First lenses for my needs?

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Paul: The 80-200AF-D is certainly slower to focus, though I don't consider it to be that bad unless we're talking about the mk1 push-pull version (which I think wasn't "-D"). My concern was <i>accuracy</i> of focus. I believe it's a known thing that the telecentricity of the lens (the distance to the optical exit pupil) varies substantially as the focus distance changes - or (bearing in mind it's been a while since I had one) at least as the lens is zoomed. This affects the geometric relationship that phase-detect AF system has with the focal plane, meaning that you can't trivially sort it out with AF compensation. At long distances, I found it would focus reliably. At short distances, particularly at 200mm, it would miss focus by quite a long way. The reasoning I presented for this is based on hearsay and rumour, and may be completely incorrect, but I certainly saw the behaviour that this would explain.<br />

<br />

Separately, the lens is softer at short focus distances, but the effect isn't as pronounced as the missed focus might suggest. Others seemed substantially happier with their 80-200s (Paul is not the only happy customer, and I'm not the only unhappy one), so unless there was a lot of sample variation, I can't say for sure what's going on unless people tended to be shooting at long range. Of course, other than the AF-S one, no 80-200mm lens will autofocus at all on a D3300, so I'd really think very carefully before getting one at all! (At least, try before you commit.)<br />

<br />

Please ignore my comment about the tripod foot. The most recent two-ring 80-200 AF-D has a foot on the lens. The push-pull versions don't, meaning that tripod use means cantilevering a 1.2kg lens off the front of (in the case of a D3300) a 410g body, which isn't such a good idea. I'd forgotten that the newer version had a tripod collar.<br />

<br />

I do think the 50mm AF-D, even experimentally, would be a false economy - but I agree with Paul: shoot first and find out what you need, <i>then</i> shop! Also, no lens is perfect, and all our advice is going to be based to an extent on our own priorities.<br />

<br />

Eric: My expectation was that Jeff wants body-building exercise videos, and that these could be shot with the camera in a static postion in a gym, at least for the relatively short snippets being discussed, and likely with the kit lens. I absolutely agree that a budget tripod will be a nightmare the moment you go hiking with it, try to track a moving subject or precisely frame a landscape, use a big lens on it, use it in wind, etc. My argument was that Jeff didn't appear to need a tripod for any of these things - and that a tripod purchased for the intended video purposes could sit in one place, possibly with the lower leg sections not extended, with any centre column down, without anything hitting it, and without the need to adjust framing significantly - and it only has to hold up to 2MP (HDTV) images. A table would almost suffice (indeed, a "pod" bean-bag on a chair would almost suffice). I'm talking about the best case for a tripod.<br />

<br />

If it's going to be given a more strenuous test, certainly spending more money on a better tripod will help (although only a ridiculous amount of money will fix <i>everything</i>). If you're trying to do smooth pan/tilt tracking of a video subject, for example, you need a more expensive (and possibly video-friendly, meaning resistant to twisting) tripod and probably a fluid head. Jeff can go and check the prices for a Sachtler, although I recommend sitting down first. My argument was just that if the camera is static, you might not need this, and that it's easy to spend $80 instead of $40 and realise you've still not got something that'll do what you need. But caveat emptor, and the best thing to do is to go into a photography store (ideally not a department store) and make up your own mind what you need.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>Tripods come in three varieties -- cheap and nearly useless, better and moderately prices -- and the Really Right Stuff, which is a tripod you will leave to your favorite child in your will!</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>a tripod purchased for the intended video purposes could sit in one place, possibly with the lower leg sections not extended, with any centre column down, without anything hitting it, and without the need to adjust framing significantly - and it only has to hold up to 2MP (HDTV) images. A table would almost suffice (indeed, a "pod" bean-bag on a chair would almost suffice). I'm talking about the best case for a tripod.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>well, sure, if you're just using a tripod for a static indoor location, you don't need a carbon fiber Gitzo. However, i would advocate for not getting the cheapest possible 'pod, and also upgrading to a decent pan/tilt head if the focus is video, not stills. The thing with the el cheapos is they tend to denigrate each time you use them. It's a bit of an assumption to say that the head will never need to be adjusted for different angles, etc., or that you'll never have to lug it from one location to the next. if you underspend on this, you could easily fall into one of Thom's scenarios, where instead of $40, you're spending closer to $200, because you really needed a $150 leg + head kit, but instead you bought something inadequate, and now you realized you have to spend more to get something which isnt completely mediocre. I'm not going to recommend a specific model/brand, because there are so many at various price ranges, but a good rule of thumb is to figure out what features are the most important for your application, and go for one which has those features. Many of the tripod kits with included heads' weak point is the head itself -- it's rare, for instance, for a kit ballhead to have a separate panning lock. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I think Eric and I are having a raging agreement, with slightly different starting premises. I should have been clearer:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Indoor, well lit (florescent) photos and <strong>video </strong>of exercises from a tripod</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I interpreted that as Jeff wanting a tripod mostly for setting up the camera in one place, in a gym - or, at worst, at a client's house. It won't have to deal with wind, nobody will kick it, it's for a small lens, setting it up won't be hugely rushed, it won't need to be carried very far, and I'm assuming the camera is locked in place while the videoing happens so panning isn't an issue. Since it's primarily for documentary purposes, even the framing doesn't matter much. Yes, even with gentle use, tripods wear out - and a cheap one will break sooner. But since Jeff is on a budget and wants to spend money on lenses, I claim that even a very cheap one will probably do this well enough for this stated purpose (so long as it's not a design intended only for a compact camera or designed for portability rather than stability, like my ZipShot).</p>

