Moving to next level! Amateur to Semi-Pro or Pro

<p>I am an amateur photographer with the following equipment:</p>

<p>Nikon D200, Nikkor 18-200 VR 3.5 - 5.6, Nikon 50 mm F1.4, Sigma 100-300 f/4, Tamron 28-105 f/2.8 (freebie)</p>

<p>Nikon 18-200 VR has really served me well as a go to lens with fairly good results. Now, I want to move to the next level of photography where I feel buying a Nikon 24-70 f2.8 and a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VRII would help me. I feel that I made amateurish mistakes of buying the above-mentioned lenses (Nikon 18-200 and Sigma 100-300) when I could and should have bought the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 and Nikon 70-200 f2.8 lenses to begin with.</p>

<p>Am I wrong in my thinking? Could better results be achieved using Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical [iF] Autofocus Lens and saving a bundle of money or is that also another of amateurish mistakes on my part?</p>

<p>A completely confused amateur and desperately seeking help.</p>

<p>Vijay</p>

<p>What problems are you having with the equipment you've got? We need some examples so as to know if different lenses would help.</p>

<p>Vijay, It is important to have the right glass. I seldom make comments about someone buying off brand, or second quality glass, because people are passionate about the savings they perceive, and there are great images taken by those lenses. More importantly to me is the fact that I can rely on my high quality lenses to give me good performance. It is one less thing to worry about. Whether you need $4k in new lenses is for you to decide, based on what you shoot, but you could also get by with some good primes too. I'm confused as to why you would express your desire to buy great glass, in the form of the Nikkors, then all of the sudden add that you want to buy a Tamron. That's not a step on the right direction, given the superb quality of the Nikkors that you mention.</p>

<p>don't worry about labels, or be ashamed of the choices you made earlier in your development as a photographer. one only acquires a higher level of discernment regarding gear with experience. you cannot know in advance where your interests and events beyond your control will eventually lead you. if the more professional level gear is appropriate now, you should know it, and know why. same with the tamron 17-50 -- you should know and know why it is (or is not) the correct choice before making a choice.</p>

<p>Getting "Pro" caliber photography gear costs thousands of dollars. Check first what type of equipment is required in particular field of photography you want to turn pro. Sports, wildlife, portrait, product, landscape or wedding photography have different equipment requirements - not only in terms of cameras and lenses but also lights, tripods, stands, props, models, bags, software etc. If you are still looking for your "thing" in photography, then your current equipment is just fine (maybe add a flash and a tripod) and keep clicking and learning.<br /> Good luck!</p>

<p>you should upgrade if your current equipment is holding you back with your photographic development. but if the gear does what you need it to do keep it untill you need to upgrade. There is nothing wrong with 3rd party lenses as long as they deliver what you want them to. buying pro level gear helps but it does not guarantee works of art.</p>

<p>Thanks you so much for quick response.  I realize that without examples, it is hard to recommend if the individual should move to the next level.  Also, my dilemma is although I love outdoor photography, I also love photographing people and closeups.  I have provided links to some of my photographs.  This may help in getting advice on the equipment.</p>

 

<p><a href="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2557/4036322478_013367077b_b.jpg">http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2557/4036322478_013367077b_b.jpg</a><br>

<a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3374/3660980155_5f9558a76e_b.jpg">http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3374/3660980155_5f9558a76e_b.jpg</a><br>

<a href="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2622/3715962974_5ff19f39f9_o.jpg">http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2622/3715962974_5ff19f39f9_o.jpg</a><br>

<a href="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2473/3608657259_b0146ce450_b.jpg">http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2473/3608657259_b0146ce450_b.jpg</a><br>

<a href="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2755/4377010125_3c2cf6dfa6_b.jpg">http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2755/4377010125_3c2cf6dfa6_b.jpg</a></p>

 

<p>Thanks again for taking time to provide advice and benefit of your experience ad expertise.</p>

 

<p>Vijay<br>

 </p>

 

<p>My apologies in advance if I was not supposed to provide links to these pictures</p>

<p>Nice pics Vijay!! As Kris rightly pointed out......"Whats holding you up??" You have some good stuff right there. Unless my jobs pay me insanely good, I wouldnt think of shelling out on 24-70 or 70-200. I know this chicken and egg situation always exists in our minds. But in this case the chicken (good pictures) comes out first in most cases (precedes good equipment and or money for it there off). Many of the best started off pretty modest. When I knew what equipment they used.....I couldnt believe they shot that iconic picture with it. Now I dont wonder anymore because......the imagination of the man behind the lens is the one that does the trick. So, unless I have a few grands to throw away, I wouldnt bother getting the heavy hitters.</p>

