Jump to content

Is the Nikon D750 Ok for a beginner?


michele_anderson2

Recommended Posts

<blockquote>

<p>He gave me two lenses to go along with it, a Nikon ED AF-S Nikkor 28-70 mm1:2.8D and a Nikon ED AF-S VR Nikkor 70-200mm 1:2.8G. The camera and lenses were used and I know they have to be at least 10 years old.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Michele, Nikon has made two versions of the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR. Version 1 was introduced in 2003 and version 2 in 2009. If that lens is over 10 years old, it'll have to be version 1. The two lenses look quite different; version 1 is longer and has the VR marking in red. Version 2 and the 70-200mm/f4 have the large nano-coating icon, a gold rectangle with a large black N inside. See the image below.</p>

<p>As it has already been pointed out above, version 1 has very poor corner sharpness on the 200mm end, which unfortunately does not improve when you stop the lens down to f8. It is still a fine lens for portraits, parties ... where you don't really care about corner sharpness. It is not a very good choice for landscape photography, at least not on the 200mm end. See the following thread from 2008 for the details: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Rdrl</p>

<p>At the time version 1 was introduced, back in 2003, Nikon only had DX-format DSLRs so that the issue was not obvious. Once Nikon started introducing FX in 2007/2008, they updated this lens to version 2 pretty quickly in 2009.</p>

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/16797874-lg.jpg" alt="" /></center>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>Interesting to see a thread with this much heated discussion that's mostly not my fault! :-)<br />

<br />

Michele: Anyone who doesn't call themselves a beginner has <a href="https://twitter.com/went1955/status/599342817408917505">stopped knowing how to learn</a>. Have confidence - you just have to know enough to enjoy what you're doing, and resources like this site are here to help. As this thread has proven, there are plenty of differences of opinion even among "experts" (or at least, people who know way more than me). And never be afraid of looking stupid here - I've made a habit of it.<br />

<br />

Re. any criticism of your lenses, I think it's fair to say that, while professional lenses, neither are the current cutting edge versions. That doesn't make them "bad", it just means that better options are available - both in an absolute sense and for your apparent needs. You're getting a fairly cutting-edge camera, which means you'll probably find the limitations of your lenses - but they won't suddenly take worse images than they were capable of in the past, it's just that they won't quite do everything the camera can. But whether you care depends greatly on what and how you shoot.<br />

<br />

As with others, I'd say, at this point, get a D750 since you're persuaded, rightly, that it's a good camera (but certainly try it out first in case you hate the feel!) - then worry about changing your lenses when and if you feel limited by them. There's no point in us talking you into an 80-400 (or a 200-400 f/4!) if you find you never need one and your needs would have been met better by a cheap 50mm f/1.8, and all we'll do is make you paranoid about the quality of your equipment (which is <i>always</i> secondary to the abilities of the photographer). Try what you've got, which are perfectly capable, and you'll find out soon enough if you needed a wider angle, or more reach, or better corners, or more aperture, or a better macro facility. Then we can make recommendations without swamping you so much. I commend you for not wasting money on things you'll replace (Thom Hogan has a famous <a href="http://bythom.com/support.htm">article</a> on saving $700 on tripods by just buying a good one in the first place - I laughed, then made exactly that mistake), but unless you want to walk into B&H and order one of <i>everything</i>, you're the best qualified to find out your priorities in other purchases.<br />

<br />

Good luck, and show us your photos!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew's point of not being too worried about

the lenses to start is a very good one. There

are always better lenses but if they are good

enough for your uses, there's nothing wrong

with that. As he says, they won't take worse

pictures than they did before. And the

suggestion of a nifty fifty (50 1.8) is worth

considering - it's not expensive, light and

good. You'll figure out what you need over

time. Let us know how it goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Figuring out what you need over time is indeed the thing. That includes that nifty fifty. In my experience, the least useful and least used focal length of the entire range.<br>Don't just get one because someone says it could be a good idea. Try the focal length (covered by one of the zooms already owned) and see for yourself.<br><br>People keep suggesting their favourite thingies, even when saying it would be good to first stay with the good kit you already have. How about that? ;-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>People keep suggesting their favourite thingies, even when saying it would be good to first stay with the good kit you already have. How about that? ;-)</blockquote>

 

<p>I'm obliged to point out that I barely use a 50mm f/1.8 either, even though I now have the E-series, AF-D and AF-S versions (along with the Sigma Art version) - each has its place, but for me, the place is small. I mentioned it only because they're at the opposite end of the price spectrum from the big telephotos - which is how I've managed to accumulate several 50mm lenses and why I've not bothered selling some! If we're talking "favourites", I'd be bringing up a 150mm Sigma macro or a 200mm f/2 - but I'd really not force that decision on Michele without letting her find her feet.<br />

