eric_pollinger

Thanks Anthony

On a more serious note Dan, if it were me, I would suggest either the 70-300 as I enjoy getting in close and have found a tele zoom invaluable for the kind of photography I do (lots of people) or the Tokina 28-80 2.8 - I know that your 50 is in that range but this is the lens I have on the camera most of the time and it is great for Landscape. I have the Tokina 12-24 and, though a great lens, I find myself using the ultra wide angle effect less frequently. However, I do enjoy the Nikon 105 Macro lens but really only play with macro a couple of times a year (the lens never comes out otherwise).

For me - Photographing 1) People, 2) Landscape, 3) Other (pretty much in that order) here is the order I would suggest purchasing...

50 1.4

Mid Range Zoom - 2.8

Tele (80-200 2.8) or the 70-300 on a budget

105 Macro

Wide Angle Zoom

300 f4 - this can be a fun lens if you have uses for it

The one thing that I would suggest is that as you start looking into other lens don't forget about the 50mm. I kept that thing locked up for 2 years before I 'rediscovered' it. With its speed you can get away with a lot in low light and it is so light.

Good Luck,

-Eric

Dan,

None of these lenses will meet your needs. You need to factor in general functionality, utility, and practically. The photographers on this forum are trying to help but they are limited by a clear lack of general experience and vision. What you need is the Nikon Telephoto AF-S Nikkor 600mm f/4D ED-IF II. After the 50mm this is clearly the next lens a 'real' photographer should consider.

-Eric

I would think that the 5.6@200mm on the 18-200 VR Nikon would be too slow for most sports. The VR has more to do with keeping the image sharp with respect to camera motion rather than figuring out what is moving and/or should be moving in the image. Also the faster Sigma will do more to blur the background as seems desirable to many folks shooting sports. Of course much of this depends on what sports you are looking to shoot and how close you'll be - the 200 may not be enough.

-Eric

Do you have any experience with Infrared? My wife and I were married on a beach in the middle of the day and the photographer used both IR and Color. In general (IMHO) IR comes into its element during midday and can create some really interesting shots - there are a number of books on IR as well as a few devoted to wedding IR. The Infrared shots for our wedding were shot on an older SLR with a 50mm manual lens and the IR filter. I would never suggest IR as the primary as it can be a bit unforgiving and although interesting I don't think that anyone would like to have their entire album in it.

Good Luck

-Eric

I use a special mixture of gun powder, battery acid, and Plutonium for all my lens cleaning. You know you have the mixture right when, once applied, the lens virtually disappears.

Seriously though, like most on this list I avoid frequent cleaning relying on dusters but when I do clean I apply a fair bit of pressure (after inital duster and fluid removal) to polish the surface and I stick with the commercially available fluids and cloths - figure this treatment is once or twice a year. As for the odd scratch remember that the light which falls on a single grain or pixel is a culmination of many rays entering different locations on the lens so a single scratch or blemish may not be enough to effect picture quality.

-Eric

With the current $200 rebate Kevin has a good suggestion with the Nikon 35-70 2.8 but you shouldn't overlook the Tokina lenses - I have both the 28-80 f/2.8 AT-X 280 and the 12-24 f/4 (digital only) and have been very impressed with the quality. They review as good as their Nikon equivelents at a significant discount. The only warning I would add is that their filter rings are plastic and can become an issue if metal filters are used frequently.

-Eric

In your price range you may want to also consider a better body with a 50mm 1.4 lens - I think that you could do a D200 with the Nikon equivelent lens for 2K. Another way to save money would be to look into the Tokina Pro series lenses - they compete head to head with Canon and Nikon equivelents at 60% the price. For landscapes I often use the Tokina AT-X 124AF Pro DX 12-24mm f/4.0 Zoom Lens which retails for about $450. It is a bit wide for portraits though.

Good luck.

-Eric

Thanks to everyone for such great responses - I am taking all of this advise into account as I plan the trip though it looks like my choice will most likely be Gardiner (well North Yellowstone) for all the reasons Ron and others pointed out. Ron, thanks also for the offer of meeting - I will certainly keep it in mind.

-Eric

I am planning a trip to Yellowstone in February 2006 (Feb 9-13) and

was wondering whether anyone knew of groups or short workshops which

may be available that weekend. I am preparing to go it alone but

with the restrictions on non-guided snowmodiling I worry that I will

be pretty limited by having to go with groups of non-photographers.

Ideal would be finding a small group of photographers who want to

rent a snowcoach + guide.

Any other suggestions would be welcome.

Thanks

-Eric

You should keep Tokina in mind...

Tokina Zoom Super Wide Angle AF 12-24mm f/4 AT-X 124AF Pro DX Autofocus Lens for Nikon Digital Cameras

Tokina Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto AF 28-80mm f/2.8 AT-X 280AF Pro Autofocus Lens for Nikon AF-D

I have both these lenses and have been very happy with them. They compete very effectivly (at least optically) with the approximate Nikon versions but at a significantly lower price point - in fact some sources have the 12-24 Tokina rated higher (search this site).