<p>If Jeff wants a tripod for general use, does need to move it around, wants to pan with video, etc. (e.g. if Jeff wants to video exercise on a beach) then Eric is absolutely right, and the cheapest possible tripod won't do, and is a false economy. With lenses, I suggested hiring a more capable/expensive lens to find out what was needed - for an extreme example, hiring a 120-300mm f/2.8 for a bodybuilding show and finding you only needed f/5.6 and focal lengths below 200mm would mean you probably don't need more than a 55-200mm for your purpose, and tell you whether it's worth a 55-300mm or 70-200mm f/2.8 instead. The disadvantage with tripods is that, unlike lenses, you can't really hire a $1000 tripod and then "stop it down" to make it behave like a $100 one and find out if that's enough. You can pay for features you know you want, but other than trying it in a store and hoping for the best, the only way to balance "enought stability" against cost in a tripod is to buy it - hence Thom Hogan's advice just to go for an overkill support solution from the start. Under the circumstances, that didn't sound like an option, so I suggested getting something minimally costly until Jeff can work out what, if anything, else he needs.</p>

<p>If Jeff <em>already</em> knows what he needs from a tripod - or if it's blatantly more than I suggested - I'd certainly spend more. Wobbly videos won't look professional, and a tripod that can't actually hold the camera where you want it isn't useful. Don't believe someone in a department store if they tell you that a $40 is rock solid - even a $1000 tripod will wobble if tested hard enough. I just didn't want to suggest Jeff spend half his budget on what may be much more or much less tripod than he actually needs - it's up to Jeff to get the experience to work out what his demands are, and only then make a more expensive choice. However it appears he needs <em>something</em> to be getting on with. My "cheapest possible" advice was based on a lot of assumptions about such a tripod still being useful, and that's not to say Jeff should cut so many corners he ends up with something only useful as a paperweight - just that if you might find out retrospectively thatyou bought a paperweight, it's best to have bought a cheap one.</p>

<p>I appreciate we've gone a bit off the topic of lenses (let alone Nikon ones) - I hope this discussion is still useful for Jeff to approption his budget, though.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Ooh. I made up a word. "Apportion", sorry. :-)</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>hence Thom Hogan's advice just to go for an overkill support solution from the start.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i think it's important to contextualize Thom's remarks. He's coming from a place of being a workshop teacher, primarily for landscape and wildlife photographers, who have slightly different needs than someone like the OP, who isnt shooting long lenses, and doesnt need to make archival-quality prints. Thus, a $700 tripod set would be complete overkill, and not what i'd recommend here.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Wobbly videos won't look professional</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This gets right to the crux of the point i was trying to make. It's better to realize this beforehand, rather than after the fact. Throwing an extra $100 at a more capable support system shouldn't completely blow the OP's budget, and could save $$ down the line by not having to repurchase a better tripod after finding out the el cheapo plastico results in the wobblies. Even for indoor exercise videos, i would imagine there would be some repositioning of angles, etc. <br>

