shuo_zhao

<p>Generally speaking, landscape, wildlife, and portraiture require somewhat different lenses, or at least lenses with different characteristics. </p>

<p>The 16-85 is a very nice lens, aside from its slow variable aperture, it's quite a good performer; and its fairly long zoom range makes it a versatile and lightweight travel lens. It's a good choice as long as it's not used to shoot moving subject in poor lighting: it's good for landscape. </p>

<p>For wildlife, and especially birds (which could be quite small and distant), long telephoto lenses with the largest/brightest aperture you can afford is ideal. I think if you're on a budget, primes like the 300 f/4 AF-S will get you better quality images than similarly priced, slower zooms. The 70-300 4.5-5.6 is a f/5.6 lens at 300mm, which's noticeably slower than the 300 f/4. This would make your situation challenging if your subject is moving (motion blur dude to the lens' slow speed), if you're shooting in poorly lighting (less light is entering the lens, and you have to compensate for it while sacrificing quality), and the AF system might struggle. (f/5.6 is by definition as slow as Nikon's AF systems can handle)</p>

<p>You might also want to check out the third party 70-200 f/2.8 zooms (with a teleconverter) as an alternative to the 70-300 f/4.5-5.6. </p>

<p>I'm not sure what kind of portraits you're taking. There're obviously different types of portraits utilizing different FLs, DOF, technique, and so on. Generally speaking, a faster lens (large aperture) would be ideal. As others have mentioned, a f/2.8 normal zoom should be fairly versatile for this job; as it offers a fast aperture for low light shooting and subject isolation, and a variety of FLs for different compositions. </p>

<p>A high quality, fast, and light prime lens could also be a feasible alternative as a portrait lens. The 50 f/1.8 AF-D and the 35 1.8 DX are two solid choices, assume you prefer the look and perspective of your respective FLs. </p>

<p>Going from a D300 to a D700 is a bit of a trade off. You'll loose the reach and higher pixel density of the D300; while gaining better low light performance and greater flexibility with WA shooting. As other have said, there could be some issues with lenses. </p>

<p>Even if the D700 end up being the better camera for what you do, it could still be better to hold off the purchase and stay put; as it is almost always a cost effective to do so, and that more capable cameras will always get introduced in the future. </p>

<p>We can't rule out the possibility that the new lens is optically better, especially when stepped down. After all the 17-35 wasn't the most distortion free WA lens out there. Also, the 17-35 has an aperture ring; in certain situations, moisture and dust could get inside through it due to the lack of sealing.</p>

<p>We should wait for tests/reviews on the new lens before you decide. (if you could)</p>

<p>The 50 f/1.8's only meaningful advantage over the 50 f/1.4 is its relatively minimal amount of distortion. (aside from the fact that it's cheaper and it's sharp when stepped down) On the other hand, the 50 f/1.4 is faster, which allows more developed bokeh and better performance in low light.</p>

<p>Andrew, the 35 1.8 and 24 1.4 are two fairly different lenses. The fact that the 24 is more of a wide angle lens (obviously when using it in FX, it would be far wider than the 35 on DX: as it would be normal vs. wide) and it's a top of the line, brand new FX lens make it very expensive. The 24 should be a excellent lens, but using it on a D200 wouldn't be the most cost effective thing to do, and you won't be getting the most out of it (good image quality made to cover the entire FX frame). </p>

<p>It could be a good idea for you to get a D90, or a D300/D300s if you need the pro-grade build quality and controls. The D700 is a good choice too, as it would be quite a step up from the D200. But that will only be a feasible solution when you got the lenses worked out; and you got the budget for it. </p>

<p>The 24-70 f/2.8 is a pretty heavy lens, and the weight of the elements you're moving when zooming are quite heavy just as well. When the lens is pointed upward, you should feel the resistance caused by the elements themselves, while when it's pointed sideways, the resistance felt is due to the friction caused by the weight rubbing against the bottom of the barrel/support (for the lack of a better word). I own the lens, and it does have more resistance when zooming within the FL ranges you've mentioned. </p>

<p>I'm not saying that your lens is definitely fine, but your situation seems common if not normal. </p>

<p>It's been awhile.</p><div></div>

<p>It's one of the best kit/low cost lenses out there. Its distortion pattern is simple and predictable. The VR helps a lot. At f/8, there's not much difference between the 18-55's image quality and the image quality of a pro-grade zoom. </p>

<p>Rebecca, please let us know how much you can spend. Also please let us know what focal length do you prefer to shoot your portraits at? (essentially all FLs can be used for portraits, but the results are quite different)</p>

<p>Generally, candid portrait shooters would either want to achieve a limited DOF to allow subject isolation and for shooting in low light; others might often find the results due to the perspective of a longer (telephoto) lens flattering as it tend to "flatten" facial feature (make big noses look "smaller). (some modeling shots take this concept to the extreme) Wider lenses and/or zoom lenses are generally more flexible to work with. </p>

