16-85mm vs my others (oops long read)

FL00DY

Hi everyone. This is my first proper look at lenses since buying my D90 in January, with the 18-55 and 55-200 kit lenses.

I shoot mostly race cars and bikes at my local race tracks and I believe I'm getting better. I've also had fun shooting people (hehe) and mostly my mates 2 year old daughter who loves the camera. I've gotten some good feedback from friends who I've done large prints for.

A few weeks back I walked into a local camera store, mostly to kill some time for an appointment. I asked about longer zoom lenses for the race track, he suggested Nikon 70-300mm VR. Here in Australia at his store it was $1100 but most other online stores are $900 and one store who deals with grey market new stock imports is $600. To be honest, to my still untrained eye, the on-camera result didn't seem to get me all that much closer then my 200mm.

The race track I shoot at the most, 5 minutes away, is getting pulled down for housing :crazy And we can get nice and close to the action here. But the other track, 30 minutes away, has long run-offs the track and some sections you're some distance away.

I think because this guy is a photographer but also a salesman he showed me the Nikon 16-85mm VR. I really liked this lens and I think it would make a great replacement for my 18-55. At the grey imports online store it was $835.

I think ultimately I could see myself buying both the 16-85mm and the 70-300mm. But I need to be convinced that the 300mm is a good next step for race track stuff. I was at a V8 Supecar event the other week (massive touring car event on a street circuit, you know with corners, the drivers had to actually turn the wheel ) and watched the pro togs with their uninterrupted view through the caged fences and thought 'that's where I want to be'. So maybe I need to skip the 300 and save up for something a bit more serious? Trouble is going to a 400mm is going to be $1800+. Also there is the DX to FX comparison that I don't really understand.

OK that's enough typing now. Thanks everyone

FL00DY

60 views & no one wants to talk to me about 200mm vs 300mm ??? Sorry, maybe I didn't make it clear thats what my post was about.

ziggy53

A 300mm lens provides "some" extra reach over 200mm, but it's not a tremendous extra amount. How much are you having to crop in your current images?

Are you selling images?

What are the conditions of your shoots? Any night time shoots?

Ozzwald

Whenever i want to see what a lens is cable of i like to go to flickr and search the lens and a subject.

Trying searching "Nikon 300mm Cars"

Also if you just browse through pictures on flickr of a certain subject like "cars" you can check the tags of pictures you like and see what lens they are using

time2smile

55-200 vs 70-300

I have a D90 and the 70-300VR, dont have the 200vr. I would not get the 70-300 for just the 300 range. Its not fast enouf at f5.6 if its not a sunny day especially for those fast cars traveling the track.
If your serious about shooting, consider the 300vr prime f2.8, that would really be a 450 on the D90 DX body.

All FX lenses can be used on your DX, but DX lenses used on an FX body will give you black edges, because the rear lens opening is smaller than the sensor size.

FL00DY

ziggy53 wrote:

A 300mm lens provides "some" extra reach over 200mm, but it's not a tremendous extra amount. How much are you having to crop in your current images?

Are you selling images?

What are the conditions of your shoots? Any night time shoots?

I do crop a lot with my track shots, some corners I can get very close and fill the frame. Trackdays almost always full sun, sometimes cloudy but always during the day. I'm not selling my images yet, though I have started chatting to a few guys around the paddock who have liked my images and give me their email addresses. I'm trying to acknowledge the guys that are selling their shots, I'm not trying to steal business.

Ozzwald wrote:

Whenever i want to see what a lens is cable of i like to go to flickr and search the lens and a subject.

Trying searching "Nikon 300mm Cars"

Also if you just browse through pictures on flickr of a certain subject like "cars" you can check the tags of pictures you like and see what lens they are using

Thanks for that. I found a group for the 70-300mm VR

time2smile wrote:

55-200 vs 70-300

I have a D90 and the 70-300VR, dont have the 200vr. I would not get the 70-300 for just the 300 range. Its not fast enouf at f5.6 if its not a sunny day especially for those fast cars traveling the track.
If your serious about shooting, consider the 300vr prime f2.8, that would really be a 450 on the D90 DX body.

All FX lenses can be used on your DX, but DX lenses used on an FX body will give you black edges, because the rear lens opening is smaller than the sensor size.

But isn't the 300mm as fast as the 200mm? My 55-200mm VR kit lens is also f/4-5.6. I've been slowly getting better at panning and learning what works and where the best places are around the track, would a faster lens make this easier? Whoa I should point out, my budget is about AUS$1000, that 300mm prime lens you mention is $6K+ here ... lol more than 3 times as much as I paid for the D90 dual-kit lens. Also I don't think a prime is going to be any good for the track, sometimes you're on a corner and 150mm is fine, sometimes you need the 300mm. So a telephoto is the only real option.

But what you've said about the faster lens got me looking at other lenses. For instance, even if I could save up some coin for a Nikon 80-400mm it'still f/4.5-5.6D and $1800+. There are a few lenses from Sigma and Tamron that are between 250mm & 300mm that are f/3.5-6.3. But am I right when reading this that the f-stop at 300mm would be 6.3? If not then I come back to the Nikon 70-300mm @ f/5.6 and if the extra reach of 200mm to 300mm is worth the $685 ???

Thanks for the input so far from this, amazed at how much you learn just by shopping for a new lens.

time2smile

I agree, If the 200vr meets your needs than the 300, will do the same and give you more reach.

FL00DY

time2smile wrote:

I agree, If the 200vr meets your needs than the 300, will do the same and give you more reach.

I came across this interesting tool on the Tamron site, Focal Length Comparison Tool. It helps me see what kind of difference I get out of 200mm compared to 300mm.

Ozzwald

I have taken pictures of cars before, moving and at a stop. I use to use the kit glass also. First of all the 55-200mm is not to shabby. I dont really see the need for a large aperture, unless you want a shallower depth of field.

From my experience, most track events happen mid day...Plenty of light. I think the 70-300mm although the same aperture as your kit lens will work fine for you. I forget but i think its like 1/250th for panning cars, Anyways i was able to achieve that speed with my kit lens at a track and around town. I think that's for panning i cant Rember.

Anyways as long as you can get the shutter speed fast enough i don't see the need for a wider aperture considering the amount of light available for these situations...unless you go to night time track events...

So i think again the Aperture doesn't really matter for this situation unless you want a shallower Depth of field or you are shooting at night. But you should just look for a lens that has the reach you need then depending on your budget decide what aperture size you desire.