zach_nicodemous

<p>Hey All,</p> <p>I really really value all of the advise that I have been getting here - and its educational too - I am learning important things that I need to learn.</p> <p>I did some research yesterday into renting a Nikkor 200-500mm lens in South Africa and I have found a couple of companies that are willing to do so with a credit card to place a hold against. I am happy to do this and will probably go ahead and do so.</p> <p>This said, I had a couple opportunities come up today that I could not miss:</p> <p>I came across somebody selling a Sigma 150-500mm today that was 2 years old and never used, still in original box. It was listed at 600 euros (£460) but she'd been trying to sell it for a while and I haggled down to 500 euros (£385). I had found them going for £600-700 on eBay and Amazon so I feel like I've gotten a really good deal. I've already taken some pictures to test it and I'm really happy with the magnification factor and the clarity of the image compared to my Tamron 70-300 and absolutely no chromatic aberration that I could tell.</p> <p>There is a question coming though - the lady that sold it to me is a professional photographer and informed me that the lens might look a little soft due to back-focus and that I might need to get it (or my camera?) adjusted as a lens shop. Now the images I have taken, to ME look perfectly sharp, very clean and I personally do not see any softness. I read this article (http://cameralightlens.com/newsblog/?p=264) and then had another look - I still don't see anything.</p> <p>I have uploaded a few of the RAW images I just took here (http://zdncomputers.com/sigma/) - keep in mind these were done on full auto-mode as I didn't really want to play around with manual settings right now. Taken on a tripod and I used a remote so as not to cause any wobble. Can any of you guys see softness or back-focusing or anything like this?</p> <p>Leading on from this I wanted to ask - having found the rental options available in South Africa, should I still rent a Nikkor 200-500mm?</p> <p>Onto the second good deal of the day - I have managed to win a bidding war on eBay and have won a brand new Nikon D7200 Body for £580 including shipping. Considering that I was about to order the D7100 for £559 on Amazon UK (£569 inc shipping). I was literally just about to hit buy on Amazon when I decided to check eBay once more for any auctions about to end or anything and I noticed the D7200 up with very few bids and the rest is history. The D7200 versus the D7100 is not worth it when its an extra £100+ pounds but I think its reasonable for an extra £11 hah!</p> <p>Its being shipped tomorrow via UPS and should be here either Friday or Monday.</p> <p>A very lucky day all in all I would say but am curious to hear if people think I should still rent the Nikkor lens or if the Sigma is going to be good enough. I don't mind doing the rental if its going to be a case of fantastically better results. If its going to be a minimal or barely noticeable difference then I'd rather save the money it'd cost to rent that lens and put it toward something else.</p> <p>Also would be curious to know if anyone would recommend any other lens for this trip? I have my 18-55mm Nikkor, my 70-300mm Tamron (which I will sell after the trip), a Nikkor 50mm 1.8g Prime, and now this new Sigma 150-500mm. If one of you were going on this trip, is there any other lens you would bring with you?</p> <p>Thanks all so much.</p> <p>Zach</p>

<blockquote> <p>I would very very strongly recommend that you get any new camera and lenses and practice a lot with them at least a month before you go.</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes I did say that that was the plan in one of my earlier posts. I have 44 days until we go so I want to order the new frame this week and the lens asap after :)</p>

Sorry for the double post but there was one more point made that I wanted to address regarding the wildlife tours and not being allowed to exit the vehicle. We actually plan to self drive through all the main nature reserves and wildlife reserves. We have booked a Toyota Hilux or Ford Ranger (depending on what they have for us when we get there) both of which are pickup trucks and this was done purely with the intent of being able to jump into the back and quickly put up my tripod if need be thus giving me a stable way to shoot. No idea if it will work out this way in reality but its the plan at least. If I may ask, what is a rocket blaster? I think Ken mentioned it with regard to keeping dust off my sensor. Never heard of this before. Thanks all. Off to bed now as its 1:23am

