Need Advice on New Body & Lens - Nikon

redleash

I am following the discussions about the Nikon D300s, as I have thought about purchasing one. I could stretch for the D700 if I really "had" to. One consideration is whether my existing lenses will be useful for a new body and which one; I don't want to replace everything.

I shoot mainly landscapes and nature/pets. I recently returned from a trip to the Smokies and found my D80 was definitely less than ideal for low light and also sorely lacking when I had a chance to get some great shots of a black bear in a tree less than 75 yds away. I had on a Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED, with a tripod. It was near noon but shady in the tree so I didn't get anything like I should have considering the bear was close and available for about 20 mins. Other opportunities for great shots escaped me on this trip, so I discovered several things:

1. I need more fps and faster auto focus than I get with the D80. I had a chance to shoot just briefly w/ my friend's Canon 7D and I really liked the feel and the burst capability. I'm not switching from Nikon but just offering this comment for description's sake.

2. I may need a better long zoom (replacement for the above 70-300 lens).

3. My basic carry-around lens is a Tamron 17-50 2.8. I love it for wide angles and for its ease of use. But it was definitely too short for some of the shots I wanted. But the 70-300 wasn't good enough in low light to use instead.

4. The 70-300 is a nice lens but too heavy to use w/o a tripod unless I can shoot at high speeds. For distant landscapes with a tripod, it works pretty well.

5. The D80 is pretty noisy at anything above ISO 400--or else I am doing something wrong? I need better low-light capability.

Based on the above, what suggestions can ya'll give me for new body/lens? I don't need video but would definitely use it if I had it. Of all the above issues, I'd say the fps and the replacement for/addition to the 17-50 are my biggest concerns.

My existing lenses:

Sigma 10-20 f4.5-5.6 EX DC HSM
Tamron 17-50 f2.8
Nikon 50 f1.8
Nikon 70-300
Nikon 85 f3.5 ED VR Macro


Discussion is welcomed! Feel free to direct me to previous threads.

Many thanks,
Lauren

cab.in.boston

Seems like you have a pretty good handle on your wants/needs. As you may have seen me mention in other threads, I picked up a used D300 in the last few months and LOVE it! I can't say that it gets me better photos than my D90, but I really prefer using the D300. YMMV.

Since you have the DX format wide angle and standard lenses in the Sigma and Tamron, you don't "need" a D700 to "get the wide angle back," but if you have the budget for not only the body and new lenses, that is by all accounts an outstanding camera. Not that the D300/s is shabby...

I don't know about how heavy it will be, but perhaps you may want to replace your 70-300 with the new 55-300 that was just announced, but that is also a DX lens, so that would mean staying with that format. However, it has the same slow aperture as the 70-300, so it won't help you shooting a black bear in dark woods. The ideal situation would be to replace the 70-300 with a 70-200 f/2.8, if you don't want to spend $$$ on the Nikkor, the Sigma is supposedly very nice, but you won't get VR (OS in Sigma-speak) unless you get the new version, and then you might as well spend the same money on a used Nikkor VR1. But in either case, those are both still heavy lenses and would benefit from the tripod as well. It's hard to find really good glass that isn't also expensive and heavy. Just the way it is.

The autofocus of the D300/s is very good, and the higher fps would be good for you, too. If you don't need video, you might find a good used copy and save some bucks. You wouldn't need to change any of your lenses if you went that route. But I don't think I'm telling you anything you don't know. If you have the budget, go for a D700 and a few new lenses. If you don't want to spend that much, find a used D300 and you're all done. Or get yourself a nice pro-level lens or two and keep the D80.

I know. I'm no help at all.

