work-page

Go to a shop where you can try them out. Handling characteristics may be a more important factor in getting great results than minute differences in image quality.

"When the novelty of instant gratification and the latest technology wears off, you will realize that a camera is a camera, regardless of what is the imaging technology it peruses."

 

That's exactly why I've made the decision to go entirely digital. I long held this off, being indoctrinated here about the supposed superiority of film and full frame over APS size digital. But in the end, I figured, a camera is a camera regardless of the technology. And digital works..

 

I've sold my 6x6 system, four 35mm film bodies, put the remaining two 35mm film bodies in a box in the attic, and haven't shot film for months. I don't miss film a single bit..

There can only be one.. the SB800.

 

Especially with the D50's limitations, the SB800 has the extra modes required to trigger it off-camera in a host of flash modes. You can try to go cheap with an SB600, but it's false economy. You'll want off-camera flash at some point, and a diffuser dome, and try out gels, and tilt lower than horizontal for macro, etc etc. However, once you get all the brackets, bits and bobs that you need for that, and that come with the SB800 as standard or built-in, you're out of more money. And what's worse, you still have less flash options..

Why should you care what we think of this particular implementation of the 28? Why not shoot a couple of pictures with it and see how it works for you?

 

Besides, if I'm not mistaken, you've experienced yourself (the 35-70/2.8 story comes to mind) that sample variation may play a much bigger role in whether a lens is good or bad than lens design itself.

Given that your budget is limited, I'd say get the cheapest of the two now. Learn long lens technique and to use it as best as possible. But anticipate on upgrading in a couple of years when you've set money aside and know wether what you really need is a zoom or a fixed focal.

 

That said, if you can scrape/beg/borrow the money together for the VR, I must say it's a joy to use..<div></div>

The D40X makes sense from a competition point of view, but the 55-200VR not. With a 70-300VR just released, and only a single zoom (12-24) wider than 18mm in the line-up, I'd think there could be some more effort spent there.. how about a 15-30/f4 for instance?

Over the course of years, I've had the AF (MIJ), AFn (MIC), AFD (MIC). Of these, the AFD is definately the one to keep. The MIJ looks best from a distance, but looks are deceiving.

 

The MIC ones with the rubberized focus ring have better manual focus feel than you get from the extremely slim hard plastic ring on the MIJ. Their f22 aperture lock button is a slider, so they don't click-lock and block at unexpected moment like the MIJ.

 

Between the AFn anf AFD, the AFD sits somewhat tighter in the lens barrel, and therefor doesn't flop that much when the AF runs into the near or far focus limit.

I just saw two pictures in your portfolio of small birds on a feeder, and I don't really think that a 'stronger' lens is the answer here. The birds are so small in the picture that stepping up from 300mm to 400mm doesn't really help. You'd need well over 600mm (more like 800mm) for the vantage point you have now. Lenses like these are not cheap, and no garantuee for success either. The really cheap suggested mirror lens won't work on a D80 by the way.

 

The best way to go from here is to get closer, or rather, have the birds get closer to you. Move the feeder closer to a window from where you can shoot without the bird minding your presence. Move the feeder a couple of feet every day, not all the way at once. Make sure you use fast enough shutter speeds to freeze the bird's motion.

 

And last but not least, use the best image settings on the camera. Preferably RAW and to jpeg later. That way you can tune sharpness, contrast, etc. at your leasure and extract maximum detail.

The 18-70 focusses close partly by shortening the focal length. This means that the field of view increases at close distance. This is often done in zoom lenses where lens groups need to move in relation to each other anyway to be able to zoom.

 

The Sigma apparently does this to a lesser degree (I bet it extends a fair bit when focussing close, in contrast to the 18-70), and instead relies heavily on helicoid extension to get close. The extended helicoid increases the distance from the front element to the film plane, and hence lessens the field of view. What you think you see is a longer focal length, but what you actually have is a shrinking field of view at the same focal length instead.

Despite being screwdriver driven, the 35-70/2.8 is one of the faster focussing lenses.. It's a fine lens for action. The only thing AFS would add is the ability to manually override the AF without turning any levers..

All these 70-300 lenses have apertures that are in the same league; 4-5.6 or 4.5-5.6. I wouldn't worry about the difference between f4 and f4.5 at the short end. It's at the long end where you need the largest aperture, and they're all the same there.

