alvinyap

<p>What lenses do you currently own? If you have the kit lens, that's already considered a proper wide angle at 18mm. 10mm on dx is considered ultra-wide.</p>

<p><strong>What is an ideal wide angle lens?</strong><br>

One that you can put to good use? My widest lens is the 16-85vr, very occasionally I want to go wider e.g. really tight interior places but by far and wide 16mm (~24mm on fullframe) is sufficient for what I need. I used to own the sigma 10-20, hardly ever used it.</p>

<p>Nikon user here, but I've shot alongside Canon ppl using this lens in wildlife parks. The main issue for us is minimum focus distance; my 300/4 + 1.4x gives 420mm @ 1.5meters, but the 400/5.6 my acquaintances had could not be used in close quarters at all. Plus the 300/4 + 1.4x gives you at least 2 focal lengths to choose from. I managed to convince one of my friends who rented the 400/5.6 to get the 100-400L instead and he's very thankful for that lens now :)</p>

<p>PS: Darn nikon for not having a stabilized 300/4! *jealous of canon ppl* :D</p>

<p>Hiya!<br>

I spend a fair bit of time shooting in zoos and wildlife park as well; good practice before going on a real trip out with wild critters. Here's my thoughts:<br>

<strong>but the sun comes through in patches. </strong><br>

This really depends on the intensity of the light; by what you are describing I'd imagine spots of highlights on the goats and the rest of the areas more towards the shadow regions. I usually just take shots like these for reference, else it is very difficult to grade. Also, I hope you are shooting raw, and have a good converter. There is a lot of shadow detail.</p>

<p>If the goats are moving, then the challenge is to get them whilst they are fully in shadow or light. Just wait, the moment will come!</p>

<p>Re: Spot metering. Hmm should not be a problem with white critters; meter the brightest highlights, then add 1.7, maybe 2.0 exposure comp. May work easier in manual mode. Black critters pose a difficult problem for me as well :( Usually what I do is again meter for the brightest highlight I do not want to blow out, and let the black falls where it does. This assumes the amount of light is not so overwhelming that the black critters become a black splotch when metering for the highlights; else to get the detail of the black goats, spot meter the the goats, forcing them to midtones - at the expense of the background/highlights.</p>

<p>That will pull out alot of detail, and I have read one of my favourite graphite artist similarly overexposes on black dogs to get detail for his drawings.</p>

<p>I've not tried a grey card for this, but usually the Matrix meter works quite well in such circumstances, however it also depends on which camera body you use. My D300's matrix tends to run a little "hot" out of the box, but with exposure compensation (check the histograms!) It is quite good! Again, I shoot raw and I get a lot of shadow detail, and minor overexposure can be recovered.</p>

<p>Re: AutoISO - it's nice for walking around the streets for snapshoot, however I usually stick with aperture priority. That way, I can control my dof, but manually increase my ISO to get the shutter speed I need. Exposure comp of course to get the proper exposure. You might also want to use your flash with some negative flash exposure comp. If you check my gallery nearly all the zoo shots have been taken with flash. It lifts the shadows, puts a catch light in the eye. Downside, if it's over done there is a slight flattening effect.</p>

<p>Experiment! Its fun!</p>

<p>Alvin</p>

<p>I don't own a D700, but on my D300 I can definitely detect this mottling artifact at ISO200, and is very obvious during studio shoots against a dark grey background. Not sure if that helps but yeah. I'm using Bibble 5 for raw conversion btw.</p>

<p>I'd say at base ISO, my now-deceased D200 does not show this mottling effect.</p>

 

<p>Went to visit the Trellick Tower over the weekend, and this is one of my shots whilst going through Portobello Road Market in London. Been trying out curves as a mean to get a pseudo film-like feel. This is one of the results.<br>

D300, 16-85VR @ 25mm, F8/400 @ ISO200</p><div></div>

<p>Hey there,<br>

If you want to go full frame down the road, I would say just bite the bullet, and buy it right now, with the accompanying lenses. DX is a great format but using only full frame lenses on DX gets annoying. Some of my friends can take it, I know I can't. Plus, some of those fx lenses are huge :-/ Several things that turn me off from full frame include size/weight/cost, and my d300 has an awesome AF point layout covering a very large amount of the frame, unlike the D700 which is more concentrated in the middle.</p>

<p>Also, even with a flash, I will still usually need a high iso - it depends on how much of the ambient light I want to capture.</p>