<br />

Not that there's anything wrong with picking up a cheap fast-ish prime lens to complement zooms - <i>when</i> you know what you want one for!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>You guys have no idea how happy I feel when I get new replies on this thread. :)</p>

<p>Q.E. and a few others have suggested the 105 mm Micro-Nikkor for the close-ups. I can already tell you from all that I have read that it will be the first one I look at. It sounds like a great lens. I looked at Shun's example of the softness in the corners of the photo shot with my 70-200 lens. I want you remind all of you that I know so little! His example showed me what I can expect. This is probably a dumb question, but you all mentioned this softness at 200mm. At what point does this lens go from great quality to poor quality? If I don't open it all the way to 200 mm, would that improve? Even though I wouldn't get any shots at 200mm, I hope if I maybe stop short of that, that I might be able to take a decent picture. I guess the bright side of my being a rookie is that I don't know enough what "bad" is. I mean, the obvious stuff, yes, but I don't have the experience or knowledge to have that critical eye, so I may be happy with these lenses until I become more knowledgable. Does that make sense? Ignorance is bliss!<br>

<br>

Andrew, yours words of encouragement about confidence touched my heart. Believe it or not, I have loved photography since I was a little girl. I remember being 5 or 6 years old and having crappy little cameras and I'd go shoot pictures in my back yard. I'd call my local drug store daily asking if my pictures were back. LOL Back then they sent them off and it took days to get them back. My dad had what I believed at the time to be an amazing camera. It was a Pentax SF-10. When I grew up he gave it to me. I STILL have that camera packed away and will never part with it. I really loved it. I could be wrong, but I think it had a "nifty fifty" on it. It's been a number of years since I've taken it out and looked at it. You might wonder with this life long passion why at my age, I'm still a beginner. A huge factor was obviously that I didn't always have the finances but the biggest hinderance has been my confidence. I've actually been paralyzed by it at times and not wanted to shoot pictures because I don't believe I am good enough. I always love looking at photography, and what I see in books, booths at the art fair, or even the 4-H booth at my local state fair, they are all so much better than anything I've ever shot. It stops me from even trying. I can't keep doing this to myself because I believe everyone has a God given talent, and inside, I know photography is mine. Why else would I have loved it since being a little girl? Why has it stayed with me my whole life? I have to do something with it. Getting over my own fears is something I'm going to finally address. That is why I want to take lots and lots of classes. I don't know any photographers in my area, but wish I had someone to actually teach me. I think I'm going to try and join in on some of my local photoshoots and maybe I will find someone with the patience to deal with me. I look at all of you guys' photos and I'm amazed. I can't even imagine being able to take pictures like that. I hope to one day!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Q.E. and a few others have suggested the 105 mm Micro-Nikkor for the close-ups. I can already tell you from all that I have read that it will be the first one I look at. It sounds like a great lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the important thing here is the focal length between 90-105 on full frame. there's almost no discernible difference between available macros in this range, in terms of image quality. so, the 105 Nikon is in the same league as the Tamron 90 and Tokina 100, all of which are excellent. it's perhaps a bit easier to find a used copy of the Nikon. and there's a newer version with VR which costs 2x as much which is worth looking into if you plan on shooting handheld close-ups.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>you all mentioned this softness at 200mm. At what point does this lens go from great quality to poor quality? If I don't open it all the way to 200 mm, would that improve? Even though I wouldn't get any shots at 200mm, I hope if I maybe stop short of that, that I might be able to take a decent picture. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>the issue with the 70-200 I is that it was released about four years before Nikon made a full-frame camera. So, the corners are optimized for DX. when you use it on an FX camera, you'll see softer corners. <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/457-nikkor_afs_70200_28_ff?start=1">this test</a> from Photozone illustrates the issue. if you compare to the Photozone test of the same lens on DX, you'll see that the corners are softer at all focal lengths, not just 200mm. Photozone suggests stopping down to f/11 to pull the corners up, which is right at the diffraction level for a 24mp sensor.<br>

