hayward

<p>Martin - You've put your finger on the the most significant obstacle to wildlife and bird photography. The physical limitations of 300mm and longer lenses increase cost, size, and weight and decrease light gathering ability (i.e., max apertures.) There really isn't a way to get sharp optics, in a lightweight affordable package that reaches 400mm or 500mm.</p>

<p>You have to decide which of the compromises is best for you. You ultimately have to face a question of how to manage the lens from a tripod or monopod standpoint. If you are shooting at 400mm or 500mm, you'll generally need some support under the lens.</p>

<p>Teleconverters work well on prime lenses, but not on zooms. The image quality degrades quickly and the maximum aperture is increased to the point that autofocus may or may not work (above f/5.6). Plus, it gets hard to see through the lens. The typical teleconverter application is with the 300mm f/4 and a 1.4X. I use a 300mm f/2.8 with a 1.7X with good results, as well. You can find a used 300mm f/4 without AF-S for $500-$600 US plus another $300 US (might be more, haven't checked lately) for the TC. Autofocus will be slow, though.</p>

<p>I own the 80-400mm VR lens and would put the Nikon 70-300mm VR a little ahead of it in optical quality, but it's close. I would put the 70-300mm a good bit ahead of it in autofocus speed. I formerly owned the Sigma 50-500mm and thought it was serviceable, but not as good as a 300mm prime plus TC. Sigma has some newer models that reach 400mm and 500mm at relatively affordable prices that get good reviews, but I have no personal experience with them. Tamron also makes a 200-500mm that I hear good things about.</p>

<p>I have a the 70-300mm AF-S VR at present a well as the 300mm f/2.8 AF-S. At one time, I owned the 300mm f/4 before AF-S was added.<br>

 <br>

Generally speaking, 300mm is too short for birds. I think you really need at least 400mm and preferably 500mm. I also think that there is no substitute for a large aperture. VR can be useful, but it doesn't do anything to get you a faster shutter speed to stop action or counteract motion blue from a subject.<br>

 <br>

The 70-300mm is a fine lens with very good optics, but it isn't as good as the 300mm f/4 or f/2.8. It's not as good as either with a teleconverter.</p>

<p>Michael answered the question better than I could, but as a note: I don't think any 70-300mm zoom is an ideal macro choice.<br>

I'd add a teleconverter or Kenko extension tube to your 105mm as high quality/low cost options first. If you were adding equipment from there, the long discontinued, now hard to find, and expensive Nikon 70-180mm is the only true macro zoom I know of. The Nikon 200mm micro is stellar. The Tamron version has a good reputation, though I haven't used it. I think Sigma makes one, too.</p>

<p>The D40 and the D3000 are fine cameras but lack a focusing motor, so that the only lenses that will autofocus are "AF-S" lenses. This won't be a problem if you plan to buy relatively few lenses and buy them new, but it locks you out of buying on the used market for the most part and limits your overall choices. I think the D90 is a better choice for this reason.<br>

Here's one example: the new 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S II lens is around $2,500. The used version of an old model 80-200mm f/2.8 has similar optics and can be found for around $500.</p>

<p>I had a Sigma 24mm f/2.8 AF that was pretty close-focusing. As I recall, it had a reproduction ratio of 1:2, but I could be remembering that wrong. It was sharp, too. It is long out of production, but there are a couple on the auction site.<br>

I just checked and the current Sigma 24mm seems to focus pretty closely (7") and offers about a 1:2.7 ratio. I have no experience with it, though.</p>

<p>Couldn't get normal uploads to work...</p>

<p>Server errors.</p>

<p>Here is the ISO 3200 shot.<br />http://i406.photobucket.com/albums/pp147/Zhetiga/3200.jpg<br /> Here is the ISO 5000 shot.<br />http://i406.photobucket.com/albums/pp147/Zhetiga/5000.jpg<br /> <br /> Both with 70-300mm AF-S VR lens.</p>

<p>What you are describing is consistent with what I would expect from the D70s. Noise reduction at high ISOs is something that has been improved upon with newer cameras. I shot this yesterday at ISO 3200 on my D700 at dive practice. It's not a great photo and if blown up you would see more noise than you see here, but you if should give you a feel fro what's possible.</p>

