rick_m.

<p>Another vote for Shun. It doesn't sound like you need anything at this point. </p>

<p>I wouldn't worry about leaving the lens on at all. I think the mount is easily strong enough to handle it. </p> <p>I have the non-afs version as well and it is a truly beautiful lens. </p>

<blockquote> <p>Ideally, my logic is to avoid EF-S lenses and stick to 'regular' lenses as I don't mind investing in good glass now and keeping it and hopefully consider a better full frame body in the future, as prices of FF bodies seem to be falling</p> </blockquote> <p>How much do they have to fall? You can already get a 6D refurbished from Canon with a one year factory warranty for $1500.00. The 1D mkII for a bit more. Your 50 F/1.8 will fit on them just fine I imagine. Maybe you should pull the trigger now. </p> <p>You have yet to articulate what it is that you expect a full frame camera to do that your current camera does not. Why don't you tell us? Then compare what you want it to do with what a much better crop sensor camera will do for you at a fraction of the cost. </p>

<p>Well you have decided to fix it so I suppose it is a moot point but for what it is worth, I would spring for the D7100 if I were you. <br> A couple of years ago you posted a question here about whether to get a camcorder or a new camera. The D7100 would answer that question in a whole new way. Its video is light years ahead of the D90. </p> <p>Resolution, dynamic range, viewing screen, low-light capability all in a whole new league. Since you alluded to the fact that the upgrade is affordable, now may be the time. </p>

<p>I found one of these and no longer have the flash. If you want it you can have it. I will gladly send it to someone who can use it. Please be in the US.</p> <p>Thanks</p>

<p>It seems to me that you would be the perfect candidate for the a kit like one B & H sells. I am no fan of needlessly upgrading bodies but yours I a little long in the tooth. For less than the cost of the Tamron lens you can get a great kit. Here is the kit:</p> <p>Canon Rebel T3I<br> 18MP APS-C CMOS Sensor</p> <ul> <li >EF-S 18-55mm IS & EF 75-300mm Lenses</li> <li >DIGIC 4 Imaging Processor</li> <li >3.0" Clear View Vari-Angle LCD</li> <li >Full HD 1080p Video with Manual Exposure</li> </ul> <ul data-selenium="highlightList"> <li >100-6400 ISO; Extended Mode to 12800</li> <li >SD/SDHC/SDXC Memory Card Slot</li> <li >Compatible with Canon EF and EF-S Lenses</li> <li >63 Zone Dual-Layer Metering/ 9-Point AF</li> <li >Live View & Intelligent Auto Scene Mode</li> </ul> <p>This kit, with the addition of your 50 mm f1.8 will do everything you want to do and much much more. Before you morn the loss of the F2.8 lens consider that the increased low-light performance of the 3TI will more than compensate. Frankly spoken, there is absolutely nothing that this kit does not do MUCH better than what you have now. This kit costs $599.00.</p> <p>For $200.00 more you could go to the T5i and do even better with essentially the same lenses. </p> <p>No doubt there will be a variety of opinions on this but these kits are put together to focus on a particular market. You seem to be right in the middle of that market. It should also be said however that these bodies are very capable indeed and provide you room to add to your system once you have seen whether you really need to.</p>

<p>Not nearly enough money. I would pass. That offer borders on the insulting.</p>

<p>It is possible that there is something wrong with your lens. I think not. The 24-70 is notable for its sharpness even at F-2.8.</p> <p>You are shooting at 1/200 sec and the 35mm equivalent of 100 mm. As you zoom in you will find that steady hold techniques become more and more important. 1/200 should be fine for your hand-holding but you are shooting a child who wiggles. You will want to keep your shutter speed up for that. Try 1/500 sec to be sure to freeze action. </p> <p>Next look a what your actual focus point is. Often while watching the composition, we forget this fundamental choice. At F-4, as you can see, your depth of field is pretty shallow. Focus on your subject's eye perhaps? </p> <p>How are you holding your camera? You are chasing a moving target. That makes it very difficult to hold steady through the shot. I don't know how many times I have seen this. When a photographer becomes absorbed in shooting a subject like a kid it is easy to begin to waive the camera around try to chase the child's movement. Then in a moment of decision mash his finger down on the button, jarring the camera a the moment of exposure. This camera shake softens the image a bunch. Couple that with he child's movements and you get soft results most every time. You can see if this is happening by putting your camera on a tripod and shooting a still subject. Then tell us how those images are working out. <br> Steady, hold, breathe. Keep repeating that. Keep your breath under control, your shutter speeds up, and your subjects as still as possible and see what happens. </p> <p>One more recommendation. Make sure you practice with your new flash before you use it on assignment. There is a learning curve. Of you are not really up to snuff on flash then study like crazy to master the flash. It is not plug-and-play.</p> <p>Someone is going to pipe in here with the assertion that your 85 is a prime and there for supposed to be sharper. That is not how the real world works. For all practical purposes the 24-70 AFS F/2.8 is really sharp. Sharp enough that there should be no appreciable difference. </p> <p>Stead does it. Good luck</p> <p>Rick</p>

