Hi
I've been away from photography for about 8 years after starting to have problems with my eyesight. That has stabalized so I thought I would have another go at it, ) I have given some thought to the purchase of a D300 or some other lesser body.
I am wondering about the lens I have now and how they compare with the newer lens. I have a nikon 70-210 AF lens, AF-D Nikon lens 20mm 2.8, AF-D 28-105 3.5-4.5
I also have some Tamron 90mm SP macro and a 400 F4 Sp lens ( with a matched 1.4 and a 2x extender as well).
I will be somewhat disappointed in the change in the 20mm perspective I know.
I probably will use the equipment while roaming around in the mountains mostly from a base camp shooting landscape, macro and wildlife as long as I am able to. I will also do some action shooting at Dog agility shows as well mostly outside on grass but occasionally in dingy indoor horse arenas (300mm reach should do for that) End product will be slide shows for presentation and lecture and sale of smaller format prints 8x10 and 11x14 prints.
In the past I did a lot of shooting of a fairly high calibre but am quite the neophyte in the digital world.
Any thoughts on changes to the lens colletion would be appreciated.
Perhaps some compression in my collection as well.
Also do you find the live view lcd on the D300 to be effective in the field especially under sunlight?
The d200 and the 18-200mm vr and I roamed a variety of rough and ready places in the wilds of Portugal with good results for all that you mentioned---was able to do this without a tripod which would have been way too much for me to carry as well-- every where we went required climbing up steep slopes
I hear the D300 is heavier -- perhaps this is a consideration ?
Jennn
Posted by Kent Staubus on July 13, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Here's what I would suggest for lenses, going a middle route on price:
EIther Nikon 18-55mm VR ($150) or Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 ($420,)
Either Nikon 70-300mm VR ($470) or Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 HSM ($800,)
Either Tamron 90mm macro or Nikon 105mm VR ($760).
Sigma 2x APO teleconverter
The f2.8 lenses will allow you to easily photo indoors. Remember that you can photo at ISO 1600 with the newer digitals. The Nikon VR lenses have optical stabilization which really helps sharpen the photos. You can see the difference. Because of the high ISO you can shoot at, the two Nikon VR lenses I suggested might be good enough to use indoors. Both are AFS lenses which means they have motor driven focus and are fast. The Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 would be perfect for photo'ing inside horse arenas, but it is more $$. Add the matching 2x and you have a pretty good wildlife lens. It would be equiv. to a 400mm f5.6 on a film camera. Sigma also now makes a 120-400mm HSM lens and even a 200-500mm HSM lens. These would be very good for wildlife, and have their optical stabilization in them along with a high speed motor. They are new and should be excellent for wildlife and "fair" for dog competitions. They are f5.6 instead of f2.8 is the difference. About a thousand dollars for either.
Camera. The D300 is more money than I like to spend on cameras. The Nikon D80 is due for replacement (D90?), maybe in September. It should share most of the components of the D300 but cost about $700 less. The only place it might not be quite as good as a D300 is photo'ing running dogs. Might be close though. It will also be smaller and lighter. This is the camera I'm waiting for. Always a chance that people will be selling a D300 now to get a D700, lowering the price on eBay, but I don't expect it to be a flood.
You shouldn't have any trouble going from film to digital. It's not that hard. I also suggest you pick up a copy of Photoshop Elements v6.0 software and an easy instruction book. You pretty much need software to get exactly what you want out of a photo. Really, the computer imaging part seems to be the thing you haven't thought enough about yet.
My own pick would be D90, Nikon 18-55mm VR, Sigma 70-200mm f2.8, Sigma 2x APO, Nikon 105mm VR. Nikon does make a 70-200mm f2.8 VR. I have this lens and it is superb. It's about $1,600 though. The Sigma is a bargain in comparision (although it doesn't have VR.)
One thing to keep in mind RE the crop factor is that it doesn't change the "lens perspective" only the angle of view. So DOF, size relationships (wide angle minification of distant objects), curvature of field and all other aspects of your lenses will be the same. (My DOF comment assumes you do not move your location to achieve the same image size.)
The crop factor is just causing the central area of the image the lens usually captures to be recorded on the sensor.
Going Digital can be a BIG change for a film shooter of 8 years ago. Unlike film, a lot of post processing will be accomplished on the computer by you, and not in a chemical lab by a technician. You are going to need to understand how to use your computer and software and printer for this "new" field. You are going to have software costs and most likely computer and printer costs to add to your camera and lens costs. Contrary to an above recommendation, I would go for the D200 or above body. Your lens selection will depend on the money you want to spend. While there are cheap Nikon lenses now available, there are more expensive lenses available for professionals and high end amateurs or near pros. There is a reason these lenses cost more. I personally, buy the best and wait until I have the money to do it. Cheaper lenses and bodies might let you get your feet wet in digital while you are acquiring the computer hardware/software and skills to use them. Maybe then you will see the need for the more expensive models of bodies and lenses. It all depends exactly how serious you are in getting back in. Many find it a lot better to have more expensive gear and woe that they do not know how to use all the features yet than having cheaper gear and find it does not accomplish what they want and always wish they had bought the better stuff. I have yet to hear someone complain (or very seldom do) that they wish they had bought a lesser quality or lesser functional set of camera gear after buying the best. Anyway, that's how I see it which of course does not always reflect everyone else's opinions!!!