 

I would not go with a 28-300. Such a large zoom ratio comes with compromises that the 70-300s don't suffer. I would also not get one without APO (Sigma) or ED (Nikon). For me, the VR feature of the 70-300VR is a godsend, but that's just me. The half life size macro feature of the Sigma is a nice feature too, but may be moot if you decide to get a true macro lens in the end. Just depends on what's more important for you, and on your budget of course..

Best thing to do is to look for an English version of the manual on the Web. For instance here: http://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/

Arthur, regarding the 200/2+TC, have you considered that the problem may not be in the lens/TC combination but in the atmospheric conditions at the time? When you're doubling the focal length to fill the frame, you're also doubling the soup through which you shoot.. When it's hazy, not only contrast suffers in the picture, but the AF gets a harder job as well. I'd say, give it another workout in clear weather before you give up.

Scratch..<div></div>

Pressing the control pad to change the focus area only works when the meter is on; You'll need to half press the shutter release first.

There's no need to perform mental arithmetic in the field if you set exposure compensation on the D50. Set the D50 to 200ISO and +1 EV, and it will give you appropriate values for 100ISO..

Douglas and Mark; thanks for the hints. Indeed, when chimping the pictures I could see I did have the selected AF sensor dead center on the bird in all the pictures that felt somewhat uncomfortable. And you're also right about the light, it was overcast and dull. About 3 to 4 stops under sunny sixteen. Unfortunately there's no hint of better weather yet. As per DOF, I just checked at 15feet/4.5meter, the DOF for f8 is still in the order of 4inches/10cm.. something I hadn't realised. Thanks again!

I gave my 70-300VR a short work out to familiarize myself with it, and took

about 50 shots of a Grebe. There were a couple of things I noticed. First and

foremost; 800ISO on my D50 spoils every picture: blotched up detail in the

darker feathers.<P>

Other finds: 200ISO and f8 gives a couple of blurred pictures, but every now

and then there's one that is much sharper than any of the shots with 400ISO and

f5.6, despite the two stop difference in shutter speed (ca. 1/60 vs 1/250).

Probably to do with VR (active) stopping shake but not motion. As for other

settings; spot metering and continuous AF-C.<P>

 

However, when looking at other people's water bird pictures with this lens, I

feel I should be able to do much better. Apart from jumping in the water to get

closer, what ways are there to improve image quality from here? Anything I've

overlooked?<P>

<A HREF="http://www.photo.net/photo/5620769&size=lg">Grebe

full size</A><div></div>

Elliot wrote: "There is virtually no difference from 200mm to 300mm, so that should not be the issue. VR is nice to have but keep in mind it is only good for stationery subjects."

 

The difference between 200mm and 300mm is 1.5x. For me, that difference in reach is crucial when walking around..<div></div>

For a walk around lens, I'd seriously consider sticking to zooms. The fewer you have to swap lenses because you need a different focal length, the less dustbunnies you'll have on the sensor. Cleaning a sensor outdoors in wind/dust isn't what I'd consider ideal.. Unless you're going to carry two cameras of course..

A long time ago, I had the original 24-120 AFD. It does have internal focussing, i.e. doesn't change size when turning the focus ring. But it does extend (a lot) when zooming.

 

As an all in one solution, it does have some appeal. But I also found it had a number of deficiencies, which might have been due to sample variation.

 

At 120mm it was straight and at 24mm it had slight wavy line distiortion, much better than you'd expect from a 5x zoom. But at 35mm it had really really really bad pincushion distortion. Most seem to have pronounced barrel distortion at 24, but mine didn't. It was just horrid at 35mm.

 

It was plenty sharp at f11, but what lens isn't? The image was decidedly soft under f8.

I'll second the advice to save longer and not settle for anything less than the SB-800. Especially with the D50, which does not have a commander mode built in, the SB-800's built in SU-4 slave mode saves the day for off-camera flash without cords.<div></div>

All Nikon AF (d)SLRs work this way.

 

The metering in P,S, and A mode is limited to a EV-1 lowest light level. That's why you see 'lo', irrespective of the aperture/shutter selected. Basically it's the camera telling that it can not determine what you want to expose for under these circumstances. It can't differentiate between a night scene, a dimly lit room, a black subject, a sky with a couple of stars, etc..

 

You're expected to go to M mode, point at what you need to come out middle grey and tune the exposure to match with the meter at the bottom of the viewfinder..

Oh, forgot to mention: shot on D50 in JPG/Fine/Large..

Bottom right 100%<div></div>