ted_raper1

<p>I'm going in July - my wife has been there in summer before, so I do know about how hot it's going to be. And as always, I plan to do a lot of shooting in the "golden hours", right after sunrise and before sunset. The hiking will be done in the middle of the day mostly, so I'm expecting most of that to be just grab pictures.</p>

<p>Thanks, guys - good advice. I made a typo in the original post - I have an 80-200 2.8, NOT a 28-200. I do think I may have to look into renting something wider than the 16-85.</p>

<p>If you're going outside the city, the coastal highway (101, I think is the route #) has some spectacular scenery as far as rocks, trees, coastal shorlines, etc. Just be careful where you park your car!</p>

<p>I'm packing up for a trip to the Grand Canyon/Lake Powell. Here's what's in my Tamrac Expedition backpack so far:<br>

Nikon D200, D80 backup<br>

Nikon 16-85 VR<br>

Nikon 28-200 2.8<br>

Tamron 90 2.8 macro<br>

Assorted tripods, filters, manuals, cleaning gear,remotes, etc. Does anyone have any specific suggestions as to additional gear/lenses? I'll be doing a fair amount of hiking, and going on a placid raft cruise down the Colorado river (for which I'll take my wifes point and shoot Canon). The lenses I plan to leave at home are my 50 1.8, my 18-35, and my old film 28-105 (Nikons).<br>

Any advice is appreciated.</p>

<p>I have a chance to pick up an old Tokina 24-40 ATX 2.8 really cheap. The lens appears to be in excellent condition, but my concern is that according to my research, it's about 23 years old! The designation is just "ATX", not G, or DG, just plain old "ATX". Does anyone have any experience - or thoughts - about using such an old lens on modern Nikon bodies (D80, D200)? I already have a 50 1.8 and don't really need the Tokina, but for what it will cost me I'll probably get it. Even if it's not good on digital, I can use it on my 8008s.</p>

<p>Chad, I have a D80 (right now with a 16-85 lens that I just got - great lens!) and I never use the auto white balance. I set it myself with the "sunny-cloudy-shady" icons and that usually gets it pretty close in camera. In tungsten or flouresent light, Nikon's auto white balance is worthless (at least on the D80), but once again, the icon settings get things pretty close and then you can finish it up in PP. So in short, I NEVER use the auto WB setting on my D80. </p>

<p>All I can say is that if I had to live on the money I make as a part time photographer...I'd be homeless, starving, and naked. Especially now, because as Bruce says above, anyone with a digital camera thinks they can make a great photograph (and in some cases, they actually can). So it's tough enough to make money as a FULL TIME photographer, much tougher to expect to supplement your income as a part time one.</p>

<p>I get that question often when displaying in galleries - "is that the real color of that schoolbus?". My whole thing as a photographer is to seek out bits of color in life, be they natural or man made, and record them (film, Velvia, digital a D200). In general I don't mess with the saturation slider in PP, but even without that I have some incredibly strong and colorful stuff. People these days generally refuse to believe that anyone with a camera is NOT manipulating their images because it's so easy to do and yeah, most of us DO add something to the in camera RAW file. So these incredibly strong colorful images on PNET to me are an inspiration, and my complments to the people who do them. And I really don't care if the colors were enhanced in Photoshop or not! A beautiful pic is a beautiful pic.</p>

<p>I went through this some years ago when I was with a co-op art gallery. When I started showing some digital work with Photoshop adjustments, a couple of the "pure" artists (painters, both of them) railed on me for "manipulating" my photos. My response was, and still is, that I use every tool available to me to make a better photo - just as a painter would use the most up to date paints, etc. The bottom line is that it's MY damn photo, and any PS manipulation done by me is (as stated above) no different than Ansel Adams doing his darkroom thing. </p>

<p>Another vote for the 18-35. I just picked one up used, in excellent condition, for $350. Works great on my film bodies, and just fine on my D200 (not real wide, but works great).</p>

