hayward

<p>I have owned the 85 f/1.8 and 85 f/1.4 in the "D" versions and have owned the 105mm DC for many years. I have also owned the 70-200mm VR (version I) since it came out. I wasn't pleased with either of the 85mm lenses, though the f/1.4 was the better of the two. The 105mm DC is my favorite all time Nikon lens (and I have owned most of them except a few exotics.) I probably use the 70-200mm more than any other lens, though, because it is so versatile. If I had to pick just one, it would have to be the 70-200.</p>

<p>I shot a wedding this year using a D300s and a D7000 with the 35mm f/1.8 DX on the D300s and the 105mm, 70-200mm, and 16-85 (with flash) switched out on the D7000. My favorite shots were with the 105mm, but I got many that I liked with the 70-200mm. </p>

<p>I have owned the non VR version of the Nikon 105mm and currently own the Tamron 90mm (as well as 60mm and 200mm Nikon "micro" lenses.) </p>

<p>In my opinion, the Tamron 90mm is better optically than the Nikon 105mm. It is the only non-Nikon lens I have ever kept. The Nikon is good, though, but being that the Tamron is better and cheaper, I would go Tamron.</p>

<p>As others have suggested, almost every macro lens is good. You can find the Phoenix/Vivitar 100mm pretty cheaply and I hear good things about that one, too. One thing I would avoid: zooms that have a "macro" label. That is a marketing ploy and at best means the zoom focuses relatively closely. You want a fixed focal length macro for best results.</p>

<p>I owned the Sigma 50-500mm (nicknamed "Bigma") for years. It isn't bad, but suffers by comparison to the Nikon 300mm f/2.8 AFS and 1.7 X TC I use now for that length. You can find a used Bigma for $500. That is about what I sold mine for.</p>

<p>I also own the Nikon 80-400mm, which a) doesn't reach 500mm and isn't that much better than the Sigma at 400mm, if it is at all. With the new AFS version released, you can find a used one for $600 or so.</p>

<p>A used Nikon 300mm f/4 (not AFS) and a 1.4 X TC from Tamron would get you there, too, and do so at around $500. Autofocus will be slow, though.</p>

 

<p>If I were you, I would want a quality 200mm f/2.8. You can find a used 80-200mm f2.8 for an affordable price or the 180mm f/2.8 for less. I have the 80-4000mm, too, and would sell it to fund an 80-200mm f/2.8 if I didn't already have one. The 80-400mm is worth keeping for the 400mm end, but you probably already know its best performance is under 300mm.<br>

<br /> I think the 35mm and 50mm are keepers -- cheap light, sharp, and fast. There is no downside to keeping them and you won't get much selling them.<br>

<br /> I don't have the 18-105mm, but the 16-85mm is the only slow zoom I have. It's very good. With the high ISO capacity of the D7000, it gets the job done well inside or out.<br>

<br /> I heard good things about the Tokina 11-16mm. If it works for you, there is no reason to swap it for a Nikon.<br>

<br /> The Tamron 90mm macro is a great piece of glass. I pair mine with a Tamron SP 1.4X TC and love the macro results. It is not a bad portrait lens and low light telephoto either.</p>

<p>Note: Didn't read through until I posted. Good choices.</p>

<p>I bought a refurbished Nikon D600 from Cameta before the D610 was released. It was broken when I pulled it out of the box. the lever that stopped down the lens didn't engage and it shot everything wide open. Cameta eventually took it back, but when I originally called, the clerk was rude and condescending.<br>

I have shot for 15 years with a D2, D100, D70, D700, D200, D300s and D7000. It wasn't user error. They sent me a bad camera that no one checked.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have a Manfrotto 681B monopod. $60 and worth every penny.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Me too. Five years old and used in all weather and occasionally salt water. Functionally like new and pretty much looks like it, too.</p>

<p>I have the 300mm f/2.8 AF-S. I shoot mostly sports (some indoors), people, and wildlife and have never felt the need for VR. I use a monopod.</p>

<p>I have owned both. The Nikon has better optics, but the extra 100mm on the Sigma is nice. Image quality at 50mm on the Sigma is atrocious. I pretty much only used it in the 300mm-500mm range. Neither of the lenses focuses very quickly, although the Sigma is quieter. The Sigma is also harder to see through at f/6.3 and gives you less shooting time as dusk comes on. I bought the Sigma for the extra range and HSM motor and after having it for years, I was never happy with the optics.</p>

