steven_pink

<p>I ended up buying the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/633038-REG/Giottos_MML3290B_MML_3290B_5_Section_Aluminum.html">Giottos 3290B</a> from B&H today for the height and weight capabilities. What would be my best option for a cheap head? (Under $40)</p>

I'm pretty positive there is only one non-art 30mm f/1.4 for Nikon. I bought one on recommendation of some people here on photo.net and I absolutely love mine. It's tack sharp in the center, but the corners are extremely soft wide open and don't improve a whole lot more as you stop down. I got mine for one $110 (the paint was scratched up and far from beautoful), so I can't complain at all. I have tested the ART version, and while I will say it's better in the corners when you stop down, I wouldn't pay the $390 more than I did for the improvement.

I really don't need a head. I don't necessarily want the extra cost or the added features. I'm willing to shove a screw in a stick if all else fails. As long as it can hold my camera+lens and it's tall, I'm happy.

<blockquote> <p>The problem is that the smallish plate, about 1.5" square, allows some fore-aft flexing when a particularly long lens is being held. <br> One other caution - do a little online research on the Manfrotto pistol grips - mine failed after about 2 years by not holding the weight any longer, and I've read of others with the same experience. I read that the drooping could be solved with a tension adjustment on the head, but that did not work for mine.</p> </blockquote> <p>Thank you for pointing that out. I would much rather have a tall monopod with no head than a short one with a head that could cause instability and possibly fail down the road. I feel that for my price range, just a monopod would be the best option and possibly save some money in the process. As far as portrait orientation goes, I typically end up using the lens collar or just hand holding if I need to switch back and forth rapidly, so the head isn't a major selling feature for me. </p>

How much did your monopod+head cost?

<p>I really like <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/463064-REG/Giottos_MM9780_MM_9780_5_Section_Monopod.html">this Giottos</a>, but price is a lot lower than similar monopods. It seems that Giottos is a decent brand, but is $55 for a 70" 15kg tripod too good to be true? </p>

I really like the Giottos you recommended for the height. I'd looked at it earlier today. Do you have personal experience with any of them?

<p>I'm into sports and portrait photography and I really need a solid monopod that can hold decently heavy glass without slipping (collapsing down). I have an older cheap monopod that I use sometimes, but even semi-heavy lenses like a 70-200mm f/2.8 and my D7000+Battery grip are too much weight for it. My biggest request aside from weight load is height... I'm 6' 4" and my 62" monopod gives me a back ache when I lean over using it all day. So, to summarize, I want a monopod that can hold a decent amount of weight, is semi-tall, and costs under $100. I don't need anything fancy like carbon fiber or a head. </p> <p>Thanks!</p>

<p>It's a bit late, but I wanted to thank everyone for their input! I ended up finding a D7000 a few weeks ago at a camera shop for $465 with a battery grip and couldn't pass up the deal. I also ended up winning a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 with the paint scratched off and a small scratch in the front element for only $100 on eBay. I absolutely love the new body and lens! Your recommendations were unbelievably helpful!</p>

<p>I have to agree with the other recommendations of the D7100. It has similar low light autofocus to the D750. If you plan on using crop mode on the D750, you're better off to just buy a D7100 because it's higher quality than the D750 when cropped down to give the same "reach". I'm a sports photographer and the folks here on photo.net talked me out of going full frame not to long ago and I'm SO glad I didn't make the switch. For wildlife photography, I would say a DX D7100 is the way to go. It's a lot cheaper, will yield better image quality than a D750 in crop mode, and it's lighter which is a <strong>huge</strong> plus for hiking and long walks.</p>

<p>Personally, I'm not sure if I would make a change with the 70-200mm f/2.8. If you sold it and bought a new 70-200mm f/4, you're basically paying extra to lose a stop of light in exchange for a lighter lens. Seeing the photos you have on Flickr, I feel like you have the best lens combo possible for your situation. I typically use my 70-200mm f/2.8 and 300mm f/4 on a D7000 to shoot sporting events. Although they start weighing me down by the end of the day, I wouldn't trade the one stop of low light performance for a lighter lens. Also, considering you take pictures of moving kids, that one stop of light from your f/2.8 lens is very helpful when you need to capture motion.<br> I would recommend keeping your current lenses (as they're both some of the finest lenses in their focal ranges) until later on if you decide to go full frame.</p>

Sigma's modern quality lenses are pretty phenomenal. It makes me sad that their previous bad reputation hurts them so badly. I used a friend's Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (Not even the new Art version) and was blown out of the water.

<blockquote> <p> I do recommend the 70-200mm f 4.0 FX lens if you need that much reach.</p> </blockquote> <p>I already own the 70-200mm f/2.8. I mentioned the gear I travel with most in my original post. </p> <blockquote> <p>The distortion of lenses such as the 18-70 is easily corrected these days with software. PS and ACR both have easy to use built in corrections for this lens. It should not be an obstacle.</p> </blockquote> <p>I'm really not too concerned about distortion. As I said, this is just a walk around lens. When I need to do wide angle shots at events (I mainly do event/sport photography), I usually use my DJI drone for an aerial view.</p>

That's some serious distortion... Where in the zoom range is it most/least distorted? Also, does anyone have experience with the sigma/tamron 18-50 f/2.8 lenses? There's quite a few options there that can be had around $150- $200 used.

Thank you so much for all your input! I feel like the 18-70 is the way to go from what you've said. About the 18-140mm... I see they're around $200 used. Is it worth the extra $100+? If I'm going over 50mm I would typically use my 50mm f/1.8 or 70- 200mm f/2.8, so the extra reach isn't a big deal for me. What else makes the 18-140 better?