The question you're probably asking is, how field-relevant is this? Well, it depends on your shooting style. if you're shooting portraits or shots with a central image in the center of the frame, the center will be sharp even out to 200mm, except at 2.8, where it's a little soft. if you want edge to edge sharpness for a typical landscape pic, it's just not gonna happen with this lens on FX. That said, it's still a good lens if you play to its strengths, not its weaknesses. i wouldn't shy away from using 200mm, but i would also frame shots so that they dont need the corners to be sharp. the only way to find out just how much this niggle affects your photo mojo is through practice. if you do find you like the 70-200 range for landscape, trading it for a 70-200/4 would yield better results in the corners. if you're not shooting wide open for subject isolation or low-light, you dont need a 2.8 lens anyway, and the f/4 version weighs almost half as much, so it's a much better choice if you have to traverse terrain with your gear.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I've actually been paralyzed by it at times and not wanted to shoot pictures because I don't believe I am good enough.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that's entirely the wrong approach; you dont become a better photographer by NOT taking pictures. Taking classes is a good idea, but even before that i would read <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Exposure-Edition-Bryan-Peterson-ebook/dp/B004FEFS5E">Understanding Exposure by Bryan Petersen</a>, which is an excellent self-help book for aspiring photographers. There are a couple steps in a typical learning curve, and Petersen's book helps explain the confusing technical mumbo-jumbo with real life examples which explain the relationship between shutter, aperture, and ISO. after that, it's about framing and composition and learning to trust your eye, while dialing in the correct technical settings to bring your vision to life. i would also suggest examining your pics and figuring out how you could have shot them differently. this is very easy in a digital age, since you dont have to develop film to see what you did. there are lots and lots of books on nature, landscape and macro photography, so you can start studying even before you get the camera! also, when you do go on photowalks, etc., dont be afraid to ask plenty of questions and shoot plenty of frames. you can always go back later and reshoot once you've analyzed your own mistakes. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>you all mentioned this softness at 200mm. At what point does this lens go from great quality to poor quality?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I still stand by what I wrote in my above post (Jul 15, 2015; 01:09 p.m.). If you look at other lenses on photozone, then you will see that there are quite a few that do worse in the corners than the 70-200/2.8 - and not much fuzz is made about it. Note that at f/5.6 and f/8 and 200mm, the corners are still "at the upper end of "good" - they never drop down to "poor". The issue is that the lens is very very good everywhere else and was quite expensive - so any weakness is "unforgivable" and made a big deal of. Just compare 200mm to 135mm - the differences you see for the border and corners is what all the fuzz is about; the performance dropped by about one grade - our beloved A student now become B (or C if one looks at f/2.8 and f/4). Compare the 70-200/2.8 border and corner performance at 200mm with that of the 28-300 at 200mm: <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/578-nikkorafs28300vrff?start=1">http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/578-nikkorafs28300vrff?start=1- </a>how bad must images look that are taken with the 28-300? Or the 120mm setting of the 24-120:<a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/574-nikkorafs24120f4vrff?start=1"> http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/574-nikkorafs24120f4vrff?start=1</a> - that lens must surely be a dud? Does anyone make a big deal of the fact that the 24-70/2.8 at 40mm actually has slightly worse corner and border perfodmance: <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/456-nikkor_afs_2470_28_ff?start=1">http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/456-nikkor_afs_2470_28_ff?start=1?</a><br /> <br /> The problem with test like the ones on photozone is that (a) usually only one lens is tested and (b) at one distance only (about 40x the focal length if I recall correctly). Sample-to-sample variation is usually rather large, and the performance at one (close) distance doesn't necessarily allow conclusions about the performance elsewhere. Yes, the new 70-200/2.8 VR II does "visibly" better at 200 in the corners. The question is whether or not that difference is relevant to what you do with the image. If you print large and then look up close, then yes, the softness in the corner will be visible (same if you zoom in to a 100% on your computer). Large here means some 30x45 inch enlargements (or even bigger) - and usually one doesn't stick one's nose close to those to view them. Lastly, everyone has different thresholds of what's acceptable or not - some people just have to pixel peep and others aren't all that picky.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>"the issue with the 70-200 I is that it was released about four years before Nikon made a full-frame camera. So, the corners are optimized for DX. when you use it on an FX camera, you'll see softer corners"</i><br>... is lore, popular belief. No evidence.<br>They made a lens that covers FX years before they made a FX camera, so they thought it a good idea to make it so it covers FX, yet not necessary to worry about quality beyond the DX frame?<br><br>That aside, lenses that aren't uniformly excellent have been expensive, sold anyway, and have been used to create many photos people were very pleased with nevertheless. Don't worry too much about tests. You will not see this when looking at photos of anything but test charts under a microscope.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>... is lore, popular belief. No evidence.<br />They made a lens that covers FX years before they made a FX camera, so they thought it a good idea to make it so it covers FX, yet not necessary to worry about quality beyond the DX frame?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>no evidence? i'd say the fact that the 70-200 VRII specifically corrects this is fairly evidentiary. YMMV.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>At what point does this lens go from great quality to poor quality?</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>... is lore, popular belief. No evidence.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>no evidence?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Michele - I think you will find there is no consensus on things such as "quality" in the world of photography. This 200mm thing is a good example. I have never used this lens, but I understand what goes into its "reputation" for having weakness at 200mm. That doesn't mean it is "bad." I would recommend taking the "online reputation" on one hand, and comparing it with your actual experience on the other hand. In this case, you have a copy of the 70-200. Once you get a camera, the best thing to do is start shooting it at 200mm. Judge the results for yourself, and then you can see whether or not you need to worry about seeking better performance at 200mm. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>For some alternative (and generally more positive) opinions on the suitability of the VR1 lens for FX, see:<br /> http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3471222#forum-post-51276528<br /> Comparison with the VR2 isn't entirely one-sided (e.g. the VR2 has more 'focus breathing'), but it's probably the wrong comparison to make in this thread. Someone like Michele who already owns the VR1 and has set a $2000 budget for everything won't be in the market for the significantly more expensive VR2. Trading in the VR1 would generally mean buying something to cover its range with a more modest maximum aperture and its own set of compromises (obviously less weight to carry and perhaps more reach, but not as good in low light and in some cases not as sharp at the centre). And of course the seller will usually take a hit on the trade.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would recommend taking the "online reputation" on one hand, and comparing it with your actual experience on the other hand. In this case, you have a copy of the 70-200. Once you get a camera, the best thing to do is start shooting it at 200mm. Judge the results for yourself, and then you can see whether or not you need to worry about seeking better performance at 200mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, exactly!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The issues with the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR version 1, for the purpose of landscape photography, are very obvious: (1) it is a heavy lens and (2) corner quality at 200mm is terrible. Back in April 2009, I attended a four-day seminar by fame nature photographer Frans Lanting. Several of the students had that same lens, so I got to check multiple samples on my D700 and confirmed the issue. A few months later, Nikon introduced version 2.</p>