<p>If I recall correctly, Ken Rockwell was citing the 70-200mm f/4 as an autofocus speed demon, not the f4-5.6 version. The 300mm plus TC is the better optical choice with the faster focus. The downside is that you can only use 300mm or 420mm or 510mm depending on the TC. That's okay for birds, but let's say you come across a snake in your path, like I did yesterday, then you may want the zoom. There is always a trade off.</p>

<p>I use both the 80-400mm and a 300mm f/2.8 AF-S plus teleconverters, depending on what I'm shooting. I also like the 70-200mm f/2.8, but it is too short for most wildlife.</p>

<p>I wonder if some of this is a matter or perception. The D700 matrix metering provides almost perfect results for me. Images require very little contrast adjustment in PS. My brief experience with the D90, however, led me to conclude that it overexposed by one to two stops. It would be useful for the OP to post a sample D90 shot or two and a sample D700 shot.</p>

<p>I haven't used the 150-500mm, but I would expect similar performance to the Sigma 50-500mm, which I have used extensively. I ultimately sold it in favor of a Nikon 80-400mm, which I find to be sharper. I have also used the 300mm f/4 extensively and it is extremely sharp - much more so than the my Sigma at 300mm on up. While the focusing motor is indeed faster, the f/6.3 took away some of the advantages. OS is nice, but I rarely use it on any of my shots (mostly moving things) so I wouldn't base my decision on that.</p>

<p>I tend to think you need a good long zoom and a long prime. I cover it with the aforementioned 80-400mm and a 300mm f/2.8 AF-S plus teleconverters as needed.</p>

<p>I had a D50 and shot it alongside a D200 for a while. I currently have the D200 plus a D700 and a D300s on the way. I bought a D90 and returned it. Mine overexposed by almost two stops. Your luck may be different. Assuming it does, you will see a big difference in image sharpness vs. your D50 (which is a highly under-rated camera, IMHO), plus more crop room, and a significantly larger LCD.</p>

<p>Your D50 was introduced almost five years ago and continues to take very good photos. Your D90, should you buy one, will most likely take good photos for you until 2015. While a D90 replacement may be coming, it will be coming at a higher price than the D90. Nikon introduces a new model at a relatively high price and it drops 20% or so over the the life-cycle of the camera, dropping even more in price when the replacement does come.</p>

<p>So, to me the questions are: 1) do you need/want the D90 advantages over the D50? and 2) do you value the $250 or so more I would think the D90's replacement would cost vs. the additional improvements, whatever they will be?</p>

<p>Nice start, Mr. Berney. Regarding VR -- it takes a little longer for the camera to focus when using VR. This is a detriment when shooting action, and doesn't really help with image quality since you're at a high shutter speed anyway. Regarding the fence -- If you shoot from the other side of the chain link fence with your lens hood up against it, you can probably eliminate it entirely. Finally, regarding the quality of play -- shooting warm ups really helps with that. Even with very good players, though, there aren't always that many action shots aside from the pitcher and batters. Some of them happen to fast or are too unexpected to catch, but some of them you can anticipate. Good luck.</p>

<p>Great shots, Mr. Merrill. </p>

<p>Quick tips:</p>

 

<ol>

<li>Take lots of shots of warmups - you'll be able to catch every kids "making" a play, which doesn't always happen in the game.</li>

<li>Rotate around to different positions during the game. There is no one spot that will be best for shooting all the players.</li>

<li>Don't forget the non-action shots, coaching, kids high-fiving each other, what is happening on the bench, the team mom, etc.</li>

<li>Use your 70-300mm most of the time, VR off, shutter speed of 1/500 or more and keep firing away.</li>

<li>Pay attention to the exposure on the faces -- hats can create too much shadow sometimes.</li>

<li>Don't bother with a tripod. A monopod is not a bad idea, but you don't need it.</li>

</ol>

<p>The D700 is a superb camera. I much prefer it to my D200, but still use the D200 when I need the extra reach. Personally, I like having one Dx and one FX body. </p>