<p>Here's my take:</p>

<ul>

<li>Buy good glass first, then camera. </li>

<li>Nikon glass is almost always better than Tamron and Sigma glass. </li>

<li>By used and you can get Nikon glass for Tamron and Sigma prices.</li>

<li>You can cover almost everything with a 28-70mm and 70-200mm f/2.8.</li>

<li>You need a flash and a diffusser.</li>

<li>You need two bodies.</li>

</ul>

<p>I have the original 70-200mm VR and had the 85mm f/1.4 at the same time. While the f/1.4 will do things the zoom can't, I almost never used the 85mm and when I bought a 105mm f/2 DC and started using it regularly, I sold the 85mm.<br>

It's really a question of resources and the kind of work you like to do. The 70-200mm is an indespensible tool for me. The 85mm is just a nice to have. If I was a full time wedding photographer, however, I might find it a neccessity. Most wedding pros seem to.</p>

 

<p>I've had a Bogen 679B for years and it works the same and looks largely the same as when I bought it. I suspect it has another twenty years in it. Plenty sturdy for my Nikon 300mm f/2.8 AF-S (my heaviest lens.)</p>

<p>I hate to be the guy that says you can solve your problem by spending more money, but the D700 has helped me with basketball and volleyball. It is much easier to routinely get a good shot when you can shoot at ISO 1600 and 3200 as necessary.</p>

<p>That said, when I used a D200, I set the focus to "continuous," center spot, and hoped for the best. 25% sounds like a lot of out-of-focus shots, but that will get better with time.</p>

<p>I have the Nikon 60mm f/2.8 AF-D, the 105mm f/2.8 AF-D and the 200mm f/4 AF-D. I previously owned the Tamron 90mm SP f/2.8 AF-D.</p>

<p>The Nikon 200mm is one of Nikons best and sharpest lenses, but is quite expensive and generally overkill. It works great for putting some distance between you and your subject. I also like it for some portraits and sports. The autofocus is slow, but the contrast and bokeh is different than what you get from the 70-200mm AF-S and makes a nice change of pace.</p>

<p>I use the 60mm frequently for product shots and keep it in my bag when carrying a telephoto only. It is one of the smallest lenses I own. It is great for macros, but you have to get too close to the subject to use it for wildlife. It is good for non-macro shots, but not great.</p>

<p>I almost never use the 105mm because the other two fit my needs and I have the 105mm f/2 DC, which is my preference for portraits. I think its optical quality falls in between the 60mm and the 200mm.</p>

<p>If I were starting from scratch with just one lens, I'd buy the Tamron 90mm. It is as good or better than the Nikon 60mm or 105mm and much less expensive. I would also suggest that you look for used lenses. Everyone that I've mentioned will autofocus with your D80 and you can find the Nikon 60mm and Tamron 90mm for around $300-$350 used. You can find the Nikon 105mm for around $400 and up.</p>

<p>Regarding the 105mm VR -- be aware that the VR actually doesn't work for close-ups. The Nikon literature explains that it is just for far away shots. Almost all macros are focused manually from a tripod, so the AF-S isn't critical. What you are buying is a macro lens that is also a VR portrait lens.</p>

<p>Lastly, some zooms have good close-focusing ability. Some are called macros, but are mostly marketing hype. I have the Nikon 24-85mm AF-S, for example and it focuses as close as 1.2 feet, which gets you "almost" macro shots.</p>

<p>I have the 105mm f/2 DC and and the 105mm f/2.8 Micro and the 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S. The 105mm f/2 DC is the best portrait lens of the three, and perhaps the best Nikon I've ever used. That said, you will lose shots trying to shoot a wedding with it. I'd use the 70-200mm. If you really want to use the 105mm, you need a second body. The 105mm micro is sharp, but not as good a portrait lens as the others, IMHO. The new VR version may be different, I suppose.</p>

<p>Even with digital, lenses are a better investment. The difference between D200 an D300 image quality is smaller than the difference between a cheap consumer-grade lens and a nice pro one. The D300 and a 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 AF-S VR would cost $2,400. I would rather buy the D200 @ $500 plus the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S VR for a total of $2,300.</p>

<p>The D300 will be available to you next year of the year after for $500. (Sometime after the D400 comes out.)</p>

<p>The only reason I would choose the D300 would be if you know you will absolutely need the extra stop or two of ISO, in which case, I might skip straight to the D700. (Which is what I did...)</p>

