Horses and Dogs and Travel, Oh My!

[justine_k]

<p>Hello all!<br />Nervous to be making my first post after what seems like years of research and non-decision making. A little background about myself that will be applicable to my post: I grew up riding horses VERY VERY competitively, mostly in 3-day eventing, but also dressage and show jumping. I know the ins and outs of horse shows, horses, and horse-show people (but blah-find western pleasure and confirmation shows to be SNOOOOZES).</p>

<p>I grew up (through mid and high school) photographing various horse shows for "fun"--either just going out on my downtime at big shows and seeing what I could get or helping out photographing small horse shows pro bono, until about 6 years ago, with my parent's rockin' Nikon film SLR (can't for the life of me remember the model and my father traded it in years ago--boooo--, but it had to have been circa 1980's). I might be so-so at photographing landscapes and people, but definitely had a knack for getting great photographs of horses with their masters--whether it be around the barn or on the cross country field. About 3 years ago I got out of horses entirely when my old competition horse retired to greener pastures.</p>

<p>And I want to get back into horses...and photographing them...in a BIG way; around the barn or at competitions. I've substituted my horse photos with primarily travel photography, which I've been doing with the D40 and the blah kit 18-55mm and 55-200mm. I do like the camera and have gotten some decent pictures, but the camera is sooooooooo slow and so are the lenses. I've also been getting into trying to do dog photography as my 3-year horse replacement has been being involved in dog sport and dog rescue (always need good photos to show the rescue dogs available for adoption!).</p>

<p>An added twist to those 2 interests is also pretty extensive travel photography (I have no delusions that I will ever sell a print doing that, but have an obsession with getting good photographs for ME. I like to find a "theme" wherever I go to photograph). I give you an example, I've been to Croatia, Bosnia, Israel, St. Maarten, St. Thomas, and the Bahamas this year alone. So I definitely need something that will work for that as well.</p>

<p>Considering my 3 interests (possibly being an "official" horse and dog show photographer while making sure my travel photography does not get neglected), what to start with?!</p>

<p>My budget is...well...probably not the most well thought out. I've got a few thousand I could probably stretch right now between body and lenses. My thoughts:</p>

<p>- D90 or D300 or D300s (D700 is just too much $$ for that extra speed and low light photography right now...I need to be practical). Obviously the D300/s is faster...but other than that I'm not finding too many qualities to push them over the top. Not sure the D300s would be worth it at all (I can find a refurb D300 for about $1100). I am crazy for thinking I can photograph horse shows with a D90? The body is one place money savings might be good.</p>

<p>- 18-200mm Nikon (ack! I know it's not "the best" lens. But one of my HUGE concerns is having a "walk around" lens when I travel. Two lenses just don't work for me, as much as I want them too. It never fails that I need to do a lens change in the middle of the barrio in some crazy city or during some dust storm. I just don't want to do it anymore! But any other suggestions other than that would be stellar for this category and give me a range and cost similar or less than this? One negative here is that if I ever go to full-frame this DX lens is a waste. But it just doesn't seem like Nikon put a lot of effort in this category.</p>

<p>- Something like 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 (or 35mm?). I thought this could be a good "around the farm" lens, and well as something I could get some kickin' photos of in museums, churches, etc where I can't use a flash and they are dark as all heck. Any other/different suggestions?</p>

<p>- Some kind of wide to ultra-wide lens.</p>

<p>- AND...dun....something like the oh-so-expensive 70-200mm f/2.8. Now this is one that hurts the pocketbook. ANY other suggestions would be great with this one. I've got "I wanna get it!" syndrome," and am having a hard time convincing myself there would be something better for me. Although I do worry about reach with it.</p>

<p>- The only thing that concerns me a little about my above thoughts is that there obviously overlap between the 18-200mm and everything else. Seems like a waste of $, but also don't see how to configure things another way. One thing I will say is that the 18-200mm would be the only DX lens I'd likely consider. I know it can make things tricky with the crop factor, but I do see myself getting a full-frame down the road at some point, so I don't want to invest too much into DX lenses.</p>

<p>- Am I on the right track?? Or do you all have a totally different direction for me to be going?</p>

<p>Oh MY! I was really wordy! I'm sorry for that and thanks for sticking with me! :-)</p>

