Photography / Camera chat thread.

Ok, worth getting at that price though?

What camera do you have? D90 or D5000? Sorry I get lost trying to keep track of everyone's models...
If it's the D5000 (or lower) then it's pretty much your only (cheap) option.
If it's a D90 (or any other with built-in motor) there's a Nikon 70-300G f/4-5.6 for around that same price.

These lenses have already been discussed here, I can't remember what thread though, but I believe the general consensus was something along the lines of "if you're only going to use it every now and again and can't justify spending 3x or 4x as much for the Nikon VR version, then go for it". There are trade-offs though, and to me they were too many to live with so I ended up spending more on the VR version... and to me they were:
- lack of stabilization needs stupid high shutter speeds (or a tripod) to get "sharp" static photos (1/500 should do, 1/1000 or shorter is better); leading to...
- it's still a "slow" lens, with f/5.6 max aperture; this means on a bright sunny day, and following the old sunny 16 rule and shooting with the sun on your back you'll be doing f/5.6, 1/2000s @ ISO200 or thereabouts. Step in to an open shade and you'll lose at least 4 stops, so that'll be f/5.6, 1/500s @ ISO800. Anything darker than that and you're in ISO 1600 and upwards territory; which leads to...
- it's not a very good lens when shot at maximum aperture, it's quite soft and you can never get the impression of crispiness when shooting above 200 mm. To regain some sharpness you have to stop down to at least f/8, or even better, f/11. Plugging these numbers into the above calculations, we get...

With optimum light conditions: f/8, 1/1000 @ ISO200 or f/11, 1/500 @ ISO200.
Step into that open shade and you're in trouble: f/8, 1/500 @ ISO 1600 or f/11, 1/500 @ ISO 3200.

Of course there are worst case scenarios, and if you shoot at shorter focal lengths (say 70 to 200) you can get away with slower shutter speeds / lower ISOs, but the tendency to go for the long end will always be there.

The Nikon G version also has very high chromatic aberration (purple or green fringing in very high contrast areas), which to me was noticeable even through the viewfinder. I'll pull it out of the box one of these days and shoot a comparison against the VR version to try and illustrate some of the differences.

All of this said, it's still £100 vs. £400, and if it's what I call a trackday lens (where you want to mainly get panning shots of bikes or cars zooming around the track) then the lack of stabilization isn't much of problem, and neither is shooting at large apertures since panning is all about slow shutter, smaller apertures and a truckload of technique

hi filipe, it would be for a d90 to be bought this weekend hopefully, would be used mainly for landscapes, but don't really need a zoom lens immediatly, so i guess i would be better to wait a bit and save the pennies for the more expensive nikon lens. thanks for your help mate cheers, andy.

Originally Posted by bluefishman

hi filipe, it would be for a d90 to be bought this weekend hopefully, would be used mainly for landscapes, but don't really need a zoom lens immediatly, so i guess i would be better to wait a bit and save the pennies for the more expensive nikon lens. thanks for your help mate cheers, andy.

No worries.
If you want a cheaper option and don't mind losing a bit on the long end of the range, there's another two options to consider:

55-200mm f/4-5.6 VR - mostly plastic, pretty much the same build quality as the kit lenses, but very good value for money (more so than the ones we were talking about). Of course you're losing 100 mm on the tele end, and it's still a mainly plastic lens, but it works;

70-210mm f/4-5.6D - proper old school metal, you'll probably only find them second hand (try www.graysofwestminster.co.uk , they usually have them in stock) but it'll be around the same price as the lenses we were talking about. You lose VR, internal ultra-sonic motor and 90 mm on the long end, but it's stupid sharp (I mean really stupid sharp), built like a tank and it focuses quite fast with the D90 built-in motor. The one oddity about it is the old-style push / pull zoom, i.e., instead of rotating a ring like the new lenses, you push and pull the whole barrel to change length.

Of course you are losing a bit of range on the tele side of things, and if you already have the 18-105 kit lens then 200 / 210 might seem short, but it's worth thinking about them.

I got my nikon 300mm vr lense back in october, my mate has the D90 also but has at present the tamron 300mm lense which was about £120 or so.
I have used his lense before getting mine and found it ok, he used mine when i got it and within 5 mins could tell the difference.

Imo Andy, save your pennies until you can go for the nikon VR lense, you wont regret it.
Btw im no expert, far from it, just coming up to my first year of DSLR.