Overfocused

Don't get the 55-300 either. The F rating is your weakness in both lenses, and the noise is the weakness for the D80. That will only compound the problem. You either need a fixed F2.8 lens, or, a new body as recently noise performance is MUCH better in the last 2 years, considering the 4 years of the D80. The cheaper option is the new body. The D300 will give you at least 2 stops noise performance over the D80, and the D700 will blow your brains out and ISO 3200/6400 photos are usable as long as they're properly exposed (and a little bit of noise reduction doesn't hurt either)

If I were in your shoes I'd just buy the D300 or D700 and keep your telephoto. Buying a better telephoto will only get you 1 stop extra light for a giant price tag (F/4 200-400mm is around $2k) as opposed to buying a better body will get you a minimum of 2 stops better noise performance, better resolution, better autofocus, better EVERYTHING. Just beware both the D300 and D700 have a massive 200+ item menu, all in 1 giant list. It is a brain cruncher waiting to happen if you want to find something. I've watched peoples heads nearly explode venting about this in college

cab.in.boston

Overfocused wrote: »

Don't get the 55-300 either. The F rating is your weakness in both lenses

I agree. I only suggested it because she mentioned how she didn't like the weight of the 70-300. The new 55-300 is about 1/2 pound lighter (I looked it up) than the 70-300, and should have somewhat similar performance due to the focal length range and aperture. My suggestion was along the lines of "if you're otherwise relatively satisfied with the 70-300, the lighter weight new lens should make it easier to handhold." A better, constant 2.8 lens will certainly not be a lightweight.

However, you are absolutely correct in that for better overall capability, the better noise and higher ISO performance of a more modern body will certainly go a long way, even with her current lenses.

Overfocused

cab.in.boston wrote: »

I agree. I only suggested it because she mentioned how she didn't like the weight of the 70-300. The new 55-300 is about 1/2 pound lighter (I looked it up) than the 70-300, and should have somewhat similar performance due to the focal length range and aperture. My suggestion was along the lines of "if you're otherwise relatively satisfied with the 70-300, the lighter weight new lens should make it easier to handhold." A better, constant 2.8 lens will certainly not be a lightweight.

However, you are absolutely correct in that for better overall capability, the better noise and higher ISO performance of a more modern body will certainly go a long way, even with her current lenses.

although she was using a tripod, hehe

redleash

Thanks, you two! Definitely some good insight and info, and it's nice to know that my initial thinking actually makes some sense.

I am not rolling in dough, so a new FX body and new lenses isn't in the cards right now. Thus, I'm leaning towards the D300s, keeping my current lens collection, and picking up something to replace or add to the 17-50 2.8 walkaround lens I use so much.

Now, if you just hadn't mentioned the giant menu . . . my brain doesn't seem to learn as fast or retain as much as it once did . . . but that won't stop me, I'm sure!

Cheers,
Lauren

Overfocused

redleash wrote: »

Thanks, you two! Definitely some good insight and info, and it's nice to know that my initial thinking actually makes some sense.

I am not rolling in dough, so a new FX body and new lenses isn't in the cards right now. Thus, I'm leaning towards the D300s, keeping my current lens collection, and picking up something to replace or add to the 17-50 2.8 walkaround lens I use so much.

Now, if you just hadn't mentioned the giant menu . . . my brain doesn't seem to learn as fast or retain as much as it once did . . . but that won't stop me, I'm sure!

Cheers,
Lauren

Is there a specific improvement you're wanting from a wide angle lens? If you use it that much that must mean it works well

redleash

No, I am really happy with the wide angle end of the 17-50--I use it a lot! I also sometimes use my Sigma 10-20 at the wide end, though not as often as I thought I would when I bought it. I'm really looking for more reach in a walkaround lens, like around the 100-120 end. I just feel pretty limited with 50mm, when I don't specifically want to get a wide angle shot. My point about the 70-300 is that it is too heavy for me to use as a walkaround lens b/c I have trouble using it at anything slower than 1/400 and staying focused. If I'm someplace with lots of light that works, but for street shooting, for example, there is often shade in the buildings. Of course, I would lose the wide angle aspect if I used that.

A second body would solve the issue by letting me use both lenses--but then I have that extra weight! Ah, but a new 300s body . . . .

I'm wondering about the new Nikkor 24-120 as a walkaround . . . but would I miss my 2.8 much?