<p>Arun, Thanks for your response. Although I have been fortunate to be able to take some good shot, I always wonder if better glass would have improved my image. The lenses I have help, but I think having faster lenses would help me become more proficient. That is why I am asking for advice. I respect the memebers of this photo.net and hope their opinion will guide me in the right direction.</p>

<p>Also, I was hoping to turn pro one of these days and sell my images (may be a pipe dream). In that situation, I thought having a better glass would help.</p>

<p>I am adding links to some more pictures below. I just wanted to add enough variety for advisors to determine if the equipment I have is enough.</p>

<p ><a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3297/3673200293_e09e795ef0_b.jpg">http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3297/3673200293_e09e795ef0_b.jpg</a></p>

<p ><a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3404/3594316768_d7ffcec7c0_o.jpg">http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3404/3594316768_d7ffcec7c0_o.jpg</a></p>

<p ><a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3516/3741239294_74434c7d27_o.jpg">http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3516/3741239294_74434c7d27_o.jpg</a></p>

<p ><a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3509/4010447066_85c2638c9e_b.jpg">http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3509/4010447066_85c2638c9e_b.jpg</a></p>

<p ><a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3494/3829154098_dd2559cf63_b.jpg">http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3494/3829154098_dd2559cf63_b.jpg</a></p>

<p>Thanks again and hoping to get more responses.</p>

<p>Vijay</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I will not hesitate to recommend third party lenses, I'm very happy with mine. I'm a 'professional' (meaning I get paid for my work) and use two D70s bodies, Tokina and Sigma lenses, along with Nikkors. For a Dx sensor, the Tamron 17-50 VC (or Tokina 16-50 or Sigma 18-50 or Nikon 17-55) f/2.8 and Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 (Nikon has no current match) will give you the long standard professional focal length 24-200 equivalent (actually 25.5-225), which is like using an Fx with a 24-70, 70-200, in what I consider to be very very good lenses.</p>

<p>Whenever I hear people refer to equipment like this, I think of the Monty Python sketch where the guy is in the employment office wanting to be a lion tamer. But it turns out he has no experience. The reason he feels qualified to tame lions is because he has a hat with "Lion Tamer" printed on it.</p>

<p>Not that you aren't a great photographer... it's just that "pro" simply means that you make your living at shooting pictures. It isn't a determiner of quality. There are great amateurs and lousy pros... and amateurs with expensive equipment and professionals with modest gear. It's better to define a problem you are trying to solve and address it than to just look for more costly equipment that does basically the same thing as what you've already got.</p>

<p>The 24-70 range is best for FX format.<br>

For DX 17-55 covers a very universal range.<br>

The 70-200 range is nice for both formats.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Michael,<br>

Thanks for your recommendations for Tamron 17-50 VC and Sigma 50-150 f2.8. They both appear to be great lenses for DX format. I thought since my D200 is 4 years old, my next camera would be Nikon D700, an FX format with high ISO performance. In that situation, I am worried that buying DX format lenses now would result in buying FX format lenses later.</p>

<p>If I buy Nikon 24-70 f2.8, it can be used on both DX and FX format, my Nikon 50 f1.4 would work well with FX camera and the Sigma and Tamron I own are both FX/DX lenses. Therefore, if I buy lenses other than Nikon, I would like to see recommendations for FX/DX (dual) format lenses.</p>

<p>Stephen,</p>

<p>I appreciate your comments. I do not pretend to be pro and currently don't earn my living selling images. What I am trying to understand, as Arun earlier pointed out (egg before chicken or chicken before egg), is if I could improve on my photography with better equipment. That is why I added some image links so someone can look at those and tell me if I am wasting my time.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>Vijay</p>

<p>The 18-24 range, if you don't have it, will kill you... imho... So the 24-70 is, again imho, a bad choice for most folks as a DX general photo lens.</p>

<p>Vijay, I am trying to make the jump myself and I too have a Nikon D200. I find the camera body isn't cutting it. The ISO max I believe I can use is 800, and that's pushing it for skin quality. I do events, and there are big evening parties, large group shots, etc, all situations where I am in low light (worse in the winter). </p>