<p>Sorry Dilip. Whenever someone mentions Canon and Nikon in the same room we get one of these food fights. It is embarrassing really. I come from a mixed marriage. I shoot Nikon and my wife shoots Canon. Now to your question:</p> <blockquote> <p>I guess what's puzzling me is how the D700 is still holding its value even after other FX models with higher specs have come out... one would expect it to fall like the Canon D5? But the D5 MkII seems to be around the same as the D700, although with higher pixels. There's a whole generation or mark time lag to Nikon's fall in value (to Nikon's advantage). Maybe pixels aren't evrything...</p> </blockquote> <p>The later first. Pixels are not everything you are quite right. More pixels are not necessarily better. Rather than go into pixel density and such, little of which means much as a practical matter, let me say this. You can easily print a 11X14 from a 7 MP camera. What about larger? When you make a larger print the viewer tends to stand well back from it. So that same 7 MP can make quite acceptable 20" X 30" prints. Your D7000 has far more than that. The main advantage to MP is the ability to crop. With either the 12 MP of the D700 and the 16.2 MP of your D7000 you can do some serious cropping. More from your camera than from the D700. So when do you want the full frame camera? Mostly if you are shooting in very very low light. If you are not doing that you probably don't need it. </p> <p>The D700 is a popular camera for a different reason. Its build and control layout is quite different from the D7000. Many people like the heavier and feature rich camera. But the real deal is this. You mentioned landscape. Based on that you will find the D7000 takes "prettier" and higher definition pictures. Its image quality is better than the D700 in all but the most extreme cases. How much better? For 90% or more of what you shoot the two would be virtually indistinguishable from each other. </p> <p>I hope you get a nice new lens and really enjoy your D7000. It is a fine camera and will do everything you seem to want to do with it and more. Ignore the brand fanboys. My two favorite photographers are Annie Leibovitz and Joe McNally can both shoot the wheels off of every camera made. They can afford any camera made. One shoots Canon and one shoots Nikon. If I had their undivided attention and could spend a day learning from them I absolutely guarantee you that I would not waste one precious moment of that time talking about which brand of camera to choose. </p> <p>So take your wonderful D7000 and get some great pictures. If and when it stops delivering the results you want then think about changing. </p> <p> </p>

<p>What Eric said.</p> <p>I use the Version one 70-200 every day. I also own the 80-200 F/2.8D. For sports the former is the hot ticket on DX. I have not used the Tamron or the Sigma. </p>

<p>tRodeo Joe is right. So is Peter. </p> <p>For you I would recommend staying with your D7000 and buying the good lens. For a landscape shooter, your D7000 has higher resolution and perhaps more importantly more than a stop better dynamic range. <br> I owned a D700 and still have a D3. They are marvelous cameras with a very nice sensor and autofocus. They are not better than your D7000 for about 95% of the shots you would want to make. </p> <p>There is a rush to FX that I think is mostly based upon misconceptions and wishful thinking. (I own two FX Nikons, the aforementioned D3 and the D4 and two DX the D2X and D7100.) It is the very rare shot where I can see the difference between even the D4 and my D7100. Indeed I am a huge fan of the D7100 and use it very frequently. It has about 1/2 stop better dynamic range than the D4 but does not do quite as well in low light. Then there Again though, these are at the edges of the envelope. In the middle there is essentially no difference at all. </p> <p>FOV aside, if you use a full frame lens on your D7000 you will be operating in the "sweet spot" of the lens. You will generally eliminate vignetting and be the sharpest area of the lens. Your D7000 will stand up to cropping much better than will the D700 for the obvious reasons. You should be able to print a larger crop from your DX than you could from the 12mp D700.</p> <p>It seems for you that the obvious choice is to get a really nice lens to do what you want and save until you can both go to a newer FX and purchase acceptable lenses to go with it. </p>