<p>Thanks, guys. For my purposes, what I photograph - I do work for galleries - I'm almost always able to wait for the right light, the right situation. I use tripods, so VR is not that important to me ( I have a couple fast primes) and for the same reason, fast autofocus isn't either. Maybe I just didn't have the right DX lenses, but I found vignetting, cheap construction, etc. just didn't do it for me. So I sold the DX lenses and I'm perfectly happy with my "old" guys. Just for specifics, I use a 50 1.8, a 18-35 zoom, a 28 2.8, a 105 macro, 24-85 zoom, and an 80-200 2.8.</p>

<p>I've amassed a small collection of mostly older Nikon glass (details not really important here) for use with my 2 digital (D80, D200) and one film (N80)) bodies. When I switched to digital a few years ago I went out and bought a few DX lenses and used them for a while. Then I discovered I really didn't like them - I know the arguments: DX lenses are optimized for crop frame cameras, they're newer, smaller, lighter, etc. and with the most recent optics. But I still prefer my older lenses, and here's the question: Are the modern DX lenses really that much better on DSLRs than the older, high quality Nikon glass from the late 90s and early 2000s? I never did direct comparisons, has anyone done that with similar lenses? </p>

<p>Chris, as Craig says, seriously consider either getting a book on drawing/painting composition, or take some basic art classes at your local community college. My own background as a photographer includes majoring in studio art in college. Composition is second nature to me from that background, and as Craig says once again, most photography "composition" books are very basic and probably won't help you very much. </p>

<p>Thanks, all. I think I'm just going to give the kit 18-55 a try and see how that works out. I rarely print bigger than 11 x 14, and I don't do a lot of wide angle work anyway - my usual modus operandi is to isolate something and then use one of the primes for a fairly close up shot. The advice has been much appreciated.</p>

<p>Thanks, Akira. I actually have an 18-55 kit zoom (which has basically been a paperweight, never really used it except once or twice). Is it really better image quality than the primes? I don't generally care for zooms, which is why I've never used the 18-55.</p>

<p>Thanks, Keith. I don't usually shoot a lot of wide angle stuff; buying one of these lenses just to have in the bag for the trip. I'm kind of tempted to try the Sigma. For $150 I can toss it if I don't like it.</p>

I'm going out west this spring on a driving tour, need a wide angle prime. I'll be using it on a D200. Both lenses are

available used in the $150 range. All my other lenses (except a Tamron 90 2.8 macro) are Nikon, and I'm hesitant to

buy the Sigma. It's 2mm wider, but slower (no concern, I have good tripods). Anyone here have any comments

about the two lenses? I know the Nikon 20 is a fine lens, but know nothing about the Sigma.

<p>Another vote for the Tamron 90 2.8 macro. It is the only non Nikon lens I own, and it is superb in all respects. I have never directly compared it to the Nikon macros, but suspect its performance is just as good. The main difference would probably be build quality, but I don't knock my equipment around at all so that is not an issue for me.</p>

<p>Another vote for the AF-D 1.8 - the absolute best value in a Nikon lens now, or ever.</p>

<p>When I'm travelling, I always carry two bodies - sometimes three. My D200, my D70s, and if I anticipate shooting any film, my N80. That said, I rarely actually carry more than one into the field, but I need to know I have backups in case of failure (moot point so far - I've never had a Nikon fail on me in the field yet). The backups usually stay in the hotel or the car.</p>

<p>Thanks, Mark. I do use it on a crop sensor, yes (D200). You did answer my basic question about 12mm being 12mm whether zoom or fixed focal length. Hard to believe I've been a photographer since 1970 and this is my first zoom lens!</p>

<p>Hello everyone - new poster here. By way of an introduction, I've been a photgrapher since the days when a Pentax K1000 with Kodachrome 25/64 was the hot setup. I don't do "event" photography; I shoot photos for galleries and have done a lot of exhibits over the years. I use Nikon equipment (2 film bodies, 2 digital bodies).<br>

While I'm not a beginner, I do have a "beginner" question. I have always used prime lenses but recently purchased my first zoom - Nikon 12-24. I know about the depth of field on a fixed focal length 12mm lens, so here's the question: does a 12-24 mm zoom lens have the same depth of field at 12mm as the fixed focal length lens? And does that apply to zooms in general?<br>

Thanks for any advice.</p>