is there something between a D90 and a D300s?

[alex_iwonttell]

<p>Ed: As for the Samyang - the price of this lens in EU is around 200 eur - less then a Nikkor 85/1.8. I'm tempted.<br /> Manual focusing: I have a D60 (which contains a better focusing aid than a D40x) and I find manual focusing very easy. A fast lens is of course more stressing, but I think it's easy to get used to manual focusing (I use 50/1.8 @ 2.2). And you can always get a KatzEye focusing screen.<br /> As for manual exposure, the lighting in a swimming pool is probably well controlled, so that shouldn't be any issue.<br>

(edit: removed link which has been already posted)</p>

[alex_iwonttell]

<p>BTW Ed, let's count how fast a lens you actually need. Currently you use 3.5-6.3 and 4-5.6 zooms (say, f/5 average) and the pictures are dark on ISO 3200. So you may need +2 EV to get enough light and +1 or 2 EV to get a less grainy picture. 2 EV from f/5 is f/2.5. More 2 EV down, that's f/1.2. I'd say a f/2 or faster is preferred for the swimming pool application. IMHO. A better camera, like a D90, won't get more than a 1-1.5 EV advantage in noise.<br /> How do the pictures of the swimming pool look with the 35/1.8 (regardless of the field of view)? If you get down to ISO 400 with that, ISO 1000+ will be needed for a longer focal length with the same aperture.</p>

[ed_lemko]

<p>Alex,<br /> The pics with the 35/1.8 look fantastic. It's defiantly more in the realm of less noise, more bright, more leeway to up the shutter speed to produce both low-noise, low-darkness, and low-blur photos, three of my (certainly not alone here) problems...<br /> But the 35mm produces all the "same photos". How many room-size or pool size photos can you take, right?<br>

Of course, I do move around, I lie on my stomach on concrete 5 meters from the pool edge, I go into a hallway flanking the perpendicular edge of the pool to get another angle, etc. I try to mix it up, but with dark zooms, and just one prime, all my photos are starting to look the "same". Sure I luck out 1/5 times, going low on shutter speed with my zoom and gambling to get a bright shot in focus. And I "love" all the other parents' kids, but I really want mostly mine in there, being a slight bit self-interested.</p>

<p>And so the telephotos lens, my "dark" zooms so far, have done the job to isolate my kid in a descriptive way, with shots that are close enough to show the tiredness, deflation, and euphoria of heats lost and won, on my girls face.<br>

The 35mm shows the pool, or a large half of it, wonderfully lit, but with 15-30 people practically in every shot.<br /> I'm looking forward to a mid range lens, perhaps this 85/1.4, to bring me closer, and even brighter (from 1.8 to 1.4).<br /> I agree about needing something less than f2. You know how they advertise a peanut butter cup-- where the chocolate van crashes into the peanut butter truck, and they turn an accident into a chocolate-peanut treat? I find myself wanting to crash my 35mm 1.8 nikkor AF-S into my sigma OS 18-200 to produce a flexible zoom without all the noise and darkness.<br /> The reason I'm almost set on the samyang (or rebadged equivalent) is that it looks like it does the trick, at a reasonable 250$ price, albeit with a bit of MF learning curve.<br /> It doesn't look all that bad thrown up against the nikkor 85mm-- which I'd have to buy used with no warranty.<br>

http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/korean-made-85mm-14-pics-and-thoughts_topic47750_page1.html</p>

[alex_iwonttell]

<p>I agree you can only do so much with a 'normal' lens in a pool; a longer lens gives more variability. If a 35 mm takes a bigger half of the pool into the frame, it's not a very large pool, so a 85-105 lens is probably ideal for close-ups.<br /> Also consider a Nikon or Sigma 50/1.4 for 'wider' shots. I'd personally buy that 85/1.4 for the D40x (enough resolution for cropping, if needed) AND a Nikkor 50/1.4 with another D40 body. Two small bodies with two fast lenses mounted at the same time gives the speed of a prime and variability of a zoom. And cheaper than one pro body.<br /> That's why I got the D60, anyway.</p>