<p>Again, if someone comes here and asks about getting the 28-70mm/f2.8 AF-S and 70-200mm/f2.8 VR version 1 for wedding and party photography, I would say those are very good choices (although even better alternatives are now available). For landscape photography, I would say both are poor choices.</p>

<p>The thing is that Michele is not considering buying those lenses. She was already given those lenses. She should exactly get a D750 (or whatever DSLR body) and then check the lenses she already owns. It is not all that difficult to figure out:</p>

<ul>

<li>Whether those lenses are indeed too heavy for her</li>

<li>Whether corner sharpness @ 200mm is acceptable</li>

<li>Whether 28mm is wide enough</li>

</ul>

<p>If she doesn't like those lenses, I am sure she will sell them and get something better. If she disagrees with me, it is even easier that she simply keeps them.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>"i'd say the fact that the 70-200 VRII specifically corrects this is fairly evidentiary. YMMV."</i><br>I don't think so, Chip. The fact that they later felt it would be good to produce an improved version of a lens says nothing about whether the earlier version was meant to be used on a smaller format than it covers or not.<br>They replaced many lenses with better versions. Even back in the days before we even heard of DX or FX formats. That would then also be evidence that these older lenses were designed to be used on DX format cameras?<br>It also makes very little sense to make manufacture of a lens more expensive than it could be, just so it covers a larger format which it is not expected to be used on, because they didn't have a camera for that format.<br>It's just one of the many (rather silly) photo-myths.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So consensus! Finally!<br>Michele, keep the lenses. Get a D750 (or D800e or D810). And start taking photographs.<br>Couldn't agree more.<br><br>Has anyone here ever cleaned windows? If so, you will have noticed how, when you look real close, and when the sun is shining, they still aren't spotless? You can then get going, clean them some more. And more. And more. Untill you decide that you really need a clean room and some sophisticated cleaning procedures. And eventually that you can't get a perfect surface unless you replace the window itself too.<br>The real solution however is not to look closer than you need to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Corner sharpness for most purposes is hardly the big issue with the 70-200 mm version 1 in my experience and use of this lens. Inordinate sensitivity to adverse light with flare when the sun shines into or anywhere near the lens barrel is.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Borgis, if you have the sun inside the frame, most zoom lenses are not going to do very well, since they tend to have a lot of elements. That problem is hardly unique to the 70-200mm/f2.8 version 1. However, at least in my case, it is uncommon to have a composition with the sun inside the frame, and in those cases I try not to use a zoom.</p>