Any thoughts on the Nikkor 24-120 f/3.5? I would give up some wide angle capability but probably not a huge loss in "walkaround" situations. In cases where I can set up for a wide landscape, I'd have the time to use tripod, wide or ultra wide lens, etc. Or the new Nikkor 24-10 f/4?

Maybe I am trying to account for too many photographic situations, rather than trying to use what I have and make the best shots I can from that gear and those photo ops. A philosophical debate I keep having with myself!

Ah, but a new 300s body . . .

cab.in.boston

Well, if you use the 17mm end of your standard zoom a lot, then that probably answers the question of whether you'd be happy with the wide end of the 24-120... IMO, that lens is meant to be a walkaround on a full-frame body. Not that it couldn't be used on DX, but as you know, you lose the wide end, so maybe it's good for you, maybe not. Set your Tamron to 24 and see if you could be happy not going any wider than that without stopping to change lenses. However, the new 24-120 f/4 is only marginally lighter than your 70-300 (23.6 oz vs 26.3 oz), so you have that to consider as well, since you say your telezoom is too heavy for you to use comfortably handheld.

Would you miss 2.8? Maybe, maybe not so much. You can certainly check your catalog and see how often you shoot faster than f/4. But even if you don't shoot there that often, it will have an impact on the focus speed, since the camera always acquires focus wide open. With a D300/s and its better focus section vs the D80, maybe you won't notice quite as much, but the 2.8 definitely helps no matter what body you use.

The older 24-120 f/3.5-5.6 is cheaper and lighter (20.6 oz) than both the other lenses, but it's variable and only 5.6 at the long end, so you aren't gaining any speed. In fact compared to your 70-300, it's probably quite a bit slower in the 70-120 range than your 70-300.

This is the quintessential dilemma we all face. You need certain performance, but that means sacrifices in higher cost, weight, and limited range. So you make some compromises in performance and try to justify that you can "live without it," only to wish you had the better performance when you're out shooting. We just can't win.

What you REALLY need is that elusive AF-S Micro VRII 5-1000mm f/1G IF-ED N that weighs 1/2 a pound and costs $200. However, I'm not so sure that it's going to be released any time soon.

ETA: FWIW, my primary "walkaround" lens is the 35mm f/1.8 prime and foot zoom, although I do carry my 55-200 VR along with me as well. My Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 spends most of its time at home attached to the D90 which my wife uses. You can certainly use whatever you want. It's all a matter of preference.

redleash

I thought I just dreamed about the 5-1000 Micro . . . now I know it exists but we just can't find the retailer who sells it!

Thank you so much, cab--your explanations are most helpful and I think you've answered my question about the 24-120 simply b/c of the weight issue.

I've been reading "old" threads about lenses and I keep seeing folks' positive comments about the Tamron 17-50 . . . and I do agree it is my favorite lens in my bag! I can put it on a new 300s, put the 85 f/3.5 macro on my D80, and go down to the Riverwalk and start shooting . . . Then put my 70-300 on the new 300s and go to the Hill Country and set up, with tripod, for some distance landscapes and white-tailed deer sightings. (And start saving up for a 70-200 2.8)

How does that sound?

I'm pretty sure I will never get another chance at that black bear . . . to be so close, AND have the right lens, AND have it on the right camera. My name isn't Marc Muench!!!!

cab.in.boston

I do like the Tamron a lot, and I would probably use it a lot more, except that it's the most appropriate lens to leave at home on the D90 with my wife for shots of the kids. Trust me, my lens acquisition days are far from over.

redleash wrote: »

How does that sound?

Sounds good. If you'd like to get two 70-200 f/2.8 lenses and send one along to me, it'll sound even more better! :ivar

Just remember, the 70-200 is not a featherweight by any means. It's almost 4 pounds! Like I said earlier, to get the performance we have to be willing to shoulder the weight.

I'm pretty sure I will never get another chance at that black bear . . . to be so close, AND have the right lens, AND have it on the right camera. My name isn't Marc Muench!!!!

As they say... never say never. It sounds like it was a great opportunity, and it's too bad that you missed the money shot. But keeping going back and trying, the odds of success are much better than if you don't.