<p>I frequently find myself needing one more stop and not having it, but being bound to f5.6 or f8 for depth of field reasons (groups) and 1/80th or 1/60th because kids are moving around in the shot. That's with at least one flash and sometimes two. Now, I freely admit, I have more to learn about maximizing potential with my flash units (shoot through umbrellas instead of bouncing off umbrellas, that kind of thing), but if I could get to ISO 1250 with a full-frame sensor so noise wasn't so obvious, I'd have it made. </p>

<p>For these winter events I am doing, I have been renting a D3 or D300 or D700, depending on what's available at my local camera shop and how big the job is. In summer I can probably get away with the D200, maybe. When my business makes enough money and has the other, smaller cost pieces it needs (such as an external battery for the flash, that kind of thing), I will buy either the D700 or the D3 camera because I need the ISO and the image quality of the full-frame sensor. </p>

<p>Think about how your camera will handle skin tones and dim light. Your shot with the Buddhists is a good example of what I am talking about; where you might need higher clear ISO. Make sure you learn as much about the flash as you can. Most of us available-light folks (or studio light folks) don't know about the hybrid world of little portable flashes. Find out about the battery packs you can carry separately that let the flash recycle every second instead of every 4 seconds. Things like that can save you a lot of trouble and make sure you get the shot. </p>

<p>I agree with the others about needing a wide-angle lens. 24mm is not wide enough, esp for DX.</p>

<p>Good for you and good luck with the work!</p>

<p>I really don't think more expensive equipment will improve your photography. It will just make it easier to shoot in difficult situations (fast moving sports, low light situations, extreme temperatures or weather conditions, shooting using long lenses from a distance, etc.) The way to determine what you need is to figure out what kind of situation you would like to be able to handle better than you are now. That may take professional equipment, or it may not.</p>

<p>Wonderful images Vijay.</p>

<p>I'm no pro, though I have been paid for taking pictures (at least that's what I think of it as a self-critic).</p>

<p>It's been mentioned up thread and I have not seen any examples or justifications in your replies. So, please let me ask you again: Why is your current equipment not working?</p>

<p>The reason I ask this is because getting new equipment will only improve your photos if you know why that new equipment will improve them. Another poster eluded to a very important idea. If you are going to invest in equipment, invest in equipment that expands your capabilities. For example, a light meter, a strobe(s), reflectors (very useful!), filters (nikon, B+W, Hoya), professional tripods (Manfrotto, Benbo, etc. Very useful!), or a second camera body.</p>

<p>You have excellent coverage with your current assortment of lenses. Maybe you could use a 14mm AF Nikkor Prime? You have some wide angle shots in your collection. With the Nikon 14mm, you get respectable DX coverage and another priceless lens for FX.</p>

<p>All I'm suggesting is for you to consider all of your options. As for me, I've never sold a lens that I bought for my Nikon System. I also never bought the most basic of lenses. When I had good lens coverage, I bought flashes, then flash accessories, then a bellows unit and a slide copier. Then I got a second tripod to go with my third camera body. Expand your system to expand your capabilities. A 14mm lens for weddings? Why not? If you are going to push your abilities as a photographer, maybe you could show us how to use one. That's what photography is all about, IMHO.</p>

<p>I really enjoyed looking at your images. Best of luck to you.</p>

<p>Your images don't seem like they would benefit from high end lenses.... they don't really present difficult situations (low light or fast action or both) where the difference between a high end lens and low end lens could mean capturing or missing the shot. The "Ken Rockwellesque" highly saturated Velvia look doesn't really work for me, but it looks like you know your way around Photoshop.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Peter, Jennifer, Stephen, Zoid and Keith,</p>

<p>Thank you for taking time to look through my images and give advice.</p>

<p>Stephen,<br /> I get over the low light situations currently by doing multiple exposure and using exposure blending. So definitely, high end equipment would make my task easier in the low light situations.</p>

<p>Zoid,<br /> Since my questions was specific to lenses, I did not mention other gear. I do have a manfrotto carbon fibre 4-section tripod with a nice manfrotto grip. I have SB-600 flash. I have a set of graduated neutral density filters and a polarizer, umbrella for diffusing light indoor.</p>

<p>Keith,<br /> Can you please let me know which image you felt was Ken Rockwellesque?</p>

<p>All,</p>

<p>I just attended a local photo club meet where I again asked this question. The answer one individual gave me was that an FX camera and lenses will give me very sharp and high resolution images that are not achievable by DX cameras. His solution was to use 24-70 on an FX camera and use 70-200 (or any long zoom) on a DX camera.</p>

