bruce_stenman1

Take a 50mm f1.8 and a 50mm f1.4 and shoot at a lens chart and then look at them on a monitor. You will see considerable difference in edge to edge sharpness. In reviewing pictures from general shooting it is hard to know if a soft part of the image was due to camera movement, a smudge on the lens or some other factor.

 

I have had lenses that I thought were soft and when I took pictures of a lens chart it became very apparent that I was right.

 

Both 50mm lenses provide excellent value for the money but the f1.4 lens will have better build quality and better IQ on the average copy of this lens. For the difference in cost there is little reason to get the f1.8 lens. It is different when comparing the Canon 50mm f1.4 lens to the Canon 50mm f1.2 lens where the latter costs $1000 more.

In my travels through Europe I have never wished I had the 70-200mm lens on my DX cameras. It was too large, too heavy, too conspicuous, and not really needed. The only place I can see using a 70-200mm or 80-400 would be on a barge trip or similar situation where I needed more reach. Taking the 70-200mm f2.8 lens out of the bag opens up a lot of possibilities.

 

I have acquired a 50-150mm f2.8 Sigma which will be going on future trips. It is half the size (so you can take a smaller bag) and half the weight, and half the cost of the 70-200mm lens. No VR but with f2.8 and primarily outdoor use or the ISO 3200 of the D300 that is not really a concern.

 

For street photography it is a lot less conspicuous to be using any lens other than the 70-200mm canon. I would take the 85mm f1.4 that provides a 135mm FOV on the DX camera and it worked OK. The 50-150mm f2.8 is about the same size and will be better.

 

The other lenses that worked quite well are the 10.5mm f2.8 fisheye and the 12-24mm f4 zoom. For landscapes and cityscapes the 12-24mm is the perfect lens. For the interiors of cathedrals and buildings in general the 10.5mm fisheye is great both because it can take in the entire perspective and with its f2.8 speed it can be easily used hand held to take sharp pictures in dimly lit interiors.

 

The 10.5mm f2.8, 12-24mm f4, and Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 lenses with a camera, and a SB800 (great for interior shots to add light and for the many situations where a tripod is not permitted), will easily fit in a relatively small camera bags like the LowePro Stealth D300 AW or the Mini Mag AW.

 

Take some time to look at pictures taken in Europe and published in travel publications or National Geographic and think about what focal length lens was used for these images that you too would like to be able to take. I think you will find less than 5% that were taken with focal lengths greater than 100mm (100mm lens on DX camera or equivalent FOV).

 

Do take the strobe and also a small travel tripod. A tripod I whole heartedly recommend is the Cullmann 1002, which with its ball head weighs just 19 ounces, collapses down to 12 inches, supports over 6 pounds, and costs just $55.

 

Depending upon the weather a rain cape makes it easy to protect yourself and your gear while being able to quickly pull out your camera for a shot.

I recently purchased the II version and did a focus test at f2.8 and the 150mm setting. DOF was very shallow as is to be expected but the focus was dead on and sharp left to right. This is good as you cannot do AF fine tuning with this lens.

 

It is a very usable focal length range. I often find myself with the 70-200 on a DX camera wishing for a shorter focal length which the Sigma provides.

 

It is half the weight which was also a consideration but its much shorter length at 6-1/2" versus 9-1/2" for the 70-200mmm is also a big plus as it is a lot less conspicuous and it will fit in just about any camera bag. Very hard to find camera bags with an internal height dimension that will accommodate the 70-200mm lens. The Sigma will fit easily into a waist pack bag like the LowePro Sideline Shooter and leave room for a couple more small primes or a flash.

 

It will work with the Sigma 1.4 teleconverter but not the Nikon one. With a 1.4x it becomes a 70-200mm f4 lens and still is smaller and a lot lighter than the 70-200mm f2.8 lens.

 

I have no way to test the AF speed of the lens but it seems a little bit slower than the 70-200mm lens.

I would go for the D300. The much improved LCD makes it possible to check shots in the field that with the D200 could not be checked until you got them onto a PC. The ISO 3200 is a actually a plus for trials and indoor shows as it allows for faster shutter speeds when shooting hand held with lenses like the 70-200mm f2.8 - VR only helps when the subject is not moving. The higher ISO capabilities make Auto ISO more usable as well.

 

The D300 also has a much better vertical grip/battery pack. I paid $150 to have the battery pack for the D200 repaired after 11 months of gentle use (the internal battery clips broke off which is a known design defect).

 

You will be investing the same amount in lenses and flash and CF cards and printers regardless of which camera you use so the savings from the D200 is a small part of the overall picture.