<p>I am well aware of what people used to do. I used to do it. I no longer do it because I can do far better with more modern equipment. </p> <p>There is no doubt that with proper instruction her students could do better with what they have. That said, they could do even better still with faster lenses. </p> <p>Football. <br> I think the 85mm lens is fine and even more useful with the inexpensive teleconverter. The yearbook photographer is shooting from the sidelines and their assignment is to get a few great shots. They need not reach across the field to get them. If they are not shooting from the sidelines the teacher should get them this access. The yearbook photographer's assignment is not the same as the PJ who is charged with getting the important plays. So the teaching point for her students here is that they should keep in mind that they are usually out to get either drama or maybe sometimes a particular player. Patience and focus on their task carries the day. They can then work within the constraints of the lenses that give them the best quality shot; not the best compromise. </p> <p>Even as a photojournalist far better equipped than these kids will likely ever be, when I see what of my work is published and what hits the cutting room floor I find that the tight in action, usually coming toward me, faces and all, is what is used. They tend to be the most dramatic shots. The key here is yearbook. Not paper. They have ample opportunity to get just the right shot. </p> <p>Giving advice to the teacher....</p> <p>Before your students hit the courts or fields they should have discussed with you the mission they are on. They should understand that they do not have the luxury of spray-and-pray photography. They should bring you, or you show them, some examples of the kind of shots they are to try to get and discuss how to get them. How fast should their shutter speed be? How can that be achieved. How to judge the action and position themselves to get the right shot. Then they should bring you the results two ways. They should first give you the shots that satisfy the assignment. Then they should go through the entire disk(s) with you so you can see what they missed. If they should develop a desire to work in the industry this is how they will work. When I am sent to a PAC 10 football game, for example, it is not just to get "some good shots". Often there are particular players I need, particular plays I need to illustrate, sideline shots of coaches, cheerleaders for color, and then, of course, hopefully snag the pivotal plays. </p> <p>Because I usually work alone for football and not with a team of photographers I carry two bodies. Both full frame. One with the 70-200 F/2.8 and the other with the 24-70 F/2.8. The 70-200 is the range I use most and more toward the shorter than the longer end. This opposite is true for baseball where I use the longer end of my zoom most often. </p> <p>I know that you did not ask for this but I hope it is useful in making your decision. If you have about 1K to work with I vote for the 50 f/1.8D and the 80-200 F/2.8.</p> <p> </p>

<p>So since Amy has not gotten back to us with a budget, here is a thought. If she can only get one lens... If we suppose her budget is:</p> <p>$100.00 = 50 mm F/1.8</p> <p>$350.00 = 85mm F/1.8D</p> <p>Based solely on what she said and offered only one new lens on the D90 I would opt for the Nikon 85mm F/1.8.</p> <p>If she could add a good autofocus teleconverter to that it would be a bang-up low light football and performance lens for only about $150.00 more.<br> Remembering that she already has (most likely) and 18 to ? <br> </p> <p>Group?</p> <p> </p>

<p>I want to join Eric and reiterate what he and I said earlier. There is no point in using lenses slower than about F/2.8 and in a real pinch 'maybe' F/4 with the D90 under many of the conditions the OP described. Unless you have a television light stadium the recommendations that include F4.5-5.6 lenses simply won't work. Recommending VR lenses for sports is also problematic.</p> <p>I would like to hear from those who are recommending slower lenses as to why they are doing it. She has a slower lens and it does not work. Unsurprisingly. </p>