Thanks to the recommendation of some photo.net members, I recently purchased a D7000 (instead of making the leap to FX). My entire lens collection consists of FX lenses and I have nothing to cover my wide angle and to use for walking around (which is very inconvenient). I've been considering the Nikon 18-70mm, Nikon 18-105mm VR (which I had in the past), and possibly the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8. I'm going to be buying used and trying to spend under $200. The 18-70 smokes the other two on pricing (a used lens for ~$70???), but is there something particularly better about the 18-105 VR's optical quality? I don't use VR much on the lenses I have, so that's not much of a selling feature to pay almost twice as much for. I liked my 18-105 while I had it, but I wasn't crazy about how cheap the build quality was. I understand the Sigma will give better low light performance, but I'm really having trouble justifying it over the old 18-70mm. Can anyone give recommendations based on experience? I'm a poor student so cheap is preferred as long as I'm not skimping out. This lens is just going to be a convenient walk around lens for when I'm not using my nice equipment or don't want to carry it around. If it matters, my main gear is: D7000 and D90 28mm f/3.5 (AI) 50mm f/1.8 70-200mm f/2.8 300mm f/4

<p>Option #1 - For low light and pretty long reach, I would recommend a 70-200mm f/2.8. If you look at them used on eBay, you can pick up a Sigma or Tamron version pretty reasonably. The Macro II version of the Sigma 70-200mm performs very well (I can't tell the difference between it and my Nikon 70-200) and it can be purchased for around $500 used last time I checked. The new OS version is currently on sale for $1200 new through Sigma.<br> Option #2 - The Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AF-S or 85mm f/1.8 are amazing lenses for low light, but I they don't have an extremely long "reach". To pair with either of those I'd get the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 AF-S VR; it's a great long range zoom lens, but it doesn't have very good low light performance. The total for the 50 and 70-300 would be about $450 used or $800 new.<br> I've personally found for indoor sports in gyms with bad lighting I need an aperture of at least f/3.5 or faster. I almost always use my 70-200mm f/2.8 for sports. It's versatile for indoor and outdoor shooting and it can be used under tough low-lighting conditions that kit lenses aren't usable in. The most cost effective option is probably the 50mm f/1.8 + a telephoto zoom of your choice. The 50mm f/1.8 can use a shutter speed 3.5 times faster than your kit lens when you're zoomed in. That makes freezing action in low light is much easier!</p>

<p>Alright, everyone... I got a friend to loan me a D7000 for the past week. I absolutely loved it! It's <strong>SO </strong>much better than my D90! This raises one more question: For a $300+ price difference, does the D7100 offer that much more capability? The one FPS boost shooting in crop mode seems irrelevant to me and the 24 vs 16 MP doesn't seem to make that much of a difference since we're still recording on the same size APS-C sensor. Can I get your opinions on what makes the D7100 more valuable?</p>

I've shot about 20 rodeos. I live in the Midwest and that's pretty much life around here. I understand that may not be a WHOLE lot of experience, but I've always been able to produce reasonable results. You're correct in the fact that I've shot most of those from outside the ring due to not age and most recent events I've been to have had a professional photographer in the ring and didn't want anyone else (which is completely understandable with the nature of the event). Sorry I didn't make that clear.

<p>I've never been paid to shoot a rodeo by the rodeo's organizers. I've always gone and covered all expenses myself while selling prints to competitors. I know the organizers are obligated to cover these fees since I'm giving them a CD at the end of it all, but I'm also taking into consideration that they're supplying me with a booth and doing free advertising for me. I'm considering charging them expenses + $300 for the CD for promotional use. Does that seem like I'm shorting myself?</p>

Thank you so much, Chip! I'll download them all when I get back to my computer and check them out!

I hate to charge too much to the event organizers considering they're paying me enough to cover my hotel room, gas, food, etc. (which I'd normally have to pay myself) I've shot a lot of rodeos. I grew up around rodeos and it's not new to me. I know prints are preferred at rodeos, but the event organizers are specifically asking for CDs. I would prefer selling prints because I typically make more on them. My biggest concern and reason for posting is, I've never sold CDs at a rodeo (only for portrait sessions).

I'm not so concerned about the principals of the charity the event is raising funds for... I'm not 100% in agreement with WWPs actions, but this is the biggest event I've ever been booked for with a lot of potential to make me some money. The photos I take would solely be used to promote next year's WWP benefit rodeo (which is NOT put on by WWP).

<p>I was near Appleton, MN about a month ago! I was shooting pictures (and competing) at a dog dock diving competition.<br> <img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3869/15160532069_4c718828e7_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="819" /></p>

<blockquote> <p>As for edge sharpness, this is not necessarily a plus for portrait use. One of the reasons I love using old (and I mean OLD!) lenses is they are NOT sharp as you go away from the center. People spend extra money to get something like the Nikon 105mm DC and Rodenstock Imagon 250mm to get that soft transition like that.</p> </blockquote> <p>That's exactly why I'm more and more drawn toward the older Sigma 30mm. It's half the cost of the new one and the soft edges are visually appealing in portrait photography. The fact that I <em>could</em> shoot a landscape with it by stopping down to f/5.6 is just an added bonus. My free time photography is mostly night shots and being creative with light.<br /> I took this last night:<br /> <img src="https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2945/15169462270_9420de74e7_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="680" /></p>