patertech

I have Nikon 12-24 and i love it! Read this http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/nikkor-12-24mm/review.html

Little League Baseball

D2Xs with 70-200 + 1.4TC from about 200ft away

I will be shooting my son's little league baseball game. This is my first time.

I did shoot some kids football couple of years ago but didn't have a lens that

was fast enough. I just got 70-200 2.8 with 1.4TC, my sensor is 1.5x focal

length multiplier. I can also do high-speed crop this jump to a 2x multiplier

but brings resolution down to 6.8 mega pixels. I wonder where should I position

myself to take some good shots? Thank you.

Thanks a lot for your responses, it makes sense because when I pressed DOF preview, it looked like its at the smallest aperture and since I can not control aperture from my camera it's not going to work for me. Thanks again.

I have tried 70-200 and 18-200 with same results. DOF preview is working. In order to even see a histogram I have to crank up ISO to 800 and 1/20th and this is outside. With a proper exposure everything is black.

I just got a used PN-11 and every picture I take it's sooooo much underexposed

that it's black. I have entered non cpu lens data in shooting menu as 105 and

2.8, set mode to M. 400 ISO 1/200th. Am I missing something that I need to set

in addition to non cpu lens data. Any help will be greatly appreciated. Thank

you.

"Aparently there are bad copies of this lens out there. Mine is definitely not one of them."

<br>

I have 18-200. How can I tell if I have a bad copy? Is there anything obvious? What kind of a test do I have to do to find out? I read here that some people sent their 18-200 to Nikon for adjustment. I shot these with 18-200 do you think I should be concern with my lens quality or work on my skills?

 

<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/6058121">Picture 1</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/5987940">Picture 2</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/5987953">Picture 3</a><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/5987852">Picture 4</a>

45K in four years is not that much. Nikon has announced the D200 "A double-bladed shutter unit tested to well over 100,000 cycles"

Get D80 or D200.

Why don't you compare shooting data using Picture Project or Opanda IExif this will eliminate a lot of variables. If the settings are the same I would assume picture quality should be the same except composition.

I just got it couple of days ago and I'm extremely happy. I know some may not agree but it's a nice portrait lens also.

3 weeks ago I was certain to buy 70-200. Someone suggested that it's a great portrait lens and good for sports with TC.

Situation didn't change much but it's harder to decide now since I can use 105 for portraits but still have to fill the long range gap. I'm looking for suggestions from people with a similar setup.

Thanks.

I was on the market to purchase 70-200 but got fascinated with some of you guys

macro photography that I went and I bought 105 micro lens instead. So now having

12-24 and 18-200VR and 105VR should I still buy 70-200 with TC1.4 or 1.7 for

shooting sports or should I get 80-400 or 70-300VR? My camera is D200 - No night

games. High school only, mainly football some baseball. Max. budget with bill me

later option $2K. Thank you very much for your suggestions.

Thank you for your suggestions, I decided on 70-200VR lens wit 1.4TC. Thanks Brent.

The more reviews I read more confused I become. I will make my decision based

on the responses to this post. I have D200 and 18-200 lens. I am not

completely satisfied with sharpness at 18 and 200. It is like using crazy

glue, you can glue everything but nothing well enough. I need a lens primarily

to shoot my son football games. Besides sports I like to photograph landscape

and people.

I got some nice shots with 18-200 but I noticed that I need to crop my

photographs too often. I need sharper and longer lens and I will not consider

any other brand.

<br>

Which one should I get with $1,5K budget.<br>

70-200 + TC-14E <br>

80-200 + TC-14E <br>

80-400<br>

NEW 70-300VR<br>

300 f/4<br>

 

Possibly selling 18-200, that would increase my budget, but then what else can

I get to cover the range?

<br>

Thank you.

I just got my D200 with 18-200VR lens shooting landscape. My initial set up was

based on recommendations from kenrockwell.com --> color mode: III,

saturation:enhanced, Optimizing: VI+, WB: auto

photographs looks good on my monitor but when I take them to a printer - colors

looks much different from the original, greens are dayglo, fluorescent and skin

color is almost orange. In general too much green, even shadows are green.

Any suggestions? What are your settings? Thank you.

Thank you for your answer, for some reason I thought it is more complicated than this. Cleaning makes more sense unless away from home.

Can someone please elaborate on dust off feature on D200

Benefits and possibly show examples.

Thank you.

Michael,

 

I would give it a try using USB cable and shot directly to your pc with Nikon Capture. If you don't have one --> download tryout version for free. If you still have the same problem have it repair while under warranty.

Based on what you already have I would suggest 80-200. I just got 18-200 and I'm not impressed; good traveling lens. Did you consider 70-200?

If you really want this lens do what I did buy it on ebay but expect to pay between $860-920.

Thank you Lilly,

 

Perfect explanation, I definitely like tight head shots. I really like DC option on 105 but may consider 85/1.4

Would I be able to get less DOF with any of the above than on this shot.

thank you all.

I thought I could get away with my 18-200vr lens but it's not exactly what I

was looking for.

I would like to be able to set focus on subject's eye and have --> nose and ear

out of focus naturally and not to use Photoshop.

Which lens would you recommend based on your experience. I'm debating between

50, 60, 85 or 105 - never shot any of them.

Thank you for your response.