bourboncowboy

<p>I saw something similar a while back selling for $650+. I hope this is a reality.</p>

<p>I've got three Ai'd "K" lenses: the 28 3.5, 50 1.4, and the 135 2.8. While I like the red coating on the front element, the "cool factor" isn't the main reason I bought these lenses. </p>

<p>The 28 can be shot directly into the sun with ease. It's small and a lot of fun to use - and it works great with an IR converted body. I picked up my copy on ebay for $35, then spent $25 for the conversion ring. It's one of the best $60 investments I've ever made.</p>

<p>I bought the 50 1.4 simply because I needed something fast between the 28 and the 75-150 Series E. I picked up the 50 on ebay as well for $68 and spent another $25 for the conversion ring. Now my walkaround manual kit consists of the 28, 50, and 75-150. </p>

<p>I've also got the 135 "K" version. I had the Ai-S version, but liked the larger body of the older lens. I also found that I liked the longer focus throw of the older lens as well. I'm able to fine tune my focus better than with the newer lens. Some might say that it takes longer to focus - which is true. But I'll take the extra accuracy any day.</p>

<p>On a budget?</p>

<p>D90<br>

Tamron 17-50<br>

80-200 AF-D<br>

35 1.8<br>

85 1.8<br>

SB-600</p>

<p>Not on a budget?</p>

<p>D300/D300s (the D200 is one of Nikon's worst performers in low light)<br>

17-55<br>

70-200<br>

Sigma 30 1.4<br>

85 1.4<br>

SB-600 (I've heard too many horror stories of the SB-900 overheating, so I'd skip it.)</p>

<p>Ok...I'll try to address a couple of the issues you've brought up.</p>

<p>First, the D90 can handle the weight of the 80-200. Just get a monopod and attach the lens to the 'pod and you're set. If you insist on shooting handheld, you should really look into the 70-200VR. The AF-S motor in this lens makes it about 20% faster to focus as well. If the weight issue is really a balance issue, pick up the battery grip for the camera.</p>

<p>As far as 300mm 2.8 lenses go, they're extremely expensive. However there are cheaper alternatives. Sigma makes a 120-300mm 2.8 zoom that's supposed to be a good performer, but I've never used it. Sigma and Tamron also make 300 2.8 lenses that are cheaper than the Nikon version. I've seen great shots from these lenses, but again, I've never shot with either. My solution (with the D700) was to pick up a used Nikon 300 2.8 AF lens. This is the one without any internal focusing motor. The screw-drive in the D700 focuses fast enough for high school sports. I picked up this lens in mint condition for $1600. That's expensive, but it's really a deal compared to the other Nikon-branded options. If you choose to go with the D300, you really won't need a 300mm lens...the 70/80-200 lens will be long enough.</p>

<p>Before moving into administration, I was a teacher shooting the exact shots you've described - and under the same conditions. Our gym was built in 1968, and I'm convinced that the lighting is original. Anyway, here's my take:</p>

<p>I agree with Richard (above) in that you should look to buy a used 70-200VR. For football shots from the sideline, there's just no substitute for a fast zoom. Since the introduction of the new version of the lens, many people are selling the original version at fairly reasonable prices. </p>

<p>I also agree that you should look into getting a used D300. You can shoot up to ISO2000 with acceptable results. This combo will serve you well for football, baseball, soccer, and softball. Don't be afraid to buy used if you can find a deal. Just use Opanda to check the actuations - and try to buy one with less than 10K clicks. The D300/70-200 combo will cost about the same as a new D700 body. Invest in a good monopod such as the Bogen 680B (which is what I use).</p>

<p>I'd also suggest that you pick up an SB-600. Ideally, you might find an SB-800, but they're quite expensive on the used market. I always used a flash as a last resort, but I've managed to get quite a few great football shots with one. I've managed to stay away from flash at basketball games and other indoor activities by using faster glass.</p>

<p>A 50 1.4 and 80 1.8 will be great lenses for courtside shooting at basketball games. The 50 might work for under-the-basket shooting, but it's probably too long unless you move back a couple feet. For this type of shooting, your 35 1.8 should work perfectly.</p>

<p>If you choose this direction, be sure you have good processing software. I use CS3 and Lightroom2. I also have Noise Ninja that I will use in case of emergency. Shooting RAW and using these processing tools should get about 90% of the shots you're after. </p>

<p>I think it's a good idea, as long as you know what you're getting. It's not gonna put out a lot of light, so don't expect it to light up an entire background.</p>

<p>I'll take a stab in the dark and recommend the 17-55.</p>

<p>I bet all those who bought the 28 1.4 recently will be mad as hell. Their investment just depreciated by half.</p>

<p>KEH. I've had them CLA three lenses, and they've always done a fabulous job.</p>

<p>Unless you're constantly shooting at or below ISO 800, skip the D200. It's excellent at the lower ISOs, but it's a dog above. I'm not sure shy the D90 is out of the picture, but for argument's sake, the D300/D300s is much better for ISO 800-2000. </p>