[eloy_cortinez]

<p>http://photo.eloycortinez.com/nottebiancavigevano/h2b2878a3#h2b2878a3 middle of the night d40 (the old one), iso 200 dragging the shutter (manual) in order to get a visible background. sigma 30mm f 1.4, the f 1.4 part makes the difference....</p>

[ed_lemko]

<p>The more I read, the more I see how in practice, people are having a devil of a time focussing properly, and they buy focus screens and whatnot to help with that to increase their keep rate. I read somewhere where someone got berated for thinking they can capture sports (like my kid swimming) properly without autofocus...<br>

I'm starting to read about various midrange zooms at f/2.8 that will autofocus on my d40- tamron<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/tamron/28_75_Di/page4.html">http://www.photo.net/equipment/tamron/28_75_Di/page4.html</a><br>

and sigma-<br>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001042Q4S/ref=asc_df_B001042Q4S929352?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&tag=googlecom09c9-20&linkCode=asn&creative=380341&creativeASIN=B001042Q4S">http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001042Q4S/ref=asc_df_B001042Q4S929352?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&tag=googlecom09c9-20&linkCode=asn&creative=380341&creativeASIN=B001042Q4S</a><br>

It's 1:00a.m. and I'm getting a serious chickening out feeling from the manual focus. Gotta "refocus" myself on the IQ of the samyang/rokinon prime, and the benefit of the f/1.4 over the 2.8. Going to sleep.</p>

 

[r.t. dowling]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I read somewhere where someone got berated for thinking they can capture sports (like my kid swimming) properly without autofocus..." </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well that's just silly. Pay no attention to that. I don't know who it was who was doing the berating, but does that person really believe that there were no sports photos prior to the mid-1980s when autofocus cameras started to become available? I mean, really, who would think such a thing?</p>

<p>I'm not really a big sports fan myself, but a quick Google search reveals that <em>Sports Illustrated</em> was founded in 1954 -- a full 30 years before autofocus cameras came into popularity. I think that pretty much proves that it's possible to capture sports without autofocus!</p>

<p>If you're not ready to give up your D40x yet, it looks like the Sigma 50-150/2.8 is your best bet. The Tamron 28-75/2.8 is a wonderful lens, one that I'm sure you would enjoy, but I don't think it's long enough at the long end (75mm) for your swimming photos.</p>

<p>As far as f/stops are concerned: yes, 1.4 is a faster than 2.8... but 2.8 is a lot faster than what you've got now! I wouldn't get too hung up on 1.4; doing so will seriously limit your options. And shooting at 1.4 gives such shallow depth of field that focus errors can become a real problem, even with autofocus. I think you would end up with a lot of shots where your daughter's nose is in focus, but everything else is out of focus (or her forehead or eyes or ears; insert random body part here ____) That's the biggest problem with shooting at 1.4 (or 1.8). A couple of years ago I was shooting a school play with an f/1.7 lens, and I had to toss out most of the shots I took at 1.7 and 2.0 because I ended up with sharp noses (or sharp eyes or sharp ears) but blurry everything else. The shots I took at 2.5 and 2.8 were much more usable, since there was enough depth of field to keep the actor's entire head in focus.</p>

[ed_lemko]

<p>The fun part is juggling the mass of interlocking and interdependent trade-offs between F, focal range, AF on a D40x, and even warrantee (tamron's 6 yrs vs. sigma's 1)<br>

I agree that 75mm on the tamron is not quite long enough. At the same time, I wouldn't get a 70-200 2.8 zoom, as that 70 is a big high on the wide end. Again, I have a sigma slow glass 70-300mm f/4-5.6, and on 70 I have to literally run away from the pool if my daughter gets out to fit her in... not like land pictures are my main interest in a pool, but if she wins something, and carries a medal toward me in triumph, I my wife is going to hope I got that shot...<br>