<p>Hey Kent,</p> <p>I wanted to thank you for your really detailed reply. Its echoing some of the things that I have been thinking about today but I always doubt myself so its great to have someone independent come out and say some of the things that have been running through my head!</p> <p>I would like to take a moment to correct a typo I made not only once but TWICE earlier - not sure how it slipped my proof reading - I mentioned having a Nikon D3200 but in fact I have a D3100!</p> <p>So <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=5189561">Wouter</a>, you had asked why I feel I have outgrown the camera - well now perhaps you understand me a little more when I say that - the D3200 has 24.2 megapixels whereas the <strong>D3100 </strong>has just 14.2 MP. My key frustrations with it are the MP count which I feel is holding back the lenses I already have in terms of quality/detail and also the ISO's. It starts getting REALLY grainy at ISO 800 and I really don't like it!</p> <p>This is why I want to leap up to a D7100 or 7200. Some folks here have commented that I am better off with a 7100 than a 7200; I note the 7200 has both Wi-FI and NFC - I don't care about that. However I have also noted that the 7100 has a buffer issue where it'll only hold a very limited number of shots in buffer before it slows down. As I am going to be photographing wildlife, am I going to want the larger buffer that the 7200 offers? I don't care about the extra battery life either as I always carry 2 or 3 spare batteries with me.</p> <p>Regarding the lens - I just don't feel like I can justify spending the kind of money that the Nikon 200-500mm VR sells for. I'd be looking at around £1200 pounds with shipping factor in. Someone mentioned buying a more expensive lens and then selling it after the trip - I live in Cyprus and the market here for selling used lenses, especially EXPENSIVE ones is really really slow. I'd be lucky if I managed to sell it within three months, six months or even a year - honest!</p> <p>Kent - what you said about NOT selling my existing camera before the trip - I had this exact same thought today! I plan to bring both the new camera and old one with me - I'll let my wife use the old one whilst I use the new one - that way I may actually be IN some of our holiday photos hah! I'm usually the one behind the camera. The D3100 is simple enough and works well enough in auto mode that my wife should be able to manage with it hehe.</p> <p>So the jury is still out for me in terms of what lens to get - in fact there has been an additional development this evening. I've noticed someone here in Cyprus is selling a Sigma 170-500mm lens at 300 euros (around £230 pounds). I've checked some reviews online for this lens and it seems to be pretty good - especially in terms of chromatic aberration (something that has plagued me with my Tamron 70-300mm) which lots of people say is non-existent on this lens!</p> <p>Does anyone here have any experience with the Sigma 170-500mm? It seems like a good bargain at £230 and sounds like it might be good enough for the purposes of this trip.</p> <p>Obviously I know it wouldn't be upto the standard of a £1000+ pound Nikon Lens, or any £1000+ lens, but I really have to balance budget versus quality here. My wife and I are relocating from Cyprus back to the US next year (my wife is from Florida, I'm british) so while shes okay with me upgrading my camera gear - there is a limit to what shes going to be okay with. I think I can get away with £1000-1200 in total.</p> <p>I'm watching a D7200 base on eBay right now at £620 including shipping and a D7100 at £569 including shipping. So at best I've got £630 to spend on the lens and at worst £480.</p> <p>I REALLY appreciate all the advise everyone has replied with so far - you have no idea how much it has helped me today (you probably do have an idea haha) and I look forward to eventually making a final decision based on what you guys are saying.</p> <p>Thank you all</p> <p>Zach</p> <p>EDIT TO ADD: As of right now, its 45 days until we leave for Africa - I'd like to decide on the frame in the next 2-3 days so I have at least 5 weeks to get at least remotely comfortable with it. The lens I feel I can take a little longer to decide though the Sigma 170-500mm thats up for sale here seems like a good deal so if it really is, then I'll snap it up asap based on what you all say.</p>