<p>With respect to the D200 at hi iso, consider your final output - is it web? Print? Do tests at hi-iso to see if it satisfies you. I recently lost my d200, and am saving up for a replacement because I miss it! And I own a d300 as well. I think the guys upthread have already made good points on camera bodies.</p>

<p>hths!</p>

<p>- Higher sync speed. At least 1/500.<br>

- Lower ISO, like ISO 100 or 50.<br>

Else my D300 is already near perfect for me. I'd much prefer a 70-200/2.8VR DX or 300/2.8VR DX. :D</p>

<p>Alvin</p>

<p>I can make paper cranes (maybe) and my dinner, but this is a <a href="http://www.collection-appareils.fr/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=8822&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&sid=b8f83b174e52cdb471abc0c001280570&start=25">whole another level</a>!</p>

<p><em>4) Never, ever, shoot a portrait at less than 50mm; try to stay at 70mm or higher.</em></p>

<p>This is a guideline. Great portraits have been taking with short focal lengths (see portraiture [environmental portraiture] in the learning section - or put in wideangle portraits in flickr's search). Don't limit yourself.</p>

<p>Re: Lens to use: This depends on your style. I much prefer to get in close and wide to capture the subject in the environment. My first choice will be the 18-55, though it will depend on whats going to happen on that day. Exaggerated features are caused by perspective - which is a feature of the distance between subject and camera.</p>

<p>May I suggest using this portrait shoot as a chance to experiment and explore with the lenses you have? Those two make a great combo. I've taken many memorable shots with them.</p>

<p>Wow interesting thread, I was planning to do something similar, but with negative film (superia, portra). With slides we could do the side by side comparison between raw converter/lightbox, but how about negatives? Would a comparison scan do the trick?</p>

<p>@OP: Do you have an example of "not sharp pictures"? It could be the lens really being a bad copy, or just the lens is bad in general (I've never shot the non-vr), insufficient shutter speed (boost your iso to compensate!), hand holding technique with long zooms (it is, 450mm equiv fov at 300mm...), focusing techniques.</p>

 

<p>I remember hitting that switching accidentally to M maybe once or twice over the few years I've shot Nikon. Surely that should not be a problem since the viewfinder image should be OOF, and the focus confirmation light in the VF not engaging?<br>

*happy d200/d300 photog*</p>

<p>I currently use the 24/2.8D a fair bit, as an amateur, it is a wonderful lens to use. The only downsides I can think of are that it's not AF-S, and no VR. Else I think it mates well with my D200/D300 as a wide normal lens. The 28/2.8D otoh I've sold, it's really soft. Ack.</p>

<p>I sold off my Sigma 10-20 years ago. I'd say less than 5% of my pics when I still had it were taken with the ultra wide. I occasionally lust for an ultra wide, but I know I won't use it much.</p>

<p>Re: Landscapes - I was over at Santorini last week, alot of my landscape-y kind of shots were just shot using my 16-85, with both wide and tele angles, and for the wide vistas I wanted to capture, I stitched like 9 vertical frames together, handheld. Much prefer that feel vs an ultra wide.</p>

<p>Perfect travel lens. I pair this with the 70-300VR, though the longer telezoom doesn't usually get much use when on vacation. I actually shoot alot of indoor events (iso @ hi1 - plus the fact I'm not a pro) I go to using this lens - though I have one folder where I shot <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=902035">beach volley ball</a> with it.</p>

<p>Mine is used so often that the zoom grip came off and the lettering mostly gone :P</p>

<p>Get it.</p>

<p>I definitely keep my 70-200 at home when on vacation, unless it's a wildlife vacation ;-) 70-300VR is awesome, get it. VR works well. It's true that at 300mm does not pull as much detail as my 300/4 AF-S, but it's way cheaper, has vr and zooms :) Don't get it expecting to do macro work - when you say butterflies, do you expect to fill the whole frame? Don't expect that. IIRC, I can get maybe a quarter of a frame for a butterflu at full close up distance.</p>

<p>Side note: You may want to look into the Tamron 75-300. I personally am not a fan of 3rd party lenses but a good friend uses that when we go on walkabout the city. The lens he had has the capability for 1:2 macro, and has a very very nice stand-off distance. I use my 55/2.8 AIS. We get different perspectives, same magnification. Something to consider. The Tamron doesn't have VR, but is so much more affordable. I've only seen a few full sized jpegs shot in good light, would think that for the price, it is a nifty lens.</p>