Overfocused

redleash wrote: »

I thought I just dreamed about the 5-100 Micro . . . now I know it exists but we just can't find the retailer who sells it!

Thank you so much, cab--your explanations are most helpful and I think you've answered my question about the 24-120 simply b/c of the weight issue.

I've been reading "old" threads about lenses and I keep seeing folks' positive comments about the Tamron 17-50 . . . and I do agree it is my favorite lens in my bag! I can put it on a new 300s, put the 85 f/3.5 macro on my D80, and go down to the Riverwalk and start shooting . . . Then put my 70-300 on the new 300s and go to the Hill Country and set up, with tripod, for some distance landscapes and white-tailed deer sightings. (And start saving up for a 70-200 2.8)

How does that sound?

I'm pretty sure I will never get another chance at that black bear . . . to be so close, AND have the right lens, AND have it on the right camera. My name isn't Marc Muench!!!!

I linked this to another guy in another forum but this seems to be appropriate in more places than I thought. Maybe you'd go ape over this:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/706900-REG/Cotton_Carrier_100_CCS_100_CCS_Camera_System.html#reviews

Matthew Saville

When you're shooting with a crop sensor camera, every little bit of low-light capability and shallow depth will count. That's why I don't mess around with f/4 zooms or variable zooms, if I need to shoot low light. Of course if I'm shooting *only* landscapes, at ISO 100 and whatever shutter speed is necessary, then yeah I'd consider the 55-300 DX actually. I'm sure it's going to be razor sharp.

However since I mostly shoot events and portraits, I went with the Sigma 50-150 2.8 DC. Fantastic light and small lens, but built rugged and I've had mine for about four years now.

For your type of shooting, I'd highly recommend a two zoom plus one prime combo. Maybe get an ultra-wide zoom like the Tokina 11-16 if you need f/2.8, or the Sigma 10-20 (older one, not the 3.5 constant) ...if you don't need f/2.8. (Because what landscape photographer needs a fast aperture at such a wide angle?) Then the Sigma 50-150 2.8 for telephoto work, then something in the 50mm range that hits f/1.4 or so, just to cover your extreme low-light situation. Bottom line is that I mean to say, don't mess around with a 2.8 zoom if you're on a crop sensor looking to shoot in low light. Just go straight to f/1.4...


Just my personal preference!
=Matt=

DsrtVW

I think the D300 would be a good choice to go with existing lenses. I really like my Tokina 50-135mm f2.8 it is light, well built and sharp, gives you 70-200mm equivalent. The 2 lenses I always have are my 17-55mm f2.8 nikon and the Tokina on my D300.
I also found a Tokina 100-300mm f4 in a pawn shop for 75.00 and it a decent lens but is much heavier. Long range work I use 300mm f4 ED nikon prime (heavy) or 200mm f2 with 2x TC very heavy(400mm f4).
I have never had an issue with menus on mine. Once you get it set up it is esasy to change shooting setups quickly.

redleash

Many thanks for the additional comments and links to more info. . . this is a very helpful thread and I appreciate all the responses!
sounds intriguing; I'd not considered it. I have the Sigma 10-20 and it's a nice lens.

The Sigma 50-150 2.8 and the Tokina 50-135 2.8 sound like what I wished I'd had on my trip to the Smokies--more reach for walkaround opportunities but I still had my 70-300 for long landscapes. Both will be considered.

I do have the Nikon 50 1.8 that works well in low light. I don't use it often but do appreciate it when I need it. It wouldn't have helped for my wide, late evening shots, but the 17-50 2.8 is fine for those. It's really the longer reach I need with low-light capability . . . which might be achieved with the Sigma and Tokina ya'll have mentioned.

Many thanks, again!!

kygarden

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but if you try to use a DX format lens on a D700, you're going to be stuck with the cropped mode photos and the max resolution on those is I think something like 5 Mega pixels instead of the 12 MP the D700 normally shoots. This is one of the reasons I sold my Sigma 10-20 once I got the D700. I didn't think I'd be happy with 5 MP I ended up buying a Sigma 15-30 full frame lens for my D700 for the really wide stuff.