<p>Get a used Nikon version. You can find an 80-200mm f/2.8 for $500.</p>

<p>I had a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 and found it to be far less than the hype. I got a second sample and was similarly unimpressed. It produced muddy images as compared to the (now discontinued) Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 AF-S I now own and love. I have no experience with the 24-70mm f/2.8 that replaced it, but I hear good things. You may still be able to find a 28-70mm f/2.8 for a few hundred less than the 24-70mm f/2.8. The older The Nikon 35-70mm f/2.8 produces images of comparable quality for a third of the price plus it's a good bit smaller and had a macro feature. It's not as good as a dedicated macro, but works in a pinch. (No AF-S, though.)</p>

<p>I like the EM suggestion. It is tiny and the 50mm Series E lens is pretty sharp. It kinda remininds me of a Leica.<br>

If I was buying a film camera, though, I'd think about an F5, if only because you can get one for $250 when they were going for closer to $2,000 in their prime.<br>

Regarding the suggestion to go digital -- one of the hidden benefits is that it allows you to shoot much, much more. I just noticed that I hit 10,000 frames on my D700, which is less than a year old. That's 277 rolls of film, which most of us wouldn't expose. It takes a lot of effort to get all those printed and a budget of $2770 for film and processing, assuming you did. All those extra shots are practice in becoming a better photog.</p>

<p>Nice shot. <br /><br />To be fair to Jerry, I don't think he was giving the knee-jerk "you need a more expensive piece of equipment" response that is given so often. Having shot lots of middle-school volleyball in dimly lit (think "cave") gyms this year, I can tell you that the D700 makes the difference between having a usable shot or not. The highest acceptable ISO for me on my D200 is 800. On the D700 I can go to 3200 and even 6400.</p>

<p>Here's my 60 second retouch. I converted to B&W, duplicated the top layer, applied gaussian blur, erased the top layer at the eyes, and hair, and used the blut tool on around the eyes...</p><div></div>

<p>I think the D700 or D3 is an important tool for a wedding photographer. You need the extra couple of stops of usable ISO vs. the D200. The D700 will run you $2,500.<br>

Next, I'd buy a 70-200mm AF-S. Your Tamron is too slow and the optics are too poor. That lens runs about $1,700, but you can find a used 80-200mm f/2.8 starting at $500, if you want to save money. <br>

Assuming you buy the new one and want to spend the $5,000, that leaves you $800. If you don't have a flash, I'd buy that next, which will eat up about $400. I'd spend the remainder on a 50mm f/1.8 for $125 new or maybe $450 on the 60mm macro instead (for rings and other small details.)<br>

You'll probably want some extra batteries, too.<br>

I'd hold on to the D200 and shoot with two cameras - the 28-70mm on one body and the 70-200mm on the other. That will cover 90% of that's going to happen at the wedding.</p>

<p>I built my system buy buying the least expensive "good" lenses first. I'd start with the $125 Nikon 50mm f/1.8. If you want a macro, the Tamron 90mm is as good or better than the Nikon 105mm for $200 less. Neither of the proposed sports/wildlife lenses is terrific. The apertures are too small. The best low-budget choice is the Nikon 300mm f/4 plus a 1.4x teleconverter as needed. Depending in the sport, the Nikon 70-200mm AF-S is a great choice. A used 80-200mm f/2.8 can be had for as little as $500 with no AF-S. Good luck.</p>

<p>The D700 is a big, noticeable, improvement over the D70. You get crisper images, a better meter (I almost never have to adjust contrast in PS), more room to crop, and several stops more in usable ISO. The trade-off is that you may prefer the extra reach that the 1.5x crop factor on the D70 gives you vs. the D700 if you do sports or wildlife.</p>

Ilkka,

 

Would you care to post an examplar or two from the Nikon 85mm f/1.4?

 

I find that I typically only use mine in the worst possible lighting conditions and @ f1/.4, resulting in lots of CA. For other uses, I haven't been pleased with the lens and tend to turn to my 105mm f/2 DC. For me, the 85mm has been one of the most disappointing lenses. It would be nice to see what other people are doing with it successfully.

Invest in the lens.

 

DSLRs are a little diffenent than film, though, in that there are differences in the end results between different bodies. I shot 2,000 frames of kids soccer this weekend using a Nikon 300mm f/2.8 AF-S and a 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S with a D200 body and D50 body. My son used the D50 and I used the D200 and we switched the lenses several times. Sometimes we switched the cameras so I was using the D50.

 

The net result was that the D50 pics were inferior - fewer in focus (slower AF than the D200, slower frame rate), grainier, and less room to crop.

 

Now that said, if you asked me to pick D200 and a Nikon 70-300mm G or ED vs. a D50 and the 70-200mm AF-S or 300mm f.2.8, I'd take the D50 and the better glass...