<p>Among the cheaper choices, there's the excellent 35 f/1.8 DX, which's a fast fast and sharp lens. It's a "normal" lens, which's shorter and wider than a formal portrait lens, but it's quite nice for a lot of the casual/environmental shots. The 50 f/1.4 AF-S would work more like a formal portrait lens on the D40x, and it's a even faster f/1.4 lens (good for low light, shallow DOF...), but it's less versatile lens on a DX body. (it does work on FX too)</p>

<p>You can also go with a telephoto lens like the 55-200 VR (assume there's a serious budget limit). The longer FL has some nice benefits for portraits, as I've mentioned above. </p>

<p>As many have mentioned, the two choices listed are very different lenses.</p>

<p>The 70-300 is a slow/variable VR telephoto lens, which's more ideal for light weight travel/landscape/outdoor photography (it's pretty much unusable for low light photography of moving subjects); while the Sigma is faster lens, which's better for action, low light, or subject isolation/DOF control. But it's not a Nikkor and it lacks VR. </p>

<p>The D700 is essentially the same size as a S300, except that it has a larger prime, which probably makes it look big.</p>

<p>The D3 is faster than the DX00 grade cameras, it's built even tougher than the already well built DX00s, and it has a few special features such as the integrated vertical grip. Although the D3 is the camera of choice for many working pros and enthusiasts with enough budget, the D300/D700 are already good enough for essentially all tasks. The D700 and D300 are more cost effective than the D3. </p>

<p>You have to decide if you really need FX, and what's considered heavy and cumbersome while what's considered light and compact. </p>

<p>The D90 and 18-200 VR combo should be quite ideal for travel photography in good light. In fact it's probably one of the most convenient setups out there. The Tamron 28-75's FL range's gonna feel awkward on a DX body. It's not very long and it's barely wide. </p>

<p>The 35 f/1.8 DX could be a nice addition to your setup. It's not a very expensive investment, but it's a very high quality lens (good optical quality, good built quality, light and compact) that allows low light photography. The 50 f/1.4 or the "cheap" 50 f/1.8 AF-D are two good alternatives to that, but not everyone like the look of their FL on a DX body. </p>

<p>For sports, candid, and low light stuff in general, the D90 and D5000 are good places to start. The D200/D80 generation of cameras are often seen as substandard nowadays, as far as noise is concerned. The D300 is obviously better, but you might or not might not need its added benefits. You might want to conserve some budget for lenses and accessories. In low light situations, you'll also need fast lenses to go along with a camera that manages noise well; and fast lenses are generally not cheap. </p>

<p>If you're into low light, action, and need good DOF control, you should probably go with one of the 3rd party f/2.8 normal zooms, like the 17-50 f/2.8 Tamron or 18-50 Sigma others have mentioned.</p>

<p>The 18-200 could be a good choice if you want to the most zoom range or selection of FLs in a lens. </p>

<p>The 16-85 VR should be an alternative to the 18-200 that offer less range but better optical quality.</p>

<p>The combination of a 18-55 VR and 55-200 VR remains a good option for you. I would personally choose this over the 18-200 due to the latter's optical shortcomings. </p>

<p>Be cautious if the deal sounds too good to be true. There are a lot of scams out there nowadays. $200 is an extraordinarily good or in other words unrealistic for even a well-used (but undamaged and not defective) 80-200 f/2.8 lens. </p>

<p>It's probably not a good idea to sell the 18-135 if that's your only wide/normal lens. Also, a brand new 18-135 can probably be purchased for $200, so don't expect to get as much by selling it. </p>

<p>The D2H is a lot more durable than a D90; and it does have quite a few nice high end features. </p>

<p>The D90 would win in low light (noise wise); and it would be the better choice if you want to print large or crop your images extensively. The D90 is newer, so it does come with things like that nice D300 style high res 3" LCD and video capture capabilty. </p>

<p>If some of your subjects are not stationary, the AF really helps. A lot. </p>

<p>Here are some of the pros and cons of each lenses: (I own both)</p>

<p>The 35 is sharper wide open (it does feature a hybrid aspherical element which the 50 lacks). It has better bokeh; and produces better color. It's a G type lens with a rear rubber seal, which's a nice touch. Its distortion is more pronounced than one would expect from a normal prime. It FL makes it more usable as a general/all purpose prime.</p>

<p>The 50 is longer, which makes it better for portraits. It has an aperture ring, which's nice if you ever end up using it on an old-school camera. It essentially has no distortion. It's rather soft wide open; it has busy/harsher bokeh. The aperture ring is fragile and sometimes "acts up" when you want to take a shot. Its mount is not sealed, and dust and moisture do get in. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>>> "Shuo's pushing it by suggesting f/16, and his generalization on DX sensors is wrong. A D40 can utilize smaller apertures than a D3x.<br>

So I ask again: Stephanie.... What camera are you using? If it's a 6 megapixel DX camera, you're probably ok to f/11, where you'll first see the image softening."</p>