Anyway, just be aware that you only get a reduced size image if using a DX lens on the D700. If I were you and you didn't want to buy lenses, I'd get the D300s. The cropped mode issue may be a deal breaker for you unless you like going backwards in resolution

Matthew Saville

redleash wrote: »

The Sigma 50-150 2.8 and the Tokina 50-135 2.8 sound like what I wished I'd had on my trip to the Smokies--more reach for walkaround opportunities but I still had my 70-300 for long landscapes. Both will be considered.

I've tested both the Tokina and the Sigma, and I can only recommend the Sigma. Tokina has dawdled MAJORLY in coming out with a silent, new generation AF motor, while Sigma's HSM is in it's Nth generation. Personally I can't live without it, not the functionality, nor the performance, nor the sound. This isn't very critical at wider angles, (which is why I DO recommend the Tokina 11-16) ...however at more telephoto angles, it makes a world of difference...

So, you can try both lenses for sure, but my vote is for the Sigma...

kygarden wrote: »

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but if you try to use a DX format lens on a D700, you're going to be stuck with the cropped mode photos and the max resolution on those is I think something like 5 Mega pixels instead of the 12 MP the D700 normally shoots. This is one of the reasons I sold my Sigma 10-20 once I got the D700. I didn't think I'd be happy with 5 MP I ended up buying a Sigma 15-30 full frame lens for my D700 for the really wide stuff.

Anyway, just be aware that you only get a reduced size image if using a DX lens on the D700. If I were you and you didn't want to buy lenses, I'd get the D300s. The cropped mode issue may be a deal breaker for you unless you like going backwards in resolution

Certainly true, however in many situations I'm more than happy to have "only" 5.5 megapixels. (good enough for an amazing 8x10!)

But yeah, you gotta consider your short-term and long-term buying goals. It depends on how much work / shooting you need to do between now and when you'll be able to afford a full-frame. It also depends on your shooting style and needs. Personally, when I get a D700 it will be for use with primes 90% of the time. I see no reason to go out and buy a massive, expensive 14-24 to use on a D700 when a Sigma 10-20 or Tokina 11-16 is incredibly sharp.

ESPECIALLY for landscape photography- Unless you can afford the 24 megapixel D3X, WHY get a D700 instead of a D300s for landscape photography? They're the same resolution, and honestly for long exposures (30-60 mins) ...I actually prefer the D300 sensor; it seems to have less noise at ISO 200 and super-long exposures.

Anyways, just my experiences and opinions, not facts! :-)

=Matt=

scole

Lauren,

I'm not a Nikon user (Pentax for me) but in case you're not aware of this, a major photo industry event is about to taken place in Germany in 2 weeks (Photokina). It's at this event that the major players typically announce their new models. I believe one of the Nikon rumors is the D7000 which is projected to be the D90's replacement (which replaced your D80). The specs for that camera look pretty darn good & come very close to the D300s specs all for about $1100.

Here's the link to Nikon Rumors for the info:

http://nikonrumors.com/2010/09/06/recap-3.aspx

I'm kind of in the same boat as you but with my pentax SLR (I chose the K10d over the D80 2+ years ago). I'm anxiously awaiting Pentax's announcement in 2 weeks.

Good luck!

Steve

redleash

Wow, the great info just keeps on comin'!! Thanks to each and every one of you for your helpful comments . . . I feel like I will be able to make a truly informed decision. Now, if I could just convince my husband I don't need to wait for Christmas . . .

Wish I could go to Photokina--I've read about it in the past. Thanks for the rumors link too.

Lauren

Pawl

I have a D300s and a Sigma 70-200 2.8 (older non-OS version.) Mainly I use it to shoot indoor sports like water polo, some concerts, kids' plays, and general family stuff. To some extent I think the answer you're looking for depends on how you prioritize the five complaints in your main post. Here are my thoughts:

The D300s will have much better noise characterstics than the D80 (which I also owned). I consider that my shots at ISO 1600 are quite usable from the D300s, whereas they were pretty ugly even after careful use of Noise Ninja from the D80. That was one of my primary reasons for trading up. Note, however, that the D300s sensor is a bit old at this point and there are better (more modern) low-noise sensors out there; some would argue the D90 is better.