Yeah, I have f4 at 70mm now, and the Sigma discussed above can get me 2.8 at 150mm, that's quite an improvement, so it's helping me not mourn the "loss" of the F1.4 samyang if I decide against it due to the MF.<br>

this guy have some bad luck with focus calib, twice,<br>

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-50-150mm-f-2.8-II-EX-DC-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx<br>

but these are decent reviews:<br>

http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Lenses/Sigma-APO-50-150mm-f-2.8-II-EX-DC-HSM-AF-Lens-Test<br>

http://www.shutterbug.com/equipmentreviews/lenses/0607sigma/index1.html<br>

seems like it was updated in 2009, original version was 2007<br>

so I guess we're now in the $600 and change range.<br>

I would get back my autofocus, and I would get the flexibility of a zoom at a constant 2.8.<br>

I'm not plussed about their 1 yr warranty. I have a sigma I already sent in, their higher end OS model. They fixed it free a year and a month after purchase, so they worked with me. The chip had to be replaced in my sigma 18-200 OS after it stopped being able to autofocus...</p>

 

[david_klaffenbach]

<p>While folks have been manually focusing for a long time, it's not the same when using a modern APS-C DSLR. I've used a D50 and a D90 and on the occasions I've tried to MF with fast lenses, it's been a bit hit or miss. The viewfinders are smaller than even on cheap old cameras (I had a Pentax K1000) and you don't have any focus aids other than the green dot in the corner. The ground glass isn't optimized for fast lenses so even with magnification you wouldn't be able to determine if you were off focus slightly on fast (such as f/1.8) lenses. With a static target and time to sweep focus front, back, front, back and then split the difference somewhere I can do OK, but to MF on moving targets repeatedly I think would be a serious challenge. Tricks like prefocusing on certain spots will certainly work, but that's a bit limiting.</p>

[r.t. dowling]

<p>It's too bad that Tamron doesn't make a 50-135/2.8 or 50-150/2.8. I agree that their 6 year warranty is a big selling point. Their quality control isn't perfect, but I'd say it's a bit better than Sigma.</p>

<p>On the other hand, what's also too bad is that Tokina hasn't released an updated version of their 50-135/2.8 with a built-in AF motor. Tokina's quality control and build quality are both very good, and that particular lens is professional grade. For the price, it really can't be beat. Oh well... keep it in mind if you ever upgrade to the D90. ;-)</p>

[ed_lemko]

<p>RT-<br /> Those are the exact variables I've been juggling- the lack of Tokina focus motor, the lack of Tamron having a midrange zoom. Here's a neat Tamron that's new, has vibration control, and a motor for "low end" Nikons, but it's too short at 50mm<br /> <a href="http://www.adorama.com/alc/news/11850">http://www.adorama.com/alc/news/11850</a><br /> The decision seems to be making itself: Settle for the 1 year warrantee of Sigma, since they stand alone with a 50-150mm product, with HSM that my D40x requires, long enough to get a bit of zoom going, bright enough at 2.8 to up my quality, wide enough at 50mm to get some varied shots of people and pool in addition to my swimmer.<br /> I agree David that although I could get good at focusing with the Samyang 85mm MF, it will be difficult and straining on the eyes, plus even if I'm successful, I understand RT's earlier point about achieving a focus on a nose, yet having the eyes blurry..<br>

And the Sigma APO 50-150mm F2.8 II EX DC HSM would remain a modern tool for me when/if I upgrade to the D90</p>

[r.t. dowling]

<p>I've never owned a Sigma lens, but I've talked to several people who have owned them, and what I've heard is that even though Sigma's quality control may not be stellar, they are generally very good about fixing any issues that may come up. And once those issues have been fixed, the lenses tend to be excellent performers. At this point, I don't think I would hesitate to buy a Sigma lens. Yes, having to send it in for repair/adjustment is a pain... but on the other hand, statistically you're more likely to get a good lens and not have any reason to send it in.</p>

<p>Regarding the warranty: some credit cards (such as those with the Visa logo) will automatically extend the warranty of items purchased with the credit card, up to one additional year. Usually this is buried in the fine print of the paperwork that you received when you signed up for the card. I've never tried to get a product fixed using the Visa warranty, but I suppose it would be worth a shot if the lens died several months after the factory warranty expired.</p>