<p> </p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>DX for the reach when doing events, and better AF system for your moving subjects in sometimes marginal light. That's the D300. The 70-200/2.8 is the lens for the jobs you describe, and perhaps a 30/1.4 (like Sigma's) or the 35/1.8 (Nikon's) for low-light work in stables and arenas when you're up close. The 70-200 will serve you well for FX work down the road, when that happens.<br /><br />The 18-200 (or the 16-85) is indeed a pretty good one-lens travel solution.</p>

[justine_k]

<p>Thanks for the suggestions! Any pros/cons with the 18-200 vs. the 16-85? I generally have the 18-55 lens on the camera, but there are definitely times when I'd like the longer zoom but can't change. 200mm may or may not be overkill...so the 85 does sound like a good compromise! And you think the D300 is definitely the way to go? Will I horribly miss the "Auto" feature when I'm messing around in the backyard and feeling terribly lazy (I do do a lot of manual right now, but also whip it out at bbqs and just shoot in Auto). </p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>You can always throw the D300 into "P" (Program Auto) mode, and have it do you a fine job under most circumstances. If you're serious about shooting critter show/action stuff, you'll very quickly get past the "scene" automation modes of the entry-level bodies anyway. My guess is that you'll spend almost all of your time in Aperture Priority mode anyway.<br /><br />As for the 18-200 vs. the 16-85 ... it's a very personal thing. The extra 2mm on the wide end is a gotta-have for some people, while the extra reach out towards 200mm is important to others. I have the 18-200, and it comes out for lightweight travel mode sometimes, and has served me quite well. But I'm pretty fussy these days, and head out more often with some more specific tools for specific tasks.</p>

[kiatchun_sin]

<p>I recommend a D300S. And the lens you should consider Tamron 17-50 VC f2.8. This is the focus range you'll be using most often. The Nikkor 17-55 weight is not very desirable for traveling.</p>

<p>Or a D90 with Tamron above, or wide-angle 10-24 f4 (or Tokina), 35 f1.8 and 55-200VR.</p>

 

[Wayne Melia]

<p>The 70-200 for reach is obviously a big budget item/obstacle. Here you might find substantial savings by going non-nikon, and used. I use a 70-200 f2.8 Sigma (I believe Tamron also makes one), and have been pleased (although I have not used a Nikon). VR is not featured on the lens, but I do use a tripod where possible, and a monopod where more flexibility is required (ie rodeo). If you wish to change up to the latest and greatest at a future date, you will likely find that resale value will not be greatly, if at all, less than you will currently pay; but it is quite likely that you will enjoy the sweet spot of price/performance for a long time.<br>

On the fast prime issue, the 50mm f1.8 is practicly a no-brainer to get for the price, unless it's too long on DX, then defer to Matt.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I worry that a 50/1.8 will indeed be too long for horse work in close quarters, which is why I mentioned that 30/1.4.</p>

[ArthurRichardson]

<p>Justine,</p>

<p>You do see yourself getting into fullframe sometime. If that is the case, why not sooner rather than later. As you may have noticed there is a successor of the D700 to be expected maybe later this year. That might just drop D700 prices to a level affordable to you. I imagine that animals don't react too well on flashlights, so low light capabilities might just do the trick for you. Low light capabilities are totally compensated by slow lenses though, so take a look at the big picture here.</p>

<p>I got a D700 and used it successfully at a Pow Wow indoors a year ago. I just stepped up from film photography and was absolutely knocked out of my socks by the results. Matt's suggestion to get a fast wide angle is definately worth considering, since inside and at close quarters flash will not be too helpful.</p>

<p>Anyway, just another point of view in the endless DX vs FX discussion. Bare in mind that for travel photography the D300/700 camera's can be quite heavy, especially with that 70-200 you are going to get.</p>

 

[mariosforsos]

<p>Personally I'd suggest getting the used/refurb D300 (WITH the grip - you'll thank me later, trust me on that one!) and throw all the remaining money in lenses. Which ones?</p>