My next purchases when budget allows, the 90mm tamron macro lense, a nikon flash, a trigger timer (i like time lapse stuff) and a bigger bag to keep it all in

My wife got me some decent filters for xmas, they didnt come in time for the actual day but came a couple of weeks ago, the polarising one looks good.
I might invest also in a filter holder which you can slide in coloured / graduated coloured filters.

BTW Filipe, thanks for all your technical info, i find it very interesting

Originally Posted by specialone

I got my nikon 300mm vr lense back in october, my mate has the D90 also but has at present the tamron 300mm lense which was about £120 or so.
I have used his lense before getting mine and found it ok, he used mine when i got it and within 5 mins could tell the difference.

Imo Andy, save your pennies until you can go for the nikon VR lense, you wont regret it.
Btw im no expert, far from it, just coming up to my first year of DSLR.

My next purchases when budget allows, the 90mm tamron macro lense, a nikon flash, a trigger timer (i like time lapse stuff) and a bigger bag to keep it all in

... and then another bag because it fits better, and then another one because it looks better, and then another one just because... photographers and bags, it's always the same thing, I went through 4 or 5 to get to the one I have now, started out with a small Crumpler thingy that was brilliant but too small, then a LowePro Sling (which I still use for body + flash + 2 lenses), then another bigger Crumpler that turned out to be big enough but the wrong shape and horrible to use, and now the Kata 3N1-30 that can carry 2 bodies + lenses + flashes + assorted tat. Of course you then need a trolley to carry it around, but it comes with the insert for said trolley so that's all good!

Oh, and you won't regret getting the Tamron. It's as sharp as they get, and then some more, and for the price it's nothing short of amazing. No VR, but when you use it for Macro you'll need a lot more than VR to keep stuff from blurring...

My wife got me some decent filters for xmas, they didnt come in time for the actual day but came a couple of weeks ago, the polarising one looks good.
I might invest also in a filter holder which you can slide in coloured / graduated coloured filters.

Cokin? That's usually a very good brand, not exactly cheap but very decent quality.

BTW Filipe, thanks for all your technical info, i find it very interesting

You're welcome, I'll be quite happy if people are able to pull some decent info out of my long winded ramblings about gear and whatever I'm in the mood to write about at any given day!

I think I shall stick to the MBK speak advice thread....brain hurts now..

Also another heads up from me, I got a subscription to practical photography for Xmas, got the first mag last week.
Anyway, they are doing an offer at the moment 6, yes 6 issues for £10 .

Haven't read the T&C tbh but it's probably some kind of tie in for another 6 months, which is still a lot less than mine was.
Mag price normally £3.99.

Hth

Originally Posted by Milky Bar Kid

I think I shall stick to the MBK speak advice thread....brain hurts now..

Let me translate it for you then:

Small f/ numbers, like f/4 -> big aperture -> lots of light goes into camera (out of focus stuff gets really out of focus)
Big f/ numbers, like f/11 -> small aperture -> not so much light goes into camera (out of focus stuff isn't that much out of focus)

Small 1/ numbers, like 1/2000 -> very short time -> not so much light goes into camera (freezes action and movement)
Big 1/ numbers, like 1/100 -> longer time -> more light goes into camera (blurs movement, doesn't freeze action)

Small ISO numbers, like 100 -> sensor not very sensitive -> needs lots of light (little noise in pictures)
Big ISO numbers, like 1600 -> sensor very sensitive -> doesn't need as much light (lots of noise in pictures)

Mix and match according to the conditions and Bob's your uncle!

Originally Posted by Filipe M.

Let me translate it for you then:

Small f/ numbers, like f/4 -> big aperture -> lots of light goes into camera (out of focus stuff gets really out of focus)
Big f/ numbers, like f/11 -> small aperture -> not so much light goes into camera (out of focus stuff isn't that much out of focus)

Small 1/ numbers, like 1/2000 -> very short time -> not so much light goes into camera (freezes action and movement)
Big 1/ numbers, like 1/100 -> longer time -> more light goes into camera (blurs movement, doesn't freeze action)

Small ISO numbers, like 100 -> sensor not very sensitive -> needs lots of light (little noise in pictures)
Big ISO numbers, like 1600 -> sensor very sensitive -> doesn't need as much light (lots of noise in pictures)

Mix and match according to the conditions and Bob's your uncle!

The holy Grail, getting it all right
I'm getting more used to this and what I find works once I use again next time.
I'll take a few of the same shot and keep adjusting until I get it to where I'm happy.