<p>You might want to visit www.clubsnap.org - that's singapore's local forum for photographers, and inside the nikon forum there should be a price list. Ymmv, I haven't visited in a loong time.</p>

<p>If you can afford a D90, I'd say that's a good choice. Why not the D7000?</p>

<p>18-55 + 55-300 vs 18-200 - personal preference really. I haven't used either the 55-300 or 18-200 so can't comment. 18-55VR is a very nice lens. My travel combo is 16-85 + 70-300vr.</p>

<p>I use my SB28 as a backup flash with my d200/300, it works very well in either manual or auto flash modes. But best you get a SB600 or better - balanced fill flash is to die for :)</p>

<p>Long exposure noise reduction function?<br>

http://www.naturfotograf.com/D2X_rev04.html</p>

<p>Don't forget the 18-200VR :)</p>

<p>@Tempest Connolli: Cheers mate, those were shot at <a href="http://www.eagleheights.co.uk/">eagle heights wildlife park</a>.</p>

<p>Oh btw, the 70-300 doesn't really track as well as the 70-200 in low light. The 70-200 can <a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_KY8u6Ufs4rs/TI660rifOsI/AAAAAAAAGSc/vbpGO6O9i7s/s1600/gwWLF_4456.jpg">easily track in low light</a>*, but the 70-300vr.... maybe just my lack of skill.... not really. Especially not at the longer end.</p>

<p>*IIRC it was 1600, 3.5/160 or something like that. I only recently got my exif data export fixed. This shot probably does not have exif data. But yeah it was shot inside a tree covered flying arena. Something i do not want to try with the 70-300vr.</p>

<p>I only use it to cause people to go sad and question their camera purchase when they give me shizzle about how awesome their cameras are and mine is old "and only 12 megapixels" lol. If not, no.</p>

<p>9pt Dynamic AF rules :D</p>

<p>I use both these lenses, the 70-200VR's focus is definitely way faster and locks on much more solidly than the 70-300VR. In good light though, the difference is there, but pretty minimal. The focus travels a fair bit if it misses focus, and can be quite annoying.</p>

<p><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_KY8u6Ufs4rs/TCeuMBDFefI/AAAAAAAAF2U/iCEwChDe46E/s1600/WLF_0457.jpg">I can</a> <a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_KY8u6Ufs4rs/TCeuJunId7I/AAAAAAAAF18/snf0jxHt3wc/s1600/WLF_0450.jpg">still manage</a> <a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_KY8u6Ufs4rs/TCeuKvxslNI/AAAAAAAAF2E/0CHEtHm4EnE/s1600/WLF_0451.jpg">shots like</a> <a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_KY8u6Ufs4rs/TCeuLb4QY8I/AAAAAAAAF2M/ravvtzEBwMw/s1600/WLF_0452.jpg">these using</a> <a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_KY8u6Ufs4rs/TCeuPOr12XI/AAAAAAAAF20/6tp7PShr-sA/s1600/WLF_0803.jpg">my D300</a> with the 70-300VR. Also, no tripod food on the 70-300VR if that's your thing. On the plus side, it's very light and portable (relatively speaking). I kept my 70-300 after acquiring the 70-200 because the 70-300 is so awesome when not shooting seriously. Or on holidays.</p>

<p>hths!</p>

<p>Alvin</p>

<p>I want one...... *drool*</p>

<p>Alvin</p>

<p>Shooting at zoos/wildlife parks for fun/reference:<br>

D200, 24/2.8D, 70-300VR, occasionally with SB600</p>

<p>Shooting at zoos/wildlife parks seriously<br>

D300, 16-85, 70-200VR, 300/4 AF-S, SB600, Flash Extender, Monopod</p>

<p>Shooting wildlife when far away from home<br>

D200, D300, 16-85, 70-200VR, 70-300VR, 300/4 AF-S, Sb600, SB28, Flash Extender, monopod, hyperdrive.</p>

<p>Event shooting<br>

D300, 16-85VR, SB600, snoot</p>

<p>Indoor shooting<br>

D300, 24/2.8D, 50/1.8D, maybe flash</p>

<p>Walkaround<br>

D200 + 16-85VR or 24/2.8D. Maybe flash.</p>

<p>Yeah :D I love the flexibility of a slr :D</p>

<p>Also: Not a pro.</p>

<p>Alvin</p>

<p>I'd like more DX primes.... 24/2 DX-AFS would be awesome, as would a 300/2.8DX VR. Or even maybe a 200-400DX VR :D</p>

<p>Alvin</p>