You can call Nikon and ask the tech support people as to when this lens was first registered with Nikon by the first buyer. If it is truly NEW it will not be registered and the seller should be able to provide the Nikon warranty card that has yet to be filled out.

 

And eeBay does provides only $200 protection for buyers UNLESS:

 

.....items are only eligible for PayPal Buyer Protection up to $2,000.00 USD (Top Tier Coverage Amount) and should be identified as eligible items in the eBay listing if:

 

1. sellers eBay feedback rating is at least 50;

2. At least 98% of the sellers eBay feedback is positive;

3. The seller has a Verified Premier or Verified Business Account in good standing;

4. The listing was on an eligible eBay site (eBay and certain other eBay sites self identified as such)

5. PayPal is listed as an acceptable payment method;

 

 

So unless you buy from an eBay merchant, your coverage is at best $200. With disputes the buyer has to initiate a claim on PayPal. There is no way to file a grievance with eBay so the seller is able to continue to sell defective merchandise. Even the $2000 coverage from an eBay Merchant is valid ONLY if the merchant has a 98% positive feedback rating, which means very few merchant transactions are really covered.

 

With PayPal a buyer with a dispute must use one of the online forms on the PayPal website, and then wait for 30 days to hear back from PayPal. If they refuse to get involved then you are back to dealing with your credit card company's dispute process. If you linked your PayPal account to your checking account then you are really out of luck and have to take the loss.

 

Item 5 from the eBay website is rather humorous in that eBay forces sellers to allow buyers to accept PayPal payments, with PayPal of course wholly owned by eBay. It may be legal but it certainly is not ethical conduct, but then monopolies don't really need to worry about legality or ethical conduct.

 

There is no mechanism to publicly air grievances with a seller on eBay so in the future any photo gear I buy will not be from eBay sellers but from people on Fred Miranda or Craig's List or from merchants with a long track record such as Berger Brothers or B&H.

 

In addition eBay sellers may have a excellent track record for transactions where they bought items as it is all mixed in with transactions where items were sold. 18 good transactions where the individual was the buyer get mixed together with 2 bad transactions where the person sold items and it shows as a 90% good rating when actually they have a 100% bad rating as a seller.

I would use bubble wrap rather than foam and also be concerned about moisture/condensation and dust getting to the gear.

 

Except for the vibration, one of the Pelican cases that holds a camera bag inside would make it very easy to both protect your kit from moisture and dust and to get to everything to actual take shots. Using foam to insulate the Pelican from a mounting rack would be one way to go and I would look into a gel pad.

I would be careful about the generator you use with a power pack as the electronics are subject to damage. I have had generator produced current on boats fry a dye sub printer, a UW strobe charger, and a power pack on different jobs.

 

Just because people get away with standard generators some of the time I would not blindly assume there is nothing to worry about. It takes very little to damage electronic gear and the newer the electronics the more sensitive it will be to voltage irregularities.

 

If I attach a computer to a generator in the field I try to do it through a ONEAC line conditioner. Some people get away with playing golf in lightning storms or sticking their fingers in sockets and others do not.

If you try to find the perfect solution you will find it does not exist.

For product shots small strobes work well and are easier to place due to their small size. For portrait work indoors a central power pack makes it easier to adjust lighting ratios though for most studios once they have the lights set they make few changes during a session.

 

There are monolights like the Normans and the Profoto that have built in Pocket Wizard receivers which is handy for use with Sekonic meters that have the PW transmitter.

 

For outdoors portable flash units like the Quantum Qflash provide portability, lots of modifier choices, and lots of flashes per charge.

 

A cheaper option is the new Zeus lights which have ringlight and beauty dish attachments and which due to their small size can be used in tight quarters and with their battery packs, can be used outdoors.

The Zeus is probably the easiest way to get started and it becomes a usable outdoor, indoor, and product photography setup with a nominal investment.

 

There are starter kits that are a good way to go and helpful in that many people get a lot more powerful units than they really need, especially for digital work.

I agree with Greg. After hauling around a Speedotron kit for portrait work I have switched over almost completely to using a Qflash kit. With digital it is possible to shoot at higher ISO settings and so you don't need as much power from the flash. For softer light you want the light source to be just outside the frame and as close to the subject as possible so you do not need much power.

 

Dual SB800's do not really put out enough light. You are not getting double the output but more like 40% more light and you really need to add battery packs if you want reasonable recycle times with SB800s when they have to do a full power dump and recharge the capacitors. And too fast and they can melt.