Going to a 2.8 telephoto will improve your autofocus compared to your 70-300. Depending on how fast your subjects are moving, the 51 point autofocus may be just as important as the faster lens. I've been very satisfied with the performance of my Sigma 70-200, and only occasionally leer at the Nikon 70-200. But then I remember that my subjects are moving quickly so I don't HAVE to have VR, as much as I want it, and I have an extra $1000 in my checking account and am still married... That being said, the 2.8 70-200 is big and heavy (I use a monopod) and won't pull in distant bears like a 300. There are definitely times I wish I had a longer lens, even across a 25 meter pool. Note, however, that to get 2.8 and 300mm you'll be spending a LOT of money.

For sports, the D80 frame rate definitely was slow. But you may not need 7fps either; you don't sound like you shoot a lot of sports. All in all, I would check out the D7000 when it comes out. It's likely to have better noise characteristics than the D300s, or at least no worse. The autofocus and frame rate should be better than your D80, and may be good enough for your needs. And you'd have a few bucks left over to put into new glass.

Stonecello

I have persevered with the D700's menus. As with PhotoShop, good photography is like learning the guitar - it takes time and practice.
The D700 has an amazing HDR-like d-lighting mode - which evens out the contrast so that subjects with strong light behind are clearly
visible. It is an interesting feature of this full-frame camera. If you can stretch to it - get a Nikkor 14-24, and a Nikkor 70-200 VR II. Mebbe
sell all your other lenses - Nikkors keep their value, as Nikon have not changed the camera fitting, so all your lenses will fit excellent, but
antique cameras. At least once sold, you can then afford these 2 major lenses. See my D700 shots at stonecello.smugmug.com
I shoulda said - the D700 is great for night shots, very good sensor and noise-free/small noise-factor up to 800. Easily manageable at 3200
or above by using Noise Ninja or Noiseware Community filters.

redleash

And the tips just keep on comin'!! I don't shoot a lot of sports but do shoot the occasional bear, whale, or Texas white-tailed deer, along with birds of all kinds when I have a half-decent chance of getting a good shot. So, I don't think a 2.8 70-200 is essential at all......especially if the weight issue is going to still be an issue. When I do have moving subjects, I would like a better fps burst than I have now. The D80 has proved just a little slow for these subjects.

Noise is a definite issue with the D80 and one that I want to resolve. Either the 300s or 700 will fix that problem, you tell me, so that's good.

More comments always welcomed . . . and I will post when I have a final outcome and new toy(s) to share!

Thanks,
Lauren

Pawl

The D300s is probably about full stop better in noise than the D80, in my opinion (and I've owned both). I would guess the D700 is about two stops better, maybe more - at the cost of shortening up your reach in telephoto (a 300mm on the D700 will reach the equivalent of a 200mm on your D80). Going from your f/5.6 (at the long end) zoom to an f/2.8 lens would also buy you two stops. Either of the Dx00 bodies will be noticeably larger and heavier than your D80; but a 2.8 tele lens will be a LOT larger and heavier than your 300mm.

Maybe your analysis should be: you need to keep the 70-300 tele for its size and weight. Then, are you willing to settle for one stop lower noise (D300s) with your current field of view, or are you willing to trade off 100mm of telephoto reach to get another stop or stop-and-a-half (D700)? (Remembering that if you go D700 you will also have to replace both your sigma and your tamron; they're DX format if I'm not mistaken).

lifeinfocus

Consider New D7000
Consider the new Nikon D7000 DX. ISO up to 6400. 6 FPS. New sensor. Autofocus video and more. See DPreview.com and KenRockwell.com for early reviews. Body only retail around $1,200.

redleash

Thanks for the further comments--I'm much appreciative! No decisions yet and will probably be a couple more months before I decide. I'll let ya'll know what I settle on then.

Lauren