<p>Not having an FX camera and Nikkor "Pro" (interpret expensive) lenses, I am always scratching my head if I am missing out on something. This dilemna is the reason that I posed the question here in the first place. Also, several people told me that if I intend to sell my images then high end equipment is a must. I off course take that with a grain of salt but wonder if there is a shade of truth some where there.</p>

<p>Thanks again.</p>

<p>Vijay</p>

<p>Vijay - all of the above opinions are based on what we are viewing on a computer screen. The obvious shortcomings will show, but other than that, anyone would be hard-pressed to tell the difference between images shot with a $300 lens versus a $1500 lens when viewing on a monitor. ANy difference would be more telling in a print, especially a large print... again, IMO, none of these images were shot in difficult enough conditions that a $300 lens couldn't give you a decent image.</p>

<p>The KR-like images are @1:25 - 1,2,5 and @2:15 - 3,4,5 -- i.e., all the highly saturated ones HDR-like images... they may be fine for others, but just not for me.</p>

<p>Good luck.</p>

<p>vijay, it looks like you do landscape photography. so why do you need 2.8?</p>

<p>i see nothing wrong with the stuff you're producing with your current lenses, although you could upgrade from the 18-200.</p>

<p>i'd think about the new 16-35/4 VR and/or an 85/1.4 or maybe one of the MF zeiss or voigtlander lenses. maybe add a dedicated macro.</p>

<p>now if you were doing a lot of weddings, portraits and action photography, the 17-55/70-200 combo might be warranted. but you need to ask yourself, what can't you do with your current gear, before buying.</p>

 

<p>Very misleading title, I thought you were going to talk about photography as a business, but that is not the case I see...<br /> Look Vijay, if you gave your current kit to say, Jim Richardson, Joel Sartore or Franz Lanting, they would produce stunning results from any combination of it, because they are not held back by gear, they are pros and what pros do is get unique, often powerful shots that amateurs simply can not do. It has very little to do with gear. <br /> For example, if you give an amateur who takes very average but perhaps boring photos even by amateur standards a high quality 8x10 view camera and teach him to be technically proficient at it, all the amateur is going to do now is produce super high resolution boring amateur photos. <br /> So in my honest opinion, the gear is not holding you back, you need to more fully develop a style of seeing, a branding of your particular vision if you will.<br /> And by the way, in this day and age, there is no such thing as "Semi-Pro" anymore since any amateur can buy a camera, make a print and sell it to a friend. So you are either a *real* pro or an amateur and the gear does not dictate that, the imagery made and the fact you do it full time dictates it.<br /> Hope this steers you in the right direction.</p>

<p>Daniel, I agree about the "Semi-Pro" idea. If you have only been paid a couple of times, you are still an amateur. A Professional photographer makes >50% of his income from photography, just like a professional doctor makes >50% of his income from medicine. A doctor who sells a few prints is still an amateur photographer.</p>

<p>Vijay, it looks to me like you have shown your best and proudest work. These are NOT the pictures that will show flaws. You have to look back at pictures that you have attempted and failed, in order to determine what went wrong. If there was something you could have done better, then it is not an equipment problem. If you were genuinely limited by your lenses, then you can target where you can upgrade. If you really want solid advice on your shortcomings, then show your shortcomings. This would involve uploading unfinished pictures that in your mind were a total failure. Either due to bad composition, bad focusing, bad lighting, bad timing, etc. Of course, this will open you up to alot of scrutiny, and not everyone will play nice.</p>

<p>If you can continue to take pictures like the ones you've already shown, and produce them day in and day out, in any situation, then there's no reason to upgrade your equipment.</p>

 

 

<p>What images could you make with the new gear that you can't make with the gear you have now?</p>

 

<br />

<p>I recently upgraded from the d40 to the d90. Guess what - I still suck!</p>

 

<br />

<p>That being said, your pictures seem to be mostly landscape, travel vignettes, and macro. I'd dump the 18-200 and the 28-105, and get the Tamron 17-50 which is supposed to be very high quality (I don't have it myself). Also one of the Nikkor micro lenses, if you have the money.</p>

<br />

<p>Basically I agree with Eric Arnold.</p>

 

 

<p>While I was on assignment as a journalist in the Middle East a photojourno accompanies us on a story. She had a D200 and an 18-800 VR lens (and a 50mm for low light work). We covered a story on riots in the West bank, and, well she got the shots. If its good enough for a pro it's good enough for you and me. Why upgrade / change?</p>