<p>I still recall that some 15 years ago, back in January 2000, I was with a group of photographers photographing sunrise in Tanzania. I had the 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-S, predecessor to the 70-200 VR. With the sun inside the frame, I could see serious ghosting in the viewfinder of the F5. Fortunately, I also had the 200mm/f4 AF-D macro with me. A quick switch to the fixed-focal-length 200mm solved the problem.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>All three versions of Nikon's 80-200mm/f2.8 AF or AF-D have the same optical formula: 16 elements in 11 groups. Newer zooms tend to have more elements to correct various optical issues. The 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-S has 18 elements in 14 groups.</p>

<p>The down side of optical VR is that it adds even more VR elements. Both versions of the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR have 21 elements. Modern coating may help a bit, but if you have the sun or some bright light inside the frame, a lens with a simple optical formula helps.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>At the risk of dragging out the 70-200 discussion, I would say "no evidence" is misleading. Yes, the softness in the corners at 200mm of the original 70-200 tends to show up when shooting test charts. It's also clearly visible in sample shots taken at 200mm, and indeed in other images taken with this lens under non-testing conditions. Interpreting a test chart is one thing, but you can see the effect looking at real-world images. I'd be interested to learn whether Borgis and Q.G. have not seen this because they have abnormally good samples, or whether they're just not shooting in a style that exhibits the problem, but it's hardly the case that a single reviewer got a bad sample..</p>

<p>The "designed for DX" thing is certainly not an official Nikon position on this lens. I've made the deduction that they produced this lens when they had no FX digital body (without starting another war, under most shooting and film conditions it is harder to see deficiencies in fine detail on 35mm film) and it would make sense that the corner performance on FX was not the priority for Nikon's designers. That doesn't mean they made the corners deliberately "bad", just that optical design has trade-offs, each with a priority. I doubt I was the sole origin of this belief. "Myth"? Well, maybe.</p>

<p>Does the corner performance matter? Quite probably not. Especially with a telephoto lens, the odds are that if your subject is in focus and positioned nearer the middle of the frame, whatever appears in the corners might be out of focus anyway, making softness irrelevant. <em>Can</em> it matter? Absolutely - have something in the focal plane that falls near a corner and it will smear oddly. The 70-200 mk1 is unusual for lenses with poor corners in that they <em>stay</em> poor on stopping down - on most lenses with softness, reducing the aperture helps. So if you want a 200mm for landscapes and want the entire frame sharp, it may not be your lens. Shoot in a way that avoids softness in the corners and there's nothing to worry about - and, as others have said, the lens has some advantages over the new version. "Doctor doctor, it hurts when I do this." "Don't do it, then."</p>

<p>This isn't the only lens known to have soft corners. At wider apertures, both the 50mm f/1.4 AF-D and 85mm f/1.4 AF-D are extremely soft away from the centre. So is the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (non-Art), which performs really well out to the DX frame boundary (again, I suspect full-frame performance wasn't seen as a priority for the designers). The 20mm /f1.8 Sigma has nothing you'd call "resolution" in the corners wide open. Softness aside, the 135mm f/2 DC lens has, by design, horrendous longitudinal chromatic aberration. The much-lauded 14-24 has pretty extreme field curvature. In all these cases (unlike the 70-200), the "problem" goes away (or is hidden) if you stop the lens down to a smaller aperture (much, in the case of the 20mm) - but all these premium lenses are bought partly because they <em>can</em> be used at wider apertures. The explanation is that people work with the aberration, rather than against it. People often actually like the softness of the 50mm and 85mm AF-D Nikkors, because - if your subject is near the middle - it helps isolate the subject from the background (which is often why you were using a wide aperture). The recent fad for Petzval portrait lenses is similarly based on people liking the look that an aberration achieves.</p>

<p>So if your shooting style suits the 70-200, don't sweat it, it's a fine lens - and the characteristics might be in your favour. You may never notice a problem, and going looking for artifacts is a guaranteed way to end up spending money and unnecessarily hating your equipment. (I speak as someone who got a 200 f/2 because the chromatic aberration on the 135 f/2 DC bothered me so much; most people don't notice it.) But it's no myth that this lens does have some behaviour that some - which may not include you - find objectionable, and which is improved on in newer designs. If you're not bothered, take it as a win - it won't stop you taking good photos. "It's not a bug, it's a feature" as we software engineers say.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...