Of course any discussion of lenses needs to include your needs. If it is for more general purpose photography the 28-80 would serve most of your needs.

Also, keep in mind what you gain from a faster lens - the range of the 28-200 may seem great but at 5.6 and 200mm you may have a tough time getting satifing results - especially handheld.

-Eric

I used to own this lens and would say that it was a good buy - I have a number of great shots with it. It is a somewhat slow lens which makes it difficult to hand hold and don't be fooled by the 'ED' reference - I believe that it has only one element made with ED glass. In fact I don't even think this is a Nikon design - if memory serves it was designed and manufactured by a third party. It also lacks internal focus and the static geometry of higher prices lenses (when you zoom it can nearly double in length). Lots of plastic.

Still, I would easily recommend it given it's price point and performance. I only got rid of it when I got the 80-200 2.8 AFS.

-Eric

Looks great!

I have a few at http://pollinger.smugmug.com/gallery/640590. D2X with 20mm 2.8 - exposures up to 20 secs. I added the moon to one because, well, why pay for Photoshop if you are not going to use it!

-Eric

Get out of it.

This isn't an issue of photography it is one of assertivness - it seems clear from your question that you don't want to do it.

With that said I shoot mainly landscape but I do bring my camera to parties and like some of the shots I get. I took on a wedding last year for a friend charging about $500 for supplies - this took care of film and pro developing (the less you know about event photography the more pictures you take) but other supplies (flash Pro-T arm, bouncer) put me about $300 in the hole not to mention all the time (I really wanted to do well). Like many non-pros the thought of taking on a few weddings to pay for equipment is enticing so I gained a great deal fromt he experience, and I may do more in the future, but this was no easy undertaking. I researched, read books (and more importantly this forum), took test shots matching film and flash, spoke with the couple and tailored some of my work to their desires. I spent 10 hours before and about 30 after on the work. Some pros simply turn over the pictures after but I wanted them to be good so I worked with (scanned, photoshoped, printed) every picture they saw.

Was it worth it? For me - yes. I got some great experience and they were very happy with the work. If I were doing it again I would ask for at least $600 from a friend and $1000 for someone else and would give them a predefined package of prints, negatives or files, and change them a 20% premium over the cost of additional prints that I arranged for them.

If you do it you should think about some upgrades (and get them to pay for them). A frame for your flash (and a high end flash if you don't have one already) is a huge advantage as it gets the flash well above the camera and allows you to flip the flash so that a vertical shot has the flash above the target. Also, you will need to think about bouncing it (white surface) or (better) using something like this (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=32576&is=REG) which takes much of the guesswork out of it. With equipment like this I would worry less about lack of experience - shoot iTTL and check the histogram and you should be OK. As for ASA I wouldn't go beyond 400 indoors and 100 out. If it rains you shoot in the church and reception hall mostly - bring more batteries.

Remember, you have an advantage over a pro in that you know them and will not charge by the hour. Be at their house as they get ready (at the beauty parlor as the women get their hair done), get to the reception a little early and get shots of the tables (using a tripod), the cake, etc. Take tons of candids. You will screw up all over the place but they don't need 200 great shots - they should be happy with one good shot of the couple and 20 - 30 assored other pictures of the day, friends, family.

Good Luck

-Eric<div></div>

I was very disappointed after profiling my monitor and using Ilford and Epson profiles with my Epson 1280 for printing. I was using the exact setup the profiles were designed for (and Epson ink) but the color difference between print and screen was noticible. I took the chance ($40) with getting a custom profile (http://www.cathysprofiles.com/) and it made all the difference. The monitor profile (done with a Colorvision Spyder 2 on LCD) now matches my printed work.

There is also the color space issue. What color space does the D100 conform to and are you converting to it when entering photoshop? Once converted to it how are you managing color when you print? There is always the possibility that you are asking Photoshop to color manage twice which will distort the color. Cathy's site has some strict guidlines on setting up Photoshop color settings to print the target images - even if you don't get a profile from her you might find the site helpful.

-Eric

You might want to check out a different system like http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/visible-dust.shtml. I wouldn't suggest using a bulb (even if you think it is clear) and I would even avoid using compressed air unless it was certified for sensor work. I have yet to try the Visible Dust product but I like the idea.

-Eric

I was at the same conference with John Shaw late last month and when the subject of manufactures came up he gave no preference to Nikon over Canon though his use of Nikon certainly helps their cause - he was able to answer a number of technical questions on the Canon equipment. He did say that he was 100% digital and I got the feeling that his use of slides (3/4 of the displayed pictures) would not continue past the next couple of years. He did imply that there were only 2 choices when selecting an outfit for his type of work - Canon or Nikon - and had a great deal to say about the dismal prospects for a number of other manufactures.

-Eric

The number of views field under details on the photos I'm viewing

seems to be broken - they stuck at 0 for all the pictures I view.

Thanks

-Eric