What should I do?

Erbeman

The wife just gave me the green light to pick up a D300. She asked me not to go crazy on a lens. Asked me to keep with around $2000. I think I can get away with $2200. I can get the body for $1650 or I can get this:

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-12-3MP-Digital-18-200mm-3-5-5-6G/dp/B000VR5YA8/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1215016757&sr=1-4

or this one

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-12-3MP-Digital-18-135mm-3-5-5-6G/dp/B000VR9V3E/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1215016757&sr=1-11

Or should I get the body and a different lens maybe a tamron or something? What do you guys suggest?

Brascole

Erbeman wrote:

The wife just gave me the green light to pick up a D300. She asked me not to go crazy on a lens. Asked me to keep with around $2000. I think I can get away with $2200. I can get the body for $1650 or I can get this:

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-12-3MP-Digital-18-200mm-3-5-5-6G/dp/B000VR5YA8/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1215016757&sr=1-4

or this one

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-12-3MP-Digital-18-135mm-3-5-5-6G/dp/B000VR9V3E/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1215016757&sr=1-11

Or should I get the body and a different lens maybe a tamron or something? What do you guys suggest?

You have no Primes. I took a look at some posts and you thought about micro (nikon speak) and that is the way to go. You get macro with the ability to use it for portraits. Plus fast prime glass. The nikkor 105mm f/2.8 VR I have it and you just have to love the VR but the cost is $749. I have the AF-S 60 f/2.8 $499 but to short for getting the most out of a macro lens for you to add to your kit. I have on order the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 $599. MFD at 1:1 is 12" and attached to the D300 it's compresses to 225mm for a decent tele and add the sigma 1.4 extender and you can af, now it becomes a 315mm. Or get a sigma 2X that gives you manual focus to 450. Price $169-199 respectively.

You have your FL's covered 18-55, 55-200, 70-300. Decent glass I have the 70-300. But if your budget is $600 over the body you will love that Sigma. Then you can use the SB-600 as a remote using the in camera flash of the D300 in commander mode. Or use both the built in flash and the SB-600 to get into the Nikon CLS see nikon global for some ideas.

Hope this helps.

Erbeman

Brascole wrote:

You have no Primes. I took a look at some posts and you thought about micro (nikon speak) and that is the way to go. You get macro with the ability to use it for portraits. Plus fast prime glass. The nikkor 105mm f/2.8 VR I have it and you just have to love the VR but the cost is $749. I have the AF-S 60 f/2.8 $499 but to short for getting the most out of a macro lens for you to add to your kit. I have on order the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 $599. MFD at 1:1 is 12" and attached to the D300 it's compresses to 225mm for a decent tele and add the sigma 1.4 extender and you can af, now it becomes a 315mm. Or get a sigma 2X that gives you manual focus to 450. Price $169-199 respectively.

You have your FL's covered 18-55, 55-200, 70-300. Decent glass I have the 70-300. But if your budget is $600 over the body you will love that Sigma. Then you can use the SB-600 as a remote using the in camera flash of the D300 in commander mode. Or use both the built in flash and the SB-600 to get into the Nikon CLS see nikon global for some ideas.

Hope this helps.

That is excellent advise!! However, I recently got picked up as a contributing photographer for a motcross magazine. So, now I am going to races and shoting about 500 pics. This is the main reason why I am getting such a big upgrade. So, I am wanting a good fast lens that I can use at the races. Alot of the races are night races so I must be close to the riders so my flash will fill the frame. I'm afraid the 150mm would put me to close to fit the riders in the frame.

I do love that advise for my next lens after this one though Thanks alot

Art Scott

Erbeman wrote:

That is excellent advise!! However, I recently got picked up as a contributing photographer for a motcross magazine. So, now I am going to races and shoting about 500 pics. This is the main reason why I am getting such a big upgrade. So, I am wanting a good fast lens that I can use at the races. Alot of the races are night races so I must be close to the riders so my flash will fill the frame. I'm afraid the 150mm would put me to close to fit the riders in the frame.

I do love that advise for my next lens after this one though Thanks alot

Look atthe siggy 70-200 f2.8 ...... think you find it to be good for you ...... I have been using their 70-210 f2.8 on several camera bodies including my current Konica Minolta 7D.....................

Erbeman

Art Scott wrote:

Look atthe siggy 70-200 f2.8 ...... think you find it to be good for you ...... I have been using their 70-210 f2.8 on several camera bodies including my current Konica Minolta 7D.....................

I'm afraid that one's out of my price range. Doesn't mean I wouldn't love to have that bad boy!!!

Art Scott

Erbeman wrote:

I'm afraid that one's out of my price range. Doesn't mean I wouldn't love to have that bad boy!!!

I bought my last one off ebay for on heck of a savings......and a good tax deduction

mercphoto

Erbeman wrote:

That is excellent advise!! However, I recently got picked up as a contributing photographer for a motcross magazine. So, now I am going to races and shoting about 500 pics. This is the main reason why I am getting such a big upgrade. So, I am wanting a good fast lens that I can use at the races. Alot of the races are night races so I must be close to the riders so my flash will fill the frame. I'm afraid the 150mm would put me to close to fit the riders in the frame.

But those lens you had links to in your original post were f/3.5 - 5.6 lenses, right? Doesn't quality as a fast lens. And I would worry about the AF speed as well.

I shot plenty night MX with a flash on a 1D Mark II with a 24-70/2.8L lens. I routinely shot f/4 at 1/200 with flash on automatic at 70mm and got great results with a little work in Photoshop. Granted, if you're shooting in-camera JPG and not editing the photos your life is very tough -- night shots with flash are hard to get correctly in-camera.

