论点没有论据
【在 b****1 的大作中提到】
: 我也一直都用闪光，不过都是跳闪。直接闪是不舒服。
|
m*******n
发帖数: 519 | 12 啥实验数据都是有百分比，误差啥的，一百个娃娃，即使99个都没事，那还有一个嚼着
不舒服。俺也买了SB700，都是用跳闪，有时给老婆孩子照合影，LD还说她眼睛不爽，
现在也很少用闪灯了。现在娃会跑了，以后参加活动估计需要上长变焦F2.8的了，看着
尼家老款的80-200 F2.8 心动，和VR的比，差别大吗，有经验的说说？谢谢。 |
D**1
发帖数: 1106 | 13 go for 70-200 vr ii or 70-200mm f4 vr
【在 m*******n 的大作中提到】
: 啥实验数据都是有百分比，误差啥的，一百个娃娃，即使99个都没事，那还有一个嚼着
: 不舒服。俺也买了SB700，都是用跳闪，有时给老婆孩子照合影，LD还说她眼睛不爽，
: 现在也很少用闪灯了。现在娃会跑了，以后参加活动估计需要上长变焦F2.8的了，看着
: 尼家老款的80-200 F2.8 心动，和VR的比，差别大吗，有经验的说说？谢谢。
|
m*******n
发帖数: 519 | 14 在网上狗狗了下关于VR70-200和Non－VR 80－200 F2.8的用户reviews，有些观点供大
家参考：买这个长变焦主要是照娃以后参加集体活动，比如舞台，球赛等等，基本快门
不会低于125，而VR一般是快门60以下才开的，这样一来，也就用不太上了？厂家对这
两个镜头的定价差太多了，对俺们预算紧的，鱼和熊掌不可兼得啊！
转载一个BH上的review：
The Best Kept Secret in Photography.
Everyone who is at all serious about shooting needs to pick up a 70 (or 80
in this case) to 200 mm f2.8 sooner or later. For me, it was sooner.
Typically, I like to shoot wide but I found myself (yet again) in need of
something with reach to shoot my son's 5th grade basketball games. This lens
blows me away.
Recently, I switched from Canon to Nikon (long story). When I was a Canon
shooter, I had their venerable 70-200 f2.8 IS which was for all intents and
purposes a very nice lens. However, it weighed a ton and cost two tons. I
also thought I would like owning a "great white" but it became tiresome
because it really stuck out like a very sore, very heavy, very expensive
thumb when I was out in public. I shot basketball with that lens and it did
a fine job. Of course the IS was useless for shooting fast action.
As basketball season approached this year, I started shopping. I knew I
would need at LEAST 100 to 130mm based on previous experience and almost
went with the 135mm f2 from Nikon, but I'm glad I didn't. The Nikkor 80-200
that I ended up going with is an absolute GEM! I don't care what anyone else
says, and I don't care how many reviews you will ever read on this subject,
YOU CANNOT GO WRONG WITH THIS LENS.
I think I have read every review ever written on this lens and I have to
dispute some of the negatives I encountered. First of all, this lens is NOT
all that heavy. I mean sure, it's a 200mm 2.8, it's going to weigh a certain
amount...but people act like it is cripplingly heavy. Not so! It is smaller
and lighter than my old Canon. I will say that it is dense...very dense. I
feel like I could almost hammer nails with it. I hate to be so cliche as to
repeat the worn out truism that it is "built like a tank", but if it fits it
fits. I guess I could say it is built like an anvil, or a safe. Suffice it
to say it is a solid, solid, solid piece of professional grade equipment. It
is a joy to hold and a joy to BEhold. Another thing I think needs addressed
is that this lens focuses VERY fast. I had heard what a dog it is because
the new version is "so much faster". So mush faster? By milliseconds, maybe.
Not that big a deal in real life, and if you think you can't shoot sports
with this lens, you are sorely mistaken. The lens has been around for about
12 years and at one time THIS was Nikon's latest and greatest. What do you
think everyone shot sports with in the late 90's?
Now for the important part. I paid less than half the price of Nikon's 70-
200 VRII at B&H and received essentially the same lens. The optics are
almost identical and I have shot the VRII many times. In fact, I looked at
some of my VRII shots EXIF data and recreated the pictures so I could look
at them side by side. I can't tell the difference. This lens produces images
that are scalpel sharp with excellent color rendition. This lens is also
built WAY better than the new version, with the added luxury of NOT having
VR and Ultra Sonic motors that will undoubtedly go bad before you are ready
to replace your lens.
Had I paid 2.2X for the VRII version over this lens, I would be having my
head examined right now. This lens is everything a great pro lens should be
with the exception of being ridiculously expensive. If for some unknown
reason you have convinced yourself you can't live without VR, by all means,
get the other one. OR, if what you really care about is the end result of
your art, buy this lens and pocket enough to buy another one and some change.
【在 D**1 的大作中提到】
: go for 70-200 vr ii or 70-200mm f4 vr
|