<p>Also, some states (such as Maine, where I live) have laws which state that products must last for a "reasonable" period of time. I don't know the exact details of the law, but I recently read an article about it in the newspaper; a man's expensive HDTV died after 14 months and the manufacturer refused to fix it; the man got in contact with the attorney general's office, and thanks to the state law, the manufacturer had to fix it, because a reasonable period of time for a TV to last is more than 14 months. I would expect that a reasonable period of time for a camera lens to last would also be more than 14 months. ;-) Anyway, just something to look into and see if your state has a similar law.</p>

[ed_lemko]

<p>Done. Chickened out from the Samyang 1.4. Wasn't convinced that manual focusing would fit the bill with fast-moving water, in spite of the F1.4 benefits. Went with the Sigma - AF DC APO 50-150/2.8 EX HSM II.<br>

Got a good deal for the mid 600's while everyone like adorama and amazon is selling it for 750. More than double the cost of the Samyang, but I get a lot more than double the benefit, with auto focus on my D40x, and a zoom at constant F2.8. I previously had only about F5 at 150mm zoomed in, and now I drop down to F2.8. I hope this will take a bite out of my problem. <br>

Next will be a possible D90, maybe for the holidays or early next year.<br /><br />Thank for everyone who chimed in! I learned a lot in the process. </p>

[r.t. dowling]

<p>Congrats on the purchase! Good luck, and let us know how it turns out.</p>

[ed_lemko]

<p>update<br>

Got the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 APO II. Nice difference in brightness. Getting a lot of blurry shots, even when subject still. Don't know if it's the f2.8 part or the "miscalibrated focus" that some people had to send their lens back and then it cam out sharp. Don't know if it's me with my narrow DOF with the f/2.8, and I don't know how to handle it, or the lens. Probably me.</p>

[david_klaffenbach]

<p>Hi Ed,</p>

<p>Please post a shot so we can take a peek at the picture and your settings.</p>

[ed_lemko]

<p>An example. This is not any kind of "winning" shot, I took about 500 at a recent meet, and this is one of the throw aways, basically. I don't know where the focus ended up. Maybe it's my d40x's 3 points of focus only, and when I zoom in to 150mm, and then recompose, there is the blurriness.</p>

[ed_lemko]

<p>An example. This is not any kind of "winning" shot, I took about 500 at a recent meet, and this is one of the throw aways, basically. I don't know where the focus ended up. Maybe it's my d40x's 3 points of focus only, and when I zoom in to 150mm, and then recompose, there is the blurriness.</p>

[ed_lemko]

<p>An example. This is not any kind of "winning" shot, I took about 500 at a recent meet, and this is one of the throw aways, basically. I don't know where the focus ended up. Maybe it's my d40x's 3 points of focus only, and when I zoom in to 150mm, and then recompose, there is the blurriness.</p><div></div>

[david_klaffenbach]

<p>Ed,</p>

<p>I can't really say much about blur from that size of image, but the exif does say a few things. You were at 150mm, 1/200s, ISO1600, f/2.8 and it is still underexposed by perhaps a stop (based on skin tones, what appears to be white on the headgear and lack of blown specular highlights in the water). That tells me you are between a rock and a hard place exposure wise. You are wide open on the lens, pretty high on ISO, but still have marginal shutter speed. I would probably go on up to 3200 if the D40x does that and choose slightly higher shutter speed. At some point you'll have to decide what tradeoff of noise vs. shutter speed pleases you the most (or disappoints the least).</p>

<p>At 1/200 you aren't by any means guaranteed to have a blur free shot at 150mm. What might help a little is to shoot in a burst. If doing a static shot, you can get focus, press AE-L/AF-L, and then hold the shutter button down for a three-shot burst. Quite often the 2nd shot seems to be sharpest, for me anyway. </p>

<p>With regard to limited focus points, a technique you can use especially in rapid fire situations is to keep the center focus point on your point of interest, use AF-C and continuous shooting, and keep the zoom wide enough that you can crop to your final desired framing. I use that technique a lot for basketball even when using primes. Depending on distance I'll focus on the players waistline, numbers or face depending on how much of them are in the shot and framing gets done later by cropping.</p>