<p>Thank you for that reply Oliver.</p> <p>I am aware of the trade-off between the price and the available aperture settings. I've had to learn to deal with lower aperture availability on my Tamron 70-300mm which steps down (or is it up?) to f6.5 when extended to the full 300mm.</p> <p>I usually deal with it by either compensating with slower shutter speed when photographing a static of slow moving object, or higher ISO when I need faster shutter speed. Obviously at higher ISO you get more noise so its a trade-off for sure.</p> <p>For the purposes of my trip to Africa, I expect to be photographing most animals at medium to high distance - after all - how close does one really want to get to a hungry, bloodthirsty and wild lion! Also being wild animals, they'll probably keep their distance anyway. I also expect to do most of my photos during the day so I feel that the Sigma I am now looking at (Sigma 150-600mm F/5-6.3) will probably get the job done. As I said my Tamron won't do lower than f6.5 at 300mm so if the Sigma can do 6.3 at 600mm then my experience dealing with the Tamron should be useful. I'm also assuming that the Sigma at 300mm will have a higher available setting than my Tamron at 300mm.</p> <p>The one thing the Sigma seems to be missing is a Macro mode, which my Tamron has. I was hoping to sell the Tamron but I may end up keeping it now as I do use the Macro mode quite a bit!</p> <p>Anyway, I want to thank all for replying here, its been invaluable in helping me get an understanding of this so I can now make a properly informed decision buying my new lenses.</p>

<p>Thanks for the replies. I've been doing more reading whilst I was away from here and have learned pretty much what the both of you just said. I was still a bit unsure though so its nice to have some confirmation that I am finally getting to grips with this.<br /> <br />I am now looking at a Sigma 150-600 - out of my budget but I think I might be able to stretch to it. Its a once-in-a-lifetime trip we are making to Africa so its worth pulling out some extra money for a lens like this I feel.</p> <p>Are the prime lenses any cheaper than the ones that can zoom? I ordered a Nikon 50mm 1.8g prime yesterday and I don't feel it was any cheaper than a zoom. Maybe I'm wrong though.</p>

<p>Hi There,<br /> <br /> First, let me apologize in advance if I use any terms incorrectly here. I got into the world of DSLR photography three years ago with the purchase of an entry level D3200. Three years later, I feel I am hitting the limits of this camera and am getting ready to upgrade before I leave for a four week trip to Africa in July.<br /> <br /> In combination with the D3200, I have been using a Nikkor 18-55mm lens and a Tamron 70-300mm lens.<br /> I am already planning to upgrade my base to a Nikon D7200 - I considered a Nikon D610 (full-frame) but I do not feel I am ready for the jump to a full-frame camera yet. Maybe in another three years. The key things I want with an upgraded base are more ISO options, more control and a higher quality picture all of which the D7200 achieves for me.<br /> <br /> I have been quite happy with my Tamron 70-300mm lens however I am now looking for a lens that is going to get me a higher magnification factor.<br /> <br /> That said, I am struggling with understanding what factors exactly contribute to a higher magnification. My understanding has been that to calculate magnification you typically divide the higher number by the lower. This would mean that my 18-55mm lens has a 3.05x magnification and my Tamron a 4.28x magnification. Its quite obvious to me however that my Tamron has a far higher magnification than my Nikkor - certainly more than the numerical difference would imply (3.05x versus 4.28x) so its obvious that the magnifications you can calculate in this manner are not relative to one another.<br> <br /> I presume that I am missing something fundamental but I am not sure what it is.<br /> <br /> I do not just wanted to come here and ask "what lens can I buy that'll give me a higher magnification that my tamron". Instead I would like to understand what I am missing or failing to understand so that I can consider a lens myself and assess whether or not it will do what I want. How do I properly consider how much magnification a lens is going to give me relative to my eyes?<br /> <br /> I've been looking at a Nikon 18-300mm lens which implies a 16.6x magnification but it seems to me that this lens would not have a higher magnification than my Tamron. I am assuming the lower number means than the lens can "zoom out" further than my 70-300mm and that the 16.6x magnification is therefore "relative" to this more "zoomed out" state.</p> <p>If I am understanding things correctly, then in order to get a higher magnification, my guess is that I'd need a lens with a higher "mm" - for example a Sigma 120-400mm or an Opteka 650-2600mm. This is just a guess on my part and even if I am right, I am not sure WHY I am right.<br /> <br /> My budget for a new "zoom" lens in this case is upto £450 pounds sterling ($650) so I am hoping there is something I can get which will meet my needs.<br /> <br /> Thanks in advance for any replies and explanations.<br /> <br /> Kindest Regards<br /> Zach</p>