Hi Jennn, Kent,Ed and troup
Thank you for your reccomendations on lenses. I will do some more research on the models you suggest. The real factor is will they provide a significant improvement in quality then my current lenses. They probably will be more compact but cost $$$$ too.
The clarification about perspective vs crop factor is interesting and helpful. I will have to think about it and give it a try with my 20 mm.
I have an IT background and have worked quite a bit with satelite imaging so hopefully that will ease the transition. I have also used photoshop 7.0 to manipulate some of my scanned film images too, albeit somewhat unskillfully.. I realize post-processingis a big part of it and lots of work. Garbage in= garbage out was my mantra.
yes the D90 may fit the bill but it is just around the corner as is some other "ideal" model yet to come at an even lower price.
Discussion
5 repliesI've been away from photography for about 8 years after starting to have problems with my eyesight. That has stabalized so I thought I would have another go at it, ) I have given some thought to the purchase of a D300 or some other lesser body.
I am wondering about the lens I have now and how they compare with the newer lens. I have a nikon 70-210 AF lens, AF-D Nikon lens 20mm 2.8, AF-D 28-105 3.5-4.5
I also have some Tamron 90mm SP macro and a 400 F4 Sp lens ( with a matched 1.4 and a 2x extender as well).
I will be somewhat disappointed in the change in the 20mm perspective I know.
I probably will use the equipment while roaming around in the mountains mostly from a base camp shooting landscape, macro and wildlife as long as I am able to. I will also do some action shooting at Dog agility shows as well mostly outside on grass but occasionally in dingy indoor horse arenas (300mm reach should do for that) End product will be slide shows for presentation and lecture and sale of smaller format prints 8x10 and 11x14 prints.
In the past I did a lot of shooting of a fairly high calibre but am quite the neophyte in the digital world.
Any thoughts on changes to the lens colletion would be appreciated.
Perhaps some compression in my collection as well.
Also do you find the live view lcd on the D300 to be effective in the field especially under sunlight?
thank you
David
I hear the D300 is heavier -- perhaps this is a consideration ?
Jennn
EIther Nikon 18-55mm VR ($150) or Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 ($420,)
Either Nikon 70-300mm VR ($470) or Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 HSM ($800,)
Either Tamron 90mm macro or Nikon 105mm VR ($760).
Sigma 2x APO teleconverter
The f2.8 lenses will allow you to easily photo indoors. Remember that you can photo at ISO 1600 with the newer digitals. The Nikon VR lenses have optical stabilization which really helps sharpen the photos. You can see the difference. Because of the high ISO you can shoot at, the two Nikon VR lenses I suggested might be good enough to use indoors. Both are AFS lenses which means they have motor driven focus and are fast. The Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 would be perfect for photo'ing inside horse arenas, but it is more $$. Add the matching 2x and you have a pretty good wildlife lens. It would be equiv. to a 400mm f5.6 on a film camera. Sigma also now makes a 120-400mm HSM lens and even a 200-500mm HSM lens. These would be very good for wildlife, and have their optical stabilization in them along with a high speed motor. They are new and should be excellent for wildlife and "fair" for dog competitions. They are f5.6 instead of f2.8 is the difference. About a thousand dollars for either.
Camera. The D300 is more money than I like to spend on cameras. The Nikon D80 is due for replacement (D90?), maybe in September. It should share most of the components of the D300 but cost about $700 less. The only place it might not be quite as good as a D300 is photo'ing running dogs. Might be close though. It will also be smaller and lighter. This is the camera I'm waiting for. Always a chance that people will be selling a D300 now to get a D700, lowering the price on eBay, but I don't expect it to be a flood.
You shouldn't have any trouble going from film to digital. It's not that hard. I also suggest you pick up a copy of Photoshop Elements v6.0 software and an easy instruction book. You pretty much need software to get exactly what you want out of a photo. Really, the computer imaging part seems to be the thing you haven't thought enough about yet.
Nikon 70-300mm VR:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/449088-USA/Nikon_2161_70_300mm_f_4_5_6G_AF_S_VR.html
Sigma 70-200mm f2.8:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/533556-REG/Sigma_579_306_70_200mm_f_2_8_II_EX.html
My own pick would be D90, Nikon 18-55mm VR, Sigma 70-200mm f2.8, Sigma 2x APO, Nikon 105mm VR. Nikon does make a 70-200mm f2.8 VR. I have this lens and it is superb. It's about $1,600 though. The Sigma is a bargain in comparision (although it doesn't have VR.)
Kent in SD
The crop factor is just causing the central area of the image the lens usually captures to be recorded on the sensor.
Good luck and welcome back to photography!!!!!
Troup Nightingale
Thank you for your reccomendations on lenses. I will do some more research on the models you suggest. The real factor is will they provide a significant improvement in quality then my current lenses. They probably will be more compact but cost $$$$ too.
The clarification about perspective vs crop factor is interesting and helpful. I will have to think about it and give it a try with my 20 mm.
I have an IT background and have worked quite a bit with satelite imaging so hopefully that will ease the transition. I have also used photoshop 7.0 to manipulate some of my scanned film images too, albeit somewhat unskillfully.. I realize post-processingis a big part of it and lots of work. Garbage in= garbage out was my mantra.
yes the D90 may fit the bill but it is just around the corner as is some other "ideal" model yet to come at an even lower price.
thanks again
david