<p>I would get the 50 mm f/1.8 for the basketball provided that you allow your photographer to be courtside. The AFS focuses faster but if money is a major consideration the 50 f/1.8D for $100.00 will work swimmingly.</p> <p>For the football night games and particularly your theatrical photography you absolutely need an F/2.8 lens. Your D90 does not have the low light capability to work with less. The Nikon 80-200 F/2.8D is a great choice. New it will cost about $1000.00 and used just over half of that. It is the ideal lens for you.</p> <p>A word about VR (stabilization). It is never bad to have but stabilized lenses cost more. For football and other sports it will make little if any difference in your shots. When shooting action you need to keep the shutter speed up to stop the action. VR helps with camera shake and can't hurt but at the 1/500th second where you ought to be shooting and perhaps the 1/250 you may have to resort to the VR offers little. </p> <p>One thing that will help in the theater is a monopod. There is no substitute for a thoughtful photographer with good camera technique. Tell your students to pay attention to the action on stage. Look for the natural pauses in the action. Have them shoot dancers at the 'top' of the moves when they are momentarily paused. Actors when they are standing and not walking. Shooting during these organic pauses allows your photographer to shoot with a slower shutter speed. That is where the monopod or even tripod comes in. As I am sure you know, shooting with a shutter speed set to less than the reciprocal of the focal length of the lens is problematic. Lower than that you will experience motion blur from hand-holding the camera alone. The monopod or tripod helps with this. But remember not with freezing action. </p> <p>For what you describe, I believe that there are no lenses with less than F/2.8 which will offer you any significant improvement at all. You can ignore VR as it does not address your issues in any substantive way. </p> <p> </p>

<p>Congratulations! It is great to see someone succeed. You did all of the right things and it sounds like your preparation paid off very well. Your story is a lesson for all new wedding photographers. Next time it will be you lowering the boom on someone about to rush into the lion's den. Good job. Show us a picture or two so we can share in your success. </p>

<blockquote> <p>I'm guessing not too many PJs bought D3x @ $8000; more like well-heeled amateurs and fashion/commercial photogs.</p> <p> </p> </blockquote> <p>True. It is too slow for sports and compared to the D3 was far too expensive. </p>

<p>I do what Jeff does exactly with the exception that I like to deliver a CD and go over the pics with the client. I can head off issues that way and it gives me an opportunity to schmooze with the client. There is always next month's bills. </p> <p>As for handling the cell phone folks. A very polite, "let me get these few shots and I will help you get some great ones when I am done. Now everybody, look right here", works well. </p> <p> </p>

<p>If you shoot sports you will like the 10 FPS and extra reach of the 1DMK4. If you have to capture names for a school paper (cutlines) you will also like the voice annotation that you can use instead of astonishingly annoying notes. If these are not a consideration get the 5D3<br> One caveat. If you shoot low-light in the gymnasium or theater without a flash then get the 5d3.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Well I guess you could say that any camera a professional uses is a professional camera. </p> <p>That said, I do think that the single digit cameras are aimed at a very specific market, photojournalists and sports photographers. They are designed for very fast frame rates, have robust weather sealing and voice annotation to name three not usually required of other folks. This is not to say that someone might not want to pony up $7K to indulge their hobby. They very well might want to do that. Whether they need to in the same way someone shooting for a magazine or sports team might is another thing altogether.</p> <p>So. The D600 is clearly not designed for working pros but they could choose to use one. A portrait, real estate or wedding photographer could certainly use the D600 and a fashion guy might love the D800. Many do. But are these cameras aimed at the professional market? Not really. The D600 definitely not. The D800 sometimes and the D4s, almost always. Factor in cost considerations and I suspect that both the use of the D600, D800 and D7100 by pros is frequently a compromise.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I think Nikon has made a wise choice in the split between the mid-priced (what some call semi-pro) D300s and the D7100. For those who need or want the full features of a professional camera there is still the D3/4 series cameras. For those who do not there is the D7100. I had a D300 until recently and gave it to a relative. It was a wonderful camera and one I used in low-light when the alternative was the D2X (to which it is mostly superior image wise but has fewer features. It will be interesting to see if Nikon positions a Camera in that market in the near future. </p> <p>I can't comment on which to buy because I am of two minds on it. I like the controls of the D300s much better than the D7100 but the image quality of the D7100 and its beautiful screen have me in love with it. I have single-digit bodies also so it is not an either/or decision for me. </p> <p>It is telling to look at the MP on Nikon's pro bodies versus their consumer bodies. The D4s is 16.2 MP versus a minimum of 24 for the consumer alternatives. Why is this? Probably because Nikon knows exactly what the working professional sports shooter/photojournalist needs and wants. I imagine we are the biggest purchasers of these cameras. The other day I was having this discussion with a PJ who just got a new D4s and he posited something which I had not considered. He said that the working professional sports shooter/photojournalist is more likely to have the lens selection that makes the additional MP a moot point. That may be a market force I had never considered. For me it is a balance between enough and annoying work flow. I find 12 MP to be right in the sweet spot but between that and 15.2 is a mere quibble. </p> <p>In the end, other than controls and convenience, the differences are at the edges of the envelope. The vast majority of pictures most people take are dead in the middle of the capabilities of all Nikon bodies. <br> By the way. Shun is correct. If you want a D300 buy it used. If I were you I would buy the D7100 hands-down unless you can point to the specific feature of the D300s that the d7100 does not have, that you must have to do what you want.</p>