<br>

It's a bit daft to say, "ok, get a tripod that barely works and move it as little as possible, because it may prove to be inadequate if pressed into rigorous duty." That's a bit different than saying, the shooting requirements may not be the most challenging (at first), but get a tripod that will at least handle basic video set-ups and perhaps a bit of transport from location A to location B, which will also hold up to more extensive use if and when that's necessary. There are plenty of inexpensive leg sets which will satisfy these basic requirements, but underspending on a head means you might get something which doesnt really lock securely, and may even break if you try to tighten it to make it more stable. That actually happened to me when i had one of the generic bottom-barrel pods with a plastic pan/tilt head which came with my first DSLR kit. After using it once or twice, i realized it wasnt good enough, and went out and bought a manfrotto 190 and a metal ballhead. If Jeff is serious about making pro-quality videos, he'll probably want something at least one step up from bottom of the line. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>While I doubt we're still helping Jeff at this point, I think I should respond in case anyone comes back to the thread. :-)<br />

<br />

I guess Eric had a bad experience with a very cheap tripod. My very cheap tripod, while a pain to use and mildly bent, is still fine - it was my Manfrotto (equivalent currently $75) that couldn't hold my lens, was unstable, and broke, hence my differing advice.<br />

<br />

A Manfrotto 190, in its cheapest (twist lock) form, is $179, plus a head. That's a substantial chunk out of the total lens budget. And while the 190 is a perfectly good tripod (designed for light-weight travel photography), it's not really a video tripod: tripods intended for extensive video work are designed to resist twisting so that you can pan the camera without causing vibrations, and I'd doubt a 190 would excel at this. That's not to say that you may not find something else in the same price bracket that's better (if probably less portable than the 190), but if you want smooth panning in video you're probably after a fluid head for another $100. That's not a trivial total to spend before you know what you actually need, and whether even this solution will be "enough".<br />

<br />

I've been assuming - and this is the crux of my argument - that the video work involves putting the D3300 with, perhaps, the 18-55mm kit lens on it, pointing the camera straight at what you want to video, and leaving it alone. I'm assuming no huge rush in the set-up, that it's not going to be moving around much, it's going to be used mostly indoors (not in the wind), and that framing what you want to shoot is going to be reasonably easy. If camera shake is a problem under those circumstances, it's because the floor is vibrating as you exercise, and no tripod will help you. No tripod will wobble if nothing is causing it to vibrate, otherwise it would be a perpetual motion machine. For video, the mirror box and shutter stay open, and won't cause vibration (after the first few seconds).<br />

<br />

Any tripod designed for a DSLR will hold a D3300 and kit lens, especially on the level and basically pointing straight ahead. You could achieve this with a work top and wedging some papers under the camera to point it the right way, but any tripod is easier. Even a VTP-787 or ZipShot would probably hold that much weight, and they're really not designed for DSLRs; I've taken a photo with a D800 and a 14-24 on my ZipShot (with the camera strap around my neck in case it collapsed) and, with delicate technique, it easily beat what I'd do hand-holding. Adorama sell a 50" Vivitar for $7.99 that's much more solid than the ZipShot (which is effectively a few metal straws tied together with thin bungie rope). I'd expect it to cope just fine with the requirements as I understand them (but I'd probably stretch to $9.95 for the Takama just in case). You could break these twenty times and still have change compared with a 190-based solution.<br />

<br />

But. <i>If</i> you're going to be carrying it around and need to set it up quickly or want it to be robust; <i>if</i> you want to use it outdoors where wind affects stability; <i>if</i> you want to change framing repeatedly (as for general photography) and can't wait for the tripod to settle down after; <i>if</i> you want to support a heavier or more cantilevered lens; <i>if</i> you want to shoot smooth panning video; in general, <i>if</i> you want a decent tripod that won't frustrate you, there's no way a $10 tripod is going to cut it, and that'll just have been a waste of $10. But as you place more demands on the tripod, you'll find every tripod is compromised at some point. Pay your money and take your choice. Eric seems to be assuming that the realistic demands on this tripod (and I'm not even clear whether Jeff already has one!) are somewhat higher than my own assumptions; if he's correct, so is his recommendation.<br />

<br />

My advice to anyone in Jeff's situation is to work out what you need before spending a lot of money (for whatever your definition of "a lot of money" might be), and don't buy anything expensive "just in case" - because it still may not be enough for what you actually need. Any camera and lens will take good photos of a low-contrast scene in good light at a small aperture. Only very expensive cameras and lenses can do the same thing in challenging conditions (high dynamic range, high ISO or with the lens wide open). Likewise, any cheap tripod will handle easy conditions (which I believe, maybe erroneously, Jeff has), but you can spend a lot handling difficult conditions. Without knowing more, it's hard to tell where on the spectrum between my advice and Eric's anyone should be falling. And even then, tripod ergonomics are sufficiently personal that the final decision can only come down to the buyer.</p>