[ed_lemko]

<p>Thanks, David. I understand many of your points and agree. The size of the image was limited by the note I saw in the forum software when uploading (700 pix, <100k). I would have uploaded the 10mpx image if I could.</p>

<p>Few notes:<br>

1. I maxed out my exposure comp to 5 to make it brighter. But at f2.8 and the camera set to 1600ISO (wont automatically jump to H1=3200), does exposure comp really do anything at all?</p>

<p>2. I have the camera set to exposure lock on the focused-locked subject, and so I never use the AE-L button. </p>

<p>3.. I have it set to AF-C, and so I feel the lens constantly refocusing as I pan for my shot-- that part is working, I can hear it.</p>

<p>And here's another one. Again, don't know where the focus ended up. I have a lot of these.</p><div></div>

[david_klaffenbach]

<p>To be honest I never use exposure compensation. I almost always shoot M, and don't use Auto ISO, so exposure compensation doesn't come into play for me.</p>

<p>In any case, it doesn't much matter how you coax the camera into a particular set of ISO/aperture/shutter, what's relevant here is that if you set it to, say ISO3200, f/2.8, 1/400s or so, you'll have a slightly brighter image with slightly less motion blur, but more noise. My guess is the noise will in actuality (if you print the image) be less objectionable than blur or underexposure.</p>

<p>As for where it's focused, I'm finding it really hard to tell. It could be just in front of the swimmer but it could also be that motion is blurring objects in the best plane of focus such that you can't see it.</p>

<p>For simplicity's sake, I would use full manual control so that exposure isn't tied to the focus operation at all, I would set the camera to center focus only, and just shoot with the face centered in the frame. See how many keepers you get that way. I don't think you should expect 100% perfectly focused shots, not in these conditions with this hardware, but you should have a comfortable majority. </p>

<p>There are a number of things that can cause focus errors. The sensor areas are larger than indicated in viewfinder. With the camera in AF-C, swing across an object (like a telephone pole) and see when the camera picks it up and when it snaps to the background. That can help you know when you might accidentally focus on the lane dividers rather than the swimmer. Another error has to do with the fact that with subjects coming towards or away from the camera, the AF system estimates the velocity and guesses where to put the lens slightly later when the shot is taken. If the movement is erratic, or it gets fooled by a moving arm or leg, you can get an out-of-focus shot. I think these are more likely than a hardware problem, although of course those happen too.</p>

[david_klaffenbach]

<p>One other thought, do you know if your camera is focus priority or shutter priority? The D50 is always focus priority; it won't take a picture (in any AF mode) if it doesn't think it has good focus. The D90 is focus priority in AF-S, but shutter priority in AF-C. In the latter case, if I fully depress the shutter, it will take the picture immediately without regard to focus. When I switched cameras that lost me some shots until I figured out the difference.</p>

[ed_lemko]

<p>Actually, I don't even know if I can set focus vs. shutter priority in a d40x-- I don't believe that's a choice for me.<br>

To get enough light, I do often goto my max ISO at H1/3600, and opt for grain over dark. My new lens is constant f2.8, and I dont change that on the camera-- I keep it wide open, again, to max out my light. And I opt for shutter priority mode, and try to lower that as much as I can to avoid that dark, dungeon-like lighting I've gotten before. When I see that I get too much blur, I increase the shutter speed, and zoom out to let in more light. <br>

Another example, just to show that the new lens did help me out:</p><div></div>

[david_klaffenbach]

<p>I doubt you can select the focus- or shutter-priority. I can't on the D90, but you do need to be aware of how the camera works.<br>

Not sure what you mean by zooming out to let in more light. Zooming (on a constant aperture lens like yours) will not change the exposure. It might make the meter reading change as the composition of the metered scene changes but that's just a distraction. The only advantage zooming out will give is a reduced sensitivity to camera motion blur, so if you can get closer to your subject and zoom wider you may be better off (slightly). But if you zoomed out and then cropped later, nothing would be gained.</p>