<p>This certainly is a rarified atmosphere, price wise. I expect they know that they will sell relatively few and that they will go to the major outlets. A few will go to the Rolex crowd.</p> <p>I seriously wonder if this lens is worth the bump in price. The current model is $4K cheaper give or take a little. This would have to be awfully good to motivate me to buy my guys this one if they had the previous version. They would have to show me in actual shots that this is that much better. Otherwise it is jewelry.</p> <p>I would be curious to know what the production of these will be. I agree with the earlier poster who said this was a prestige lens that Nikon just had to have in the inventory after Canon came out with their small-car priced lens. </p> <p> </p>

<p>Why don't you consider a speed light setup? You already have the 430 EX. You could add a few slaves. You can buy perfectly acceptable ones for $60.00 or less and experiment with them. You will need some modifiers and other assorted goodies and perhaps a stand for your backdrops. You could get a very nice array of good stuff for well under your $500.00 budget. Check our Strobist and take their flash tutorial. They show some nice starter kits. </p> <p>I have used Bluff lights for a long time. For fun, a few months ago I saw that Joe McNally was doing a TTL seminar for Kelby nearby. I wanted to see him again so I thought I would take his seminar too. I am supposed to know better but habits are habits. I had forgotten much of what I could do with my Speedlight's. Out of sight, out of mind. Anyway I am using my CLS far more now and the convenience is great. Who wants to lug tons of equipment when it is not necessary?</p> <p>I would avoid the packages that are in the price range you mention. I cruised over to B & H and looked at a couple of their inexpensive kits. You get a lot of stuff but they are very low powered units. About 100 WS. I think you will be disappointed and frustrated. They are probably OK for head shots but if you are going to do fashion you are going to need FAR more power than they are going to offer. If you are going to get monolights, get good ones. Alien Bees are a crowd favorite and offer good performance for the money. They have a 3 light kit for around $1300.00 that would give you all you need for some time to come.</p> <p>Try the TTL/slave option first. You will be surprised at what you can do. </p> <p> </p>

<p>I don't really compare myself to them but often I see work that I admire and would like to emulate. I too dislike telling someone else how to improve their composition beyond the very basics. </p> <p>I believe in talent. As old fashioned as it might seem I think that one can't learn to have a unique and exciting point of view from someone else. One can be inspired by them but not taught to be one of the great ones. On photo.net I see the work that really wows me yet I don't think that I can learn to make it mine. I can pretty much copy a shot but day-to-day I just don't see what they see.<br> Great wedding photographers often really stun me with their talent. Though I know 'how' they do it, in the heat of the action I just don't see the shot in as interesting a way as they do. I wish I did. </p> <p>I think there are some photographers (myself included) who can learn to be good, soldier-like, pros but who do not have that spark, talent, vision, whatever you want to call it, that elevates the art. I find it good to look for inspiration from others. I don't beat myself up about it but often I am left a bit disappointed by my own lack of this creative vision I am seeing. </p>

<p>John H. Is right. Besides. You want to be the person who does what she says she will do. Having said that....<br> This photographer took advantage of you. She should have at least paid you an honorarium of some kind IMO. You have learned a valuable lesson.</p> <p>Think about this. If you are talking professional services...when you charge nothing there is a tendency for your client to think that is exactly what it is worth. <br> What I would do is deliver these shots to her and ask her directly when the next wedding is, how much you will be paid and determine who does post. You charge a bunch for post. </p>