frank

Dave Weber

 

"Frank, this is a Nikon thread. Why in the world would you waste all of our time talking about Canon cameras?"

 

Because someone else has shown some Canon pics in a Nikon thread?

Sorry for the typo, Shun.

 

:-)

Shung:

 

"There are plenty of amateurs who take better pictures than the avarage pros and some of those amateurs also own plenty of high-end equipment."

 

I agree with you, but there are as many excellent amateur photographs taken with more inexpensive and older equipment. IMO the technical aspect of photography is often overestimated. I've got a notion that since the beginning of the digital era every camera is primarily judged by its high-ISO cababilities.

Russ:

 

"Every amateur and/or professional will make that choice for themselves."

 

I know and I fully agree.

 

"They certainly don't need some "forum nanny" like yourself to tell them what they should or shouldn't buy. Perhaps you should just go out and shoot some images with whatever camera body that you own rather than trying to preach to someone else. If your own means limit you for some reason to what you can afford - don't try to tell anyone else what they should buy or not buy"

 

Pardon me, that's a quite silly and aggressive reaction. Preaching? You should read again. I just gave MY opinion. If you don't like it maybe a public forum with controversial statements is not the right place for you?

Obviously the only format you accept is FX. Fine.

<dg>

Elliot

 

"Frank, for a pro or a serious photographer, low noise/high detail is important. I like my personal pictures to look the best they can. My clients don't care or know about noise, they want great looking pictures."

 

No matter if professionals or amateur photographers, both have to admit that even the D300 delivers a better IQ than any 24x36 film slr. Have the users of single lens reflexes for film ever been so worried about noise as digital photographers of today are? Did they permanently discuss or complain about the "grain problem"? No. IMO people forgot very quickly how mediocre highspeed film was in comparison with today's digital camera performance - even with of a crop camera. The D700 with its bigger sensor size is less noisy than the D300? Sure! That's not a new finding. But does that mean that serious or professional photography needs a D700 or a D3? After having seen so many happy pros and amateurs with a D1, D2x and D200 not long ago I doubt...

 

"For a pro, the price difference between the D300 and D700 is not significant considering all the advantages the D700 will give a photographer and his/her clients."

 

Well, I think most people here are amateurs who use cameras just for fun as a hobby not to earn their living. Is it for an amateur really so important to use the best of the best of the newest, no matter what it costs? I don't think so.

Noise, noise, noise. That's all the amateur world seems to be interested in.... <sigh!>

 

BTW, does anyone recognizes the difference in price between D300 and D700? Obviously just peanuts for serious photographers.

"I'd rather have a Cron or other f2.0 or faster 35mm lens, the difference in size between a Cron and the Biogon is not worth carrying a slower lens."

 

Harvey

 

I think a statement like this is a bit unfair. Look at the difference in price. IMO the principal reason for buying the C-Biogon is not to save weight or keep the camera equipment compact but to save money without loosing image quality. However, compared with the huge Biogon 35/2 the C-Biogon 35/2.8 is virtually tiny in size. Furthermore I am convinced that there are thousands of rangefinder cameras that are only used under daylight conditions for family and landscape shots. Why paying (partly a lot) more for speed that is not needed?

"Comparisons with the CV 35/2.5 would, however, be quite interesting."

 

John,

 

that is exactly what I wil do during my oncoming vacation. Comparing the Zeiss 35/2.8 with the CV 35/2.5 II and the Zeiss 21/4.5 with the CV 21/4 II.

 

:-)

Well, to compare the current generation of high-quality cameras like EOS 1DS MkIII, EOS 40D, Nikon D3, D700 and D300 by analyzing pixel by pixel is quite childish. Even budget-priced cameras like the EOS 40D or the Nikon D300 are so good that no amateur has a reason for complaining about IQ. Meanwhile I use an EOS 5D, an EOS 40D and a D300. The decision, which one of the trio to chose is not driven by resolution considerations...

Used with a sturdy tripod and solid ballhead at lower ISO even an "old" D80 or the newer D60 is an excellent choice. Using the more rugged D200 is more fun but you won't get better IQ.

Ever heard of irony, Captain Jack?

 

;-)

"... and was told that shooting vertically on a tripod was misuse of the camera... "

 

A fine excuse. I'll be damned!

:-(

As long as I use M-Leicas for film I "misuse" my bodies that way.

I recommend the Bessa R4M or R4A with built-in frames for 21, 25, 28, 35 and 50 mm, in case you are a wide shooter. More universal is the Bessa R2A with its frames for 35, 50, 75 and 90 mm. All the Bessas are superbly built and finished (look at the price tag!) and very reliable. You can use many, many M-lenses from Cosina-Voigtlander, Leica, Konica or Zeiss.<div></div>

One last comment.

 

The initial question was: "I have the 24-70 f2.8 and love the results I get with it, but I worry that if I get the non IS f2.8 70-200 I'll have trouble getting usable shots without a monopod. So the real question is: Does the 70-200 f4 IS have the ability to focus in low light (I don't mean candle light, but normal church/hall lighting)?"

 

The answer is yes, absolutely.

 

:-)

Detail, 100 percent from the pic above<div></div>

David

 

"With my 70-200/4 IS I do indoor shots (lower light than in many churches) at f.4 and 1/15 s."