<p>Scam.</p>

<p>Everyone has different standards, but for me ISO 1600 on the D700 looks good in almost any situation. I can live with 3200 where I need it (generally sports at night or in poorly lit gyms) and i only use 6400 where it is the only way to get a shot.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Tatyana, I am afraid that you are merely adding more confusion to the answers. I think I might understand what you are referring to, but it is much easier to tell people to set the aperture to the minimum f22.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is even easier to say: "set it to the orange number."</p>

<blockquote></blockquote>

<p>I had the 10.5mm for a while. It was fun sometimes and pretty sharp.</p>

<p>The correction programs come with their own flaws. The image quality around the edges is bad, or at least was with Nikon NX.</p>

<p>Somebody had to say it: 'Get a MacBook."</p>

<p>I've had 12-15 PCs at home and work over the last 20 years and my wife got me a MacBook about a year ago. It never crashes, everything works when you plug it in, and it downloads and processes photos dramatically faster. My old PC crashed all the time when trying to upload photos from my camera. I've also lost three computers to viruses in the last three years (my kids on facebook and youtube...), even with protection programs. Not a problem with Mac.</p>

<p>The downside is the cost and the fact that there are still a couple of websites and applications that require a PC.</p>

<p>It's not worth the effort, IMHO. Sometimes you can get close enough to put your lens through the fence or right next to it and with a far enough away subject and the right aperture, it will work, but mostly I find it more fruitful to find another position.</p>

<p>I have a D700 and just got a D90. I was very disappointed. I wasn't prepared for the reality of the small viewfinder, tinny shutter sound, slow frame rate, and overall dumbing down of the controls and menus. In addition, my D90 overexposed by about 1.3 stops. The D700 was always spot on.</p>

<p>I've only shot surfers casually, but it took a 300mm or 400mm lens on my D700 and even then I could have used more reach. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Photographing birds on flight is hard.</p>

<p>Pelicans are relatively easy. Depending on where you live, they may be common, they are large, relatively slow and predictable, and let you get relatively close. Raptors are harder. You may not see them very often and when you do, it is often unexpected and they fly fast. You often get them against a brightly lit sky, which an fool your camera's meter. Mostly, you can't get close -- certainly not as close as a pelican.</p>

<p>I have used the Sigma 50-500mm extensively, as well as the Nikon 300mm f/4 plus 1.4x & 2x teleconverter, and the 300mm f/2.8 plus 1.7x TC. The Sigma is okay to get you started. The 300mm Nikon rig is better, and the 300mm f/2.8 is best. I also have the Nikon 80-400mm but haven't used it enough yet to draw any conclusions. I suspect a Nikon 500mm or 600mm is even better, but I haven't gotten there yet. The tradeoff for the 300mm f/2.8 is size and weight. Since you are renting, I would try all your options. </p>

<p>Realistically, you are not going to get good eagle photos with a 70-300mm lens with any camera body, unless they are in a zoo. Since budget is a concern (as is the case wit most of us) I'd try the auction site and some of the more reputable used sellers. Depending on the model, you may pay 30% to 60% of the cost of a new lens. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Extension tubes, supplementary lenses, and teleconverters are ways to increase magnification. Extension tubes are hollow tubes that have the effect of moving the lens further away from the camera. Since there are no optics involved, it doesn't decrease image quality. The problem is that you may lose electronic connectivity and lose metering. Your camera is essentially manual at that point. Nikon doesn't make any extension tubes with electrical contacts. Kenko does, but it may not work with the D300. I'm not sure. You can also find bellows equipment that works the same at tubes (but no electronics.)</p>

<p>Supplementary lenses go on the front of your lens (like a filter) and add magnification. It also decreases image quality. I don't have that Sigma lens, but may in that range don't take front filters due to the rounded front element. </p>

<p>Teleconverters go on the back and don't work with all lenses. Usually a wide-angle lens like the Sigma has a rear element that protrudes, so it make not work.</p>

<p>Honestly, I would buy a 1:1 macro lens and forget about using the Sigma 10-20mm unless you want ot make it a project for some reason.</p>

<p>300mm isn't going to be close enough for eagles. You might find a used Nikon 300mm f/4 and a 1.4x teleconverter (420mm equivalent) for under $500 that will do the job. You might find a used Sigma 50-500mm HSM for under $500. Good luck.</p>