<p>Joe, I actually said that in practice I've never gone beyond f/11. (on a 12 MP D300, diffraction is not excessive at f/11) Since she's doing macro; and close focus would cause the DOF to be shallow, I think she could probably use f/16 to get ok results when she desperately needs DOF. </p>

<p>>> " I usually shoot iso 200, aperture F16/22, and a shutter speed of about 125 or more. I know depth of field is shallow; it,s sharpness I am mainly concerned with."</p>

<p>Keep the ISO low when possible: ISO 200 is good. But you have to make sure there's enough light (natural or artificial), and the exposure is correct. Don't underexpose, because it aggravates noise. f/16 is ok, but don't go beyond it. f/22 wouldn't get you the best results on a DX body. Be sure to focus on the part of the scene you wish to put in focus. Use MF or at least AF using the "better" center AF area and then recompose: be sure whatever you want to be in focus is in focus. Sometimes the AF acts up and you end up with a slighty off focus, which could already be excessive and unacceptable for macro shots. For serious macro, which means you're really close to the subject, use a tripod.</p>

<p>There are so many factors that could lead to a image becoming "not sharp". With close up images, it's even more dffcult to get things right.</p>

<p>Diffraction could be one the factors leading to softness in your case. (On a DX camera, I personally would never go past f/16, and has almost never used apertures smaller than f/11) This is one optical law that can't be overcome; and it's something photographers have to find a compromise with in case a very broad depth of field (especially for macro) is needed.</p>

<p>If you weren't using a tripod, and the shutter speed you used is rather slow, then camera shake could lead to motion blur (often perceived as "lack of sharpness). If you did use a tripod, there could still be motion blur if your shutter speed was slow and the subject moved. (a crawling bug, flower in the wind...just two possible macro scenarios)</p>

<p>If you cranked up the ISO, then there could be excessive noise. This is often perceived as softness also.</p>

<p>If your 60mm lens is the 60 AF-S micro, then it's definitely quite a lot sharper than any of the kit zoom lenses. It is in fact one the sharpest Nikkors I've ever used.</p>

<p>I think Samsung now makes a P&S camera with 2 LCDs: a larger one at its usual spot in the back and a small one in the front. If you're taking a self portrait, I think the front LCD would allow you to see yourself. It's like a camera phone.</p>

<p>Nigel, the slow, variable aperture zooms you mentioned won't do you much good if you're shooting events in low light. Even the f/2.8 pro zooms are probably not fast enough. It's probably a good idea to use a fast prime. </p>

<p>The 50 f/1.8's AF mechanism rely on moving the entire optical design back and forth, so it's a rather "open" design. It's also a AF-D lens with a aperture ring that lacks a rear rubber seal. So overall, it's probably not all that hard for dust to get in. </p>

<p>If the presence of dust is affecting the lens' performance/image quality, then you should definitely get it replaced. </p>

<p>A DSLR is probably a better choice if she wants to get more into photography; and it's also a better bet in the long run. The LX3 has a 1/1.62 inch size sensor, which is much smaller than the APS-C sized sensors found in compact DSLRs. Generally speaking, this would allow better image quality and much better low light performance. DSLRs also allow her to utilize a wide selection of lenses, which would make the camera a more versatile and capable piece of equipment. The limitations of even the best of the P&S cameras today are not limited to shutter lag. </p>

<p>Just a few things that might help you convince her...</p>

<p>Of course, if she wants a camera that fits inside of a pocket, obviously no DSLR can do that. </p>

<p>Sally, you have to ask yourself: do I really need more megapixels? Generally speaking, more pixels would allow you to print your images larger and crop them more freely. On the other hand, there's a very common misconception about the "benefit of extra megapixels": many people believe that having more pixels means the camera is capable of producing better (or sharper) images, which's not true at all.</p>

<p>Of cource the D70 is not exactly a new camera. Your D70 could be considered as outdated because of other reasons: such as wear and tear, having a shutter that's about to fail (?), mediocre AF performance, slow image capture/process speed, low frame rate, poor low light performance, lack of new features like live-view or video, and more. </p>

<p>Assume that the D70 is still in usable shape, it's still probably a good idea for you to continue practicing and experimenting with it, as an advanced camera might not be needed for one to improve as a photographer. If the D70 becomes unusable, a capable but moderately priced choice like the D90 would probably be a good bet. Of course the lower end models might also be good compromise choices. </p>

<p>The 70-300 lens that's non-VR, non-AF-S, non-ED, and non-D is one of Nikon's cheapest and most basic lens: in terms of both construction and optical quality. Assume yours is unusable, and you still need a telephoto lens, then the 55-200 VR or the 70-300 VR could be good choices for you. Both of them features VR and ED glass elements. Neither of these are high end pro lenses, but they're not substandard designs. </p>

<p>>> "Is there anything else that I should think about investing in at this stage?... I have heard of rings, filters etc, but really am not sure what they do, or if I really need them..."</p>

<p>It's probably still too early to decide if you need them.</p>