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

[wogears]

<p>I agree with most of the previous. What you are shooting does NOT need fast lenses. Fast lenses will NOT obviate the need for exposure blending--that is determined by the sensor's dynamic range, and most digital sensors are pretty similar in that respect.. I use the Tamron 17-50, and sell large prints made from it.</p>

[markjordan]

<p>I agree with others. If I were you I would buy equipment (or software) that expands my capabilites, and not lenses yet. Your photos look pretty good and you know how to use Photoshop, or whatever you use to post process them. I use Nikon and Tokina lenses and so far I have not seen that much of a difference in the out of camera quality of my photos between the Nikon or Tokina. Once I post process them there is even much less difference! But if your interest is in buying a lens, then ALWAYS buy the best lens you can afford, of course.</p>

<p>Read reviews and look at sample photos. Do a few days worth of intense research. Some third party lenses rank higher as far as picture quality than the equivalent Nikon lens. A case in point is the infamous Tamron 90mm macro. If you buy a poor lens then you will get a poor photo even if your technique is excellent. But the difference between a good lens and a great lens (based on reviews and tests) is very slim, after post processing. The difference there would be your skills as a photographer.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>I am still trying to figure out what is wrong with Sigma 100-300 f/4 lens, one of my favorites, I use it much more often than my 70-200 L f/2.8, I have Canon equipment.</p>

[hal_b]

<p>Good point about the Sigma. It should be a terrific lens, and not something that you would necessarily look at replacing for any quantifiable weakness. I think most people here are focusing on the Nikkor 18-200 VR. That lens is actually really good, or so I've been told. Not having first hand experience, my understanding is that it is totally capable. It is only slightly undersharp at the longer end (150mm+). The bigger problem is probably that the aperture can't open very wide. In landscape photography, this is not really a concern, though.</p>

<p>I've used other super-zooms, and have never been impressed. Knowing how good the Tamron lens is, I would be surprised if it didn't offer some improvement over the Nikon in the 18-50 range. For careful landscape work, however, you would only be able to spot the difference at very close inspection.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>Vijay, you will likely look back in a couple of years and think that you made "amateurish mistakes" by buying zoom lenses, when you could have bought fast prime lenses, then you may think that you should have upgraded to film, then you may think you should have stepped up to medium format. none of these changes will improve your photography however.</p>

[jennifer_spencer]

<p>Hi Vijay,</p>

<p>you said: <em>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. Not having an FX camera and Nikkor "Pro" (interpret expensive) lenses, I am always scratching my head if I am missing out on something. </em></p>

<p>I have rented the prior model 28-70 f2.8 (now replaced by the 24-70 f2.8) lens a few times now and I have to say the image quality (IQ) is very good. I can see it. However, my old $90 used Micro Nikkor 55mm 2.8 looks just as good, IMO. Some lenses just have a sweet spot. My Zeiss MF 55 mm f1.4 is awesome as well, and still cheaper (got it used for $380). So, yeah, that 28-70 is a great lens for IQ but I don't think I am going to buy it. I wouldn't throw it out of my camera bag, but I don't know how workable a solution it is for my shooting needs. Benefits? A) it was zoom so I didn't have to change lenses, b) it's autofocus, and finally c) plays well with all the software features of the newest camera body. Downside? It weighs a ton, isn't quite wide enough for me using the DX sensor, and I now have a blister/callous on the inside of my thumb that I have named the 28-70 callous. I can barely use the camera one-handed because of it and I have to ice my hand after a long night using it. I don't think I will buy it. Not sure what the other solution is because I have these night/dance events that require some focus assist (I cannot manually focus in disco lights in the dark despite trying). But I like my $90 lightweight lens just fine, thank you very much. Your Nikon 50mm 1.4 is excellent and you can do tons with that 18-200 mm lens. If you do decide to spend money on lenses, which I don't think you need to do just yet, you should consider research first and buying used from a reputable dealer. If you haven't visited Bjorn's lens review site, I recommend it highly. The man knows what he's talking about. http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html Just look for a 4.5-5 rated lens there for your camera, find it used and cheaper at KEH or BH or Adorama, and call it a day, <em>IF</em> that lens will improve your shooting needs. Again, I think what you've got should be fine for a while yet.</p>

<p>Now, for the FX vs. DX discussion, I like both just fine. I think for my shooting needs in dim light with skin tones, the FX gives me more "wiggle room" with the higher ISOs. Maybe an extra stop or two, even. Perhaps the images are sharper, but honestly, that's hard to tell online and even in a 5x7 print for most people. If my focus is good in the first place, it doesn't matter so much. But good skin tones in low light is what I am mostly getting paid for in the few jobs I have gotten thus far, so I am renting equipment to get it. That may not be your market. Maybe if you are having to shoot at high ISOs or you're doing big, big prints, FX might matter for you. If not, the D200 does a wonderful job. There is plenty that it does very, very well, and I am happy with it except for the low-light stuff. I think the IQ is great when it has enough light to do the job. One other thing a pro camera like the D3 gives you is some wonderful redundancy (double-writing to your memory cards, that kind of thing) and some more durability, plus a vertical grip. I think the D3 image quality is frankly better than the D700 after using both, but that's just me. For the price, that ought to be true anyway. </p>

<p>Maybe I am a poor photographer, or not doing enough with my tools because I advocate considering a camera sensor that handles low light better. Or maybe it's because I really notice camera noise and it bugs me.</p>

<p>If you can, try renting or somehow borrowing the rig recommended to you by those guys. Plan a weekend of shooting, shoot with both cameras and lenses (yours and the rental), try your own lenses on the rented camera body, the rented lens on your camera body, and do some comparison tests. If you're lucky, the camera store might let you try that in-store with your memory card so you can take it home and check the results. Then you'll have no more head scratching; you'll know. Better not to waste the money on the wrong gear.</p>

[benjaminm]

<p>If you want a fast zoom lens for both worlds (DX and FX) the best choices are 17-35/2.8 or 16-35/4VR Nikkors. They are excellent standard zooms for DX and wide angle zooms if (when) you switch to FX. I wouldn't recommend the 24-70/2.8 for DX body. </p>