<p>I've got the 14-24 as well as the Tamron 17-35 2.8-4. Both are wonderful lenses. I've thought about selling the Tamron, but it's much smaller and lighter than the Nikon, so it makes a great wide angle travel lens. It also takes filters, which is a big plus.</p>

<p>The key to group shots is to keep everyone away from the edge of the photo. That's nearly a universal rule for wide angle lenses. If you can do this, the Tamron will be wide enough and sharp enough for your uses. It remains at f/2.8 from 17-19mm - which is perfect. You'll get some vingetting at this focal length, and even more if you use a CP filter. But otherwise, it's a great bargain, and a much better lens than you'd expect to get for the price.</p>

<p>If you have the budget, just get the Nikon 24-70. It's the best lens in that range that I've used...and I've used em all. Perhaps Canon has something that rivals the quality, but then you'd be asking this question on another board.</p>

<p>I agree that you need a good charger. I use <a href="http://www.thomasdistributing.com/shop/maha-mhc801d-aa-aaa-battery-chargerbrdeluxe-8-cell-professional-battery-charger-w-full-lcd-displaybrbrfree-accessory-bag-2-free-eight-cell-battery-holdersbrspecial-price-6897-p-437.html?SP_id=&osCsid=a98rm8a91donrsllit8gi3gna7">this one from Thomas Distributing</a>. It's the best I've found.</p>

<p>I agree with Mihai: pick up the Tamron 17-50. Throw in a few extra bucks and get the 70-300VR. You'll thank the thief.</p>

<p>If you're planning on shooting people at relatively short distances, the Sigma is the best I've seen - and the one I decided to buy. I bought it with the expectation of sending in in for recalibration, which it needed. In about a month, I got the lens back, and it is BY FAR my most exciting lens. I even took it into a camera shop and was allowed to take a few snaps with the Nikon version for comparison. From f/1.4 - f/2, the Sigma was the clear winner. Beyond that, it was a wash.</p>

<p>And personally, I find the 77mm filter size of the Sigma to be perfect - as I have several lenses that use this size. The unusual 58mm filter size of the Nikon was definitely a turn off.</p>

<p>Unless you're planning on shooting sports, I suggest you find a clean used copy of the 180 2.8. It's tack sharp, and relatively small. </p>

<p>I use a kit similar to yours (28-105, Sigma 50, and 70-300VR), and I'm thinking about picking up the 180 again to replace the long zoom in my bag.</p>

<p>I upgrade whenever my heart and wallet are in agreement.</p>

<p>Are you using the "A" setting? If so, change it to either the "M" or "S" setting. Then, if you need to use your flash, you should be able to do this without the on-board flash getting in the way.</p>

<p>I had a similar problem with the same camera/lens combo. I found that the Tamron was front-focusing a bit when shot wide open - particularly near the minimum focusing distance. The lens performed like a champ on the D90 under the same circumstances. I decided to ditch the D40 and pick up a D80 as a walkaround body.</p>

<p>I had a problem with a 135mm 2.8 "K" lens. I contacted the ebay seller, <strong><em>microbee</em></strong>, and he did the conversion for $15 + shipping. Not only that, he tightened the inner screws and cleaned a slight haze off one of the lenses. Apparently, it had started to accumulate over the years, but now the lens is amazingly clean. I'll recommend this guy to anyone who needs a similar service. </p>

<p>And BTW...I had my lens back exactly eight days after I sent it.</p>

<p>Lemme see if I can spend $6000 for ya:</p>

<p>D300s ------------------------- $1575.95 (free shipping from B&H)<br>

80-200 ------------------------ $1099.95 (free shipping from B&H)<br>

17-55 ------------------------- $1339.95 (free shipping from B&H)<br>

10-24 ------------------------- $789.00 (free shipping from B&H)<br>

SB-600 ----------------------- $219.00 (free shipping from B&H)<br>

Bogen 055CXPro3 ----------- $375.00 (free shipping from B&H)<br>

RRS BH-40 ------------------ $375.00 (plus shipping)<br>

The total comes to about $5800. That'll leave you a few bucks for cards and a polarizer - or you could pick up either the 50 1.8 or 35 1.8 for a low light prime.</p>

<p>I agree with Dieter's take: pick up the Tamron 17-50. It's smaller, lighter, cheaper, and sacrifices very little in terms of image quality.</p>

<p>I often wonder why the 800 was discontinued as well. I managed to pick up three of them before the supply dried up and used prices went through the roof. I contemplated replacing them with 900s, but I see no need. I know how to use the 800s, so the new interface doesn't mean that much to me.</p>

<p>I bought this lens used with oily blades for $90. I sent it to KEH and had it CLA'd. So, for $180, I've got a mint condition 35/2. I always look to KEH first for repairs, and I'll recommend them to anyone.</p>

<p>I've always wondered why people worried so much about overlap. It's not like lenses that don't overlap are smaller, lighter, or cheaper. Use the overlap to your advantage as a walkaround zoom.</p>

<p>Also, don't think that these "dated" lenses aren't up to the task. I've tried just about every mid-range zoom Nikon has made...and settled on the 28-105. It's tack sharp, but most importantly, it has very little distortion at the wide end. It's also got a handy macro feature that works pretty well.</p>