 

Another item to consider is the new Zeus units with portable power packs. Made by Paul Buff - creator of the Alien Bee and White Lightning monolights. A lot cheaper than a Qflash setup and they even have a very nice and compact beauty dish and a nice ring light flash unit.

Yes there are. Be aware though that Li-ion batteries unlike their predecessors can catch fire and even explode (any maybe while you are taking a picture). Remember all the laptops catching fire from the defective Sony Li-ion batteries and the recent TSA regs on not allowing loose Li-ion batteries in checked baggage?

 

Li-ion batteries require careful construction to minimize fire and explosions (early versions of a major manufacturer's power drills would explode if the cordless drills with their Li-ion batteries were dropped onto a hard surface). Third party batteries and chargers while less expensive are not likely to have the special construction.

 

So is worth saving $10-20 on a D200 battery considering the risk? I care too much about my eyesight and my gear to economize here.

For landscapes you will want the 17-55mm lens and a good idea to take a tripod and at least one split neutral density filter or plan on bracketing your shots and combining them either in the camera or later in PS.

Take a look at the Feisol (CT 3242 for $320)tripods which are great for heavy camera and lens setups, reasonably priced, and available without the center column which save weight.

 

Any good ball head with the Wimberley Sidekick is a good way to top it off and add a Arca Swiss style QR plate with stops at each end to keep your lens off the ground.

To every wedding I take 3 cameras, 4 flash units, 8 lenses, 32GB of CF cards, batteries, tripod, and years of experience in both operating the gear and working with people (half the job).

 

Many people, including the person who told you there is always a first time, do not understand that wedding photography is the most demanding form of photography possible, and that the photographer is far and away the vendor during the wedding day with the most skill required and by far the largest investment in equipment (other than the limo company).

 

If your new camera fails, your run out of CF cards, your flash fails, you spend an hour trying to get the group formal shots, your kit lens provides too slow a shutter speed option and most of your shots have motion blur, etc., what will you tell the bride?

 

You should start as a 3rd photographer for enough weddings to feel comfortable (and have accumulated enough gear) performing as a second photographer and then go up to the next level. I know many photographers who are excellent as second photographers focusing on the candid moments of the day that are completely ineffective as the primary photographer - and the smart ones know it themselves.

 

Before you make the leap from a hobbyist to someone that a lot of people are counting on for results with no excuses (bride, groom, both families, friends, and relatives), you need to be sure you really understand what is involved and make as objective a judgment as possible as to whether you are ready to do so.

Just a side note - I have never had a couple select any of the garter shots for their album. It is an obligatory part of the day for many couples but not very important in the overall scheme of things. It is on par with them stuffing cake into each other's mouth.

Melinda,

 

Before you start thinking about shooting weddings you really want to become proficient with your digital gear (much much less exposure latitude than anything other than chrome films), flash (TTL is not nearly as effective with digital sensors) white balance, image editing workflow and image processing applications like Lightroom and Photoshop, album design, etc.

 

It is a much harder transition than most people appreciate and with wedding photography there is no time to think about what you are doing and no opportunities to retake blown images.

I try to be at 1/80th or faster to have virtually all my shots sharp. That said, I have found myself shooting during the ceremony at 1/10th with the 70-200mm lens racked out to 200mm.

 

I rented the 24-105mm f4 IS lens for one wedding and was very glad I rented it. It just was not fast enough for the reception. With the 5D I would be using the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 to accompany the 70-200mm f2.8 IS lens and a couple primes like the 24mm f1.4, 50mm, and the 85mm primes.

 

Not at all unusual to find myself at f1.4 1/60th and ISO 3200. With a f2.8 zoom lens I was shooting at 1/30th and underexposing (and getting noise as a result) and still have a lot of blurred image shots. A big part of the reason I switched from the Mark III to the D3 where ISO 12,800 produces usable images.

 

The 5D is also a relatively light camera and more care needs to be taken when slow shutter speeds are used. If you are moving even slightly or there is any amount of camera slap it all contributes to soft images. I can shoot at less than half the shutter speed with a Mark III versus a 30D and get equally sharp images. Whether it is a better mirror dampening mechanism or the greater mass of the camera I can't say but I do see the difference in the images shot.

The buffer is so large with the D300 that it is highly unlikely you will notice a difference in performance regardless of what CF card you use. I have not tried with the D300, but with the D200 I could take 20 RAW images before the buffer was full and files had to be written to the CF card.

 

I have had a corrupted CF card and as a result lost 3 image files. There is always the concern that with a 4GB card I could lose 400 images. For me I would rather carry 8 4GB cards than 32 1GB cards as I keep all my cards in a case that is attached to my belt the entire day.