<p>Well, for starters, I'd forget the 18-200, even the VR version. It may SOUND great, but it really isn't. The 16-85 VR is immensly superior, especially as a travel walkaround lens. Couple that with a Nikkor 70-200 VRI (which should be readily available used now the VRII is out) and you're pretty much set. To all this I would add the following low(er) cost items: an SB600 flash and a bean-bag (for shooting from the stands or from the preparation area bars and resting that 70-200 for extra stability).</p>

<p>I would not, at this stage, invest on prime lenses as both horses and dogs tend to cover a lot of ground very, very fast and you don't want to have to switch lenses all the time - especially in the summer when dust and dirt fly around all over the place in both kind of events.</p>

<p>I hope this helps....</p>

[justine_k]

<p>Thanks for all the suggestions! I'll have to consider the 18-200 vs. the 16-85. I need to really think about what direction the "extra" will benefit me with travel/misc photography. </p>

<p>To answer a few questions..<br>

Why not go full frame now? Would love to, and it seems very practical on one hand. On the other, the D700 is almost 1K more than the D300s, and my budget is certainly not limitless. I need to think about what lens/camera combo I'm going to get the most out of in the time being. Granted, the D700 replacement could come out any day now, but I also don't see waiting around for a replacement that may or may not be right around the corner.</p>

<p>Does anyone else have experience with the Sigma or Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8? I certainly would like to to have the great Nikon, but at this point the significant price difference with between the lenses is something to consider. The reviews are fairly favorable for the Sigma and Tamoron (obviously they have their limitations). Getting a used VR is also an interesting proposition, although from what I can find online they are still going for 1500-1900. </p>

<p>Also, what are people's opinions of the 80-200mm vs. the Sigma and Tamron? The price point for that lens is around the same (little more?) than the third-party and seems to be a pretty tried and true lens. Granted, no VR...but since I'm just "remerging" into this kind of photography, would it be a worthwhile savings while building up my kit?</p>

<p>I'll state that NO "pro type" lens like the 70-200, 80-200, etc would go traveling with me to most locales. I know that sounds totally ridiculous since I'd get much better pictures, but I really do travel down some dark alleyways by myself sometimes (much to my husband's dismay) and go to some fairly iffy places. I don't need to be attracting too much attention with overly "expensive" looking camera gear. Everyone has a DSLR it seems these days, but certain stuff just sticks out. That's definitely one of the lenses that does! And the shady folk do know the difference! <br>

Decisions, decisions!!! Unfortunately I think posting here has muddied the waters for me even more. It's hard to narrow things down!</p>

[john_cummins1]

<p>As Someone who shoots Eventing and dressage all the time I have to say that you need something that will give you reach into the arena from one end to the other. And since you don't get to go in there with the subject.A 18-200mm doesn't have the legs. Most of the Pro's use a 100-300mm 4 for client work, and 85mm. 1.4 for closeup stuff. I tend to take the middle road with a 70-300mm VR, and a Sigma 17-70 on two bodies.Both reletively inexpensive but they get the job done.</p>

[justine_k]

<p>Alright! I think I've settled on a lens combo. I reallllllllllllllllly reaaaaaallly wanted the 18-299mm. But people here are trying to convice me I don't need it and that the 16-85mm will suffice for my travel needs. So we'll see. I'm nevervous. Part of me just wants to get even even though I've got a hunking thing coming too. But, I'm going to give it a try, and then have the urge to shoot someone if I don't like it :). </p>

<p>I'll go cheap-tastic on the zoom and try the 70-300mm zoom (VR version) for my frist go round. I know it's not fast and isn't the best overall glass, but I think it will be a good stepping stone that I can keep if go FF. </p>

<p>Also will be picking up one of the 35mmf/1.8 for DX. I didn't want to get another DX lens, but you can't beat the price and it look like a fun one that will help me take picture in low light.</p>

<p>I love like the looks of the 12-24 Tonika or the 10-20 Sigma. Opinions those? I do like landscapes and some intereior shots that I need it. </p>

<p>Thanks for any more input!</p><div></div>

[justine_k]

<p>And here's a B & W shot of a bomb chuch in Bosnia in my husband's home town.</p>

[justine_k]

<p>Oops try again.</p><div></div>

[justine_k]

<p>Sorry, I have no idea how to post more than on picture at a time! I would have liked a lens here that gave me better bokeh.</p><div></div>