 

That doesn't mean that 1/15 s is the BEST shutter speed. It means hand-holding 1/15 s is possible with the 70-200/4 IS. BTW, during the ceremony in a church there are lots of situations where bride and groom behave like statues.

 

"For real low-light shots I prefer fast fix focal lengths like a 50/1.4 or 85/1.4 or 1.8."

 

That's the way I do - and it works.<div></div>

"Canon has a 17-55 F/2.8 IS that is twice the price of the Tamron. Canon also has a 17-85 mm F/4-5.6 IS for about $100.00 more than the Tamron. These are the EF-s lens. In the "L" lens dept. there is a 17-40mm that lists for around $650.00 and probably not IS. Do any of you have experience with these?"

 

I compared the Tamron 17-50/2.8 and the Canon 17-55/2.8 IS USM in side by side shots. Even the Canon's lab figures are a tad better than the Tamron's, in practice I was not able to SEE any difference. I used the Tamron many months and was very happy with its IQ. BTW at 28 mm and at full aperture the Tamron was better than the stopped down to f 2.8 Canon 28/1.8. Not bad for a zoom lens! In general my experience is that the Tamron is tack sharp from f 5.6 on. In comparison to the Canon 17-85 IS the Tamron is the better lens. Even I use and like the Canon 17-40/4 with my EOS 5D, the Tamron is the better buy for a crop SLR.

Elliot,

 

though I am a user and a fan of the AF-Nikkor 85/1.4 I have tested a wonderful alternative for crop-cameras like the D300. I recommend the inexpensive Voigtlander Nokton 58/1.4 mm (with CPU in contrast zu the Zeiss ZF lenses). At full aperture the Nokton's center is astonishingly sharp - more than adequate for portrait work. After stopping down to f2.8-4 the whole image is top-notch. Because it is next to impossible to focus fast lenses like the 85/1.4 or the 58/1.4 by hand with the original Nikon screen I have changed the focussing screen of my D200 and put in a screen made by Katz Eye Optics (fits D200 and D300). Wow, what a difference! Now manual focussing is quick and reliable. I recommend the screen and the lens.<div></div>

I don't see the necessity of the 70-200/2.8 IS because the 70-200/4 IS is tack-sharp at full aperture. With my 70-200/4 IS I do indoor shots (lower light than in many churches) at f.4 and 1/15 s. Comparing my personal 70-200/4 IS with a 70-200/2.8 IS borrowed from Canon on the EOS 5D/40D the slower version is visibly better. For real low-light shots I prefer fast fix focal lengths like a 50/1.4 or 85/1.4 or 1.8.

Mauricio

 

"...but to cover the distance from 16(17or 18) to 55 mm, which lens do you suggest ? Still the Tamron f/2.8 ? Know also the 18-200 Nikon is a great lens but I have no interest on that lens because the shorter the distance the cover, the better the IQ and that is what I am looking for. Please suggest !!"

 

Yes, go for the Tamron 17-50/2.8 mm: good build quality, compact, fine optics and reasonable price.

BTW, as much as I like the VR-Nikkor 18-200 mm, the Sigma OS 18-200 is even a tad better (concerning lab figures, in practice they are on par). When I reviewed the Sigma I was absolutely astonished by its macro abilities (!). I have never seen before a macro image quality like this with a comparable zoomlens. Comparing a 17-50/2.8 mm with a 18-200/3,5-5.6(6.3) mm is a bit unfair, because using the 17-50 at f5.6 means using the lens at its probably best aperture.

I used the Sigma APO 1.4x and the Sigma APO 2x with a 70-200/2.8 and a 100-300/4. While the results with the tc 1.4x were fine after stopping down the lens to 4-5.6 image quality with the tc APO 2x was very low. I don't recommend any 2x teleconverter. In this case for decent quality you have to stop down your lens at least for two f-stops. That means a dramatic increase in camera shake, even with a solid tripod and mirror lock-up.

If I were you I would go for the lens. Even if the D300 is a bit better than the D200 (I use both), no one will criticize your pics because of their technical IQ.

But.... ....I would buy the AF-S VR 70-200/2.8. Its image stabilizer is unbeatable for hand-held photography.

I had the Tamron 17-35/2.8-4. Sold it because the Canon 17-40/4 is visibly better. If money is no issue, go for the Canon.

I know these three lenses. My advice is the Tamron 17-50/2.8. Its IQ is better than the Tokina's or the Sigma's (I mean the first version Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 DC EX without "MACRO"). When I compared pics that were made with the compact Tamron and with the much larger and far more expensive Canon IS USM 17-55/2.8 the results had been very, very similar.

Meanwhile my favourite standard combo for the D300 is the robust Tokina 12-24/4 (I've got a perfect sample) and the AF-Nikkor 50/1.8

"...but have you considered buying some books that include pictures of the paintings? I'm sure the museum gift shop will be selling Monet books and they will be taken under perfect lighting etc. that you won't be able to duplicate."

 

Walt is right. Your own pics won't be as good as reproductions that were made unter perfect conditions. Better enjoy the museum and take some pics of the visitors. That's more fun.