If someone is just starting out and trying to decide between the 40D and the D300 I would say that looking only at the two cameras the 40D is the better value. If someone is looking to get lenses then the 5-year warranty on the Nikon lenses should be considered in part of the decision. Flash has been much better with Nikon but the 40D with the 580EX II for most purposes will work as well (though the 40D will also need the ST-E2 for the 580EX to be used as a remote slave).

 

With lenses there are distinct differences in the offerings from Canon and Nikon. With Canon there has been a much wider range of TS lens (though this really requires a 5D to take full advantage of their capabilities), and there is a much better offering of fast wide angle AF primes like the 24mm f1.4, 28mm f1.8, and 35mm f1.4 lenses. With Nikon there is only the 35mm f2 lens. With Nikon there are significantly better zooms with the 14-24mm f2.8 and 24-70mm f2.8, 200-400mm f4 VR, for which there are no Canon lenses with equivalent IQ and reliability and lack of back focus concerns, but these lenses primarily benefit the D3 user.

 

Weather sealing has traditionally been better with the D100/D200 cameras than the Canon 10D/20D/30D cameras, but the jury is still out on the 40D which is supposed to be better in this regard than its predecessors.

 

One thing that is truly distinctive with regard to Nikon is that every lens currently in production can be used on every camera in production.

This is a known problem lens with regard to AF. I would return the lens and hope the second copy is better. Quite a few pros have switched to the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 lens having given up trying to get consistently sharp images with their Canon 24-70m f2.8 lenses.

 

If you are lucky and get a sharp one (and don't use a 20D) and you use it lightly, it may be a great lens. But in your case you did not get a good copy and it should not be your problem to fix it.

On the 40D the 50-150mm Sigma provides the picture angle range of a 70-200mm lens on a film or FF DSLR and is a more usable range for everything except sports or wildlife photography.

 

VR is of no use when your subject is not completely still. When your subject is moving you need a faster shutter speed and you get that with a faster lens, i.e. f2.8.

 

The Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 is half the size and half the weight of the Canon 70-200mm lens which means you are probably going to be more likely to carry it with you and have it to use.

 

A lot of people get a 18-200mm "walking around" lens to save space and weight and at the other extreme is carrying around a 70-200mm f2.8 lens along with a "normal" range zoom. A good compromise is the Sigma 50-150mm lens which provides equivalent IQ and the loss of 50mm is not going to be a factor in most situations.

The 17-55mm f2.8 provides the focal length range that is ideal for landscape photography as well as for weddings and at weddings the f2.8 is important to have adequate shutter speeds in dark churches and dark reception locations (and it is always dark for the dancing).

 

I seldom used my 12-24mm f4 for weddings as the f4 was too slow. Although quite a bit more expensive, the 14-24mm f2.8 is a better lens in every way with better IQ at all zoom settings and apertures, faster AF - especially in low light and with low contrast situations (where the 12-24mm f4 falls down). The only drawback to the 14-24mm f2.8 is its size and weight.

The 80-200mm f2.8 ED IF version is the one to get. Big problem with the push pull zooms is the entry of dust which over time will degrade IQ with any lens. The ED glass does make a big difference with color IQ and the IF makes the AF faster. You should be able to find one in excellent condition for around $500-600.

 

I would however avoid buying on eBay as the buyer protection scheme is a joke and a bad one at that. Better to buy from someone with a good reputation on Fred Miranda and use a credit card to have some recourse if there is a problem or better yet use Craig's list so you can check out the lens before handing your money over.

Lensbaby

Bibble has Photoshop plugins for processing RAW files for the newer cameras. I am using this and Capture NX with my PC computers that are still running CS2 (CS3 only on the Mac Pro).

Eric,

 

I would reconsider the Mark III. I used one extensively for weddings and the AF was flawless and twice as fast as any camera I have used in low light (Mark II, 5D, D2x, D3, D300). Canon has announced a second fix that is due out the end of this month. I would not hesitate to recommned the Mark III.

 

I went back to Nikon in spite of the poor low light AF performance with the D3 and D300 to gain the ultra high ISO with the D3, the better flash exposure accuracy and consistency, and the Nikon zooms, 14-24mm f2.8 and 24-70mm f2.8 - both very sharp at all zoom settings and apertures and being Nikon I expect them to hold up quite well even with heavy use.

 

My main issue with the Mark III was the APS-H sensor that is not really supported by Canon which makes lenses for its full frame cameras and for its APS-C cameras (10-22mm and 17-55mm lenses) but none really for the 1D Mark II/III cameras. I fully expect that with the Mark IV, Canon will abandon this format.