Getting good results at night MX racing photography is tough until you get the hang of it and learn the secret sauce. Proper gear is part of it (i.e. very accurate and very fast AF). Post-processing is a biggie (black points, saturation, curves, etc.). And technique is another biggie -- shooting certain angles and compositions simply do not work at night with flash. I'm actually strongly considering writing an eBook on how to do this properly...

Erbeman

mercphoto wrote:

But those lens you had links to in your original post were f/3.5 - 5.6 lenses, right? Doesn't quality as a fast lens. And I would worry about the AF speed as well.

I shot plenty night MX with a flash on a 1D Mark II with a 24-70/2.8L lens. I routinely shot f/4 at 1/200 with flash on automatic at 70mm and got great results with a little work in Photoshop. Granted, if you're shooting in-camera JPG and not editing the photos your life is very tough -- night shots with flash are hard to get correctly in-camera.

Getting good results at night MX racing photography is tough until you get the hang of it and learn the secret sauce. Proper gear is part of it (i.e. very accurate and very fast AF). Post-processing is a biggie (black points, saturation, curves, etc.). And technique is another biggie -- shooting certain angles and compositions simply do not work at night with flash. I'm actually strongly considering writing an eBook on how to do this properly...

I like what you had to say, but I'm not sure of what point you're trying to make to me Are you telling me not to go with the 55-200 f/3.5 and to find a shorter zoom with a bigger aperature? If so, what are your suggestions?

Erbeman

Art Scott wrote:

I bought my last one off ebay for on heck of a savings......and a good tax deduction

I've read too many horror stories about Ebay and camera equipment to take that chance Art. I'm glad it has worked out for you, but I just don't want to take that chance.

Brascole

Erbeman wrote:

That is excellent advise!! However, I recently got picked up as a contributing photographer for a motcross magazine. So, now I am going to races and shoting about 500 pics. This is the main reason why I am getting such a big upgrade. So, I am wanting a good fast lens that I can use at the races. Alot of the races are night races so I must be close to the riders so my flash will fill the frame. I'm afraid the 150mm would put me to close to fit the riders in the frame.

I do love that advise for my next lens after this one though Thanks alot

Wow you just threw a wrench at the monkey. If your getting paid for the photo's you might want to get pro glass. VR, AF-S and f/2.8. The only thing that comes to mind is the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR and that's $1650. You really need VR. The Sigma Art mentioned is good glass it's about $850 but you have to use a sturdy monopod. Crank up the SB-600 via the manual mode in the D300. You should do a search for the lenses needed to do that kind of shooting. I will say this the 18-200 will not cut it for that job. So save your dough for the 70-200 either Nikon or Sigma.

mercphoto

Erbeman wrote:

I like what you had to say, but I'm not sure of what point you're trying to make to me Are you telling me not to go with the 55-200 f/3.5 and to find a shorter zoom with a bigger aperature? If so, what are your suggestions?

Yes, that is exactly what I am suggesting. For example, the Nikon equivalent to the lens I used : a 24-70/2.8 lens with a fast auto-focus motor. The 55-200/3.5-5.6 lens is just not going to cut it.

Erbeman

mercphoto wrote:

Yes, that is exactly what I am suggesting. For example, the Nikon equivalent to the lens I used : a 24-70/2.8 lens with a fast auto-focus motor. The 55-200/3.5-5.6 lens is just not going to cut it.

That's the thing, as far as I can tell Nikon doesn't make one in that range that has VR.

mercphoto

Erbeman wrote:

That's the thing, as far as I can tell Nikon doesn't make one in that range that has VR.

Why do you need VR? But that point is actually moot. My point being, for this particular type of photography those lenses are inadequate.

Erbeman

mercphoto wrote:

Why do you need VR? But that point is actually moot. My point being, for this particular type of photography those lenses are inadequate.

I agree with you that I might as well not buy a new lense if I'm just going to get a f/3.5. I need VR because of the conditions I mainly shoot in. Everything is moving and moving pretty fast. Also alot of it is at night, where lighting isn't the best so shutter speeds slow down. VR will help with that. I guess I need to look into Sigma or Tamron. I'm just clueless with anything other than Nikon lenses.

Brascole

Erbeman wrote:

I agree with you that I might as well not buy a new lense if I'm just going to get a f/3.5. I need VR because of the conditions I mainly shoot in. Everything is moving and moving pretty fast. Also alot of it is at night, where lighting isn't the best so shutter speeds slow down. VR will help with that. I guess I need to look into Sigma or Tamron. I'm just clueless with anything other than Nikon lenses.

Russ.

You have to ask yourself what is your budget. From the looks in your original post $2200 minus camera body you say $1650 that leaves $550. That's not going to get you a Nikon with 2.8 and VR or a Sigma 2.8 with OS and forget Tamron they have VC in a walk around model. orry to be so blunt but that's the reality of lens quality. The motorcycle shots on your site are not going to make it into a magazine. They are nice but you know there are standards for that. Like I said a few posts ago are you getting paid for the work. An alternative would be to rent a lens for that shoot. Get it a few day's ahead then practice with it see what happens. You can get a Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 VR for a week for $55.

mercphoto

Erbeman wrote:

I agree with you that I might as well not buy a new lense if I'm just going to get a f/3.5. I need VR because of the conditions I mainly shoot in. Everything is moving and moving pretty fast. Also alot of it is at night, where lighting isn't the best so shutter speeds slow down. VR will help with that.

No, it won't. Can I ask if you have actually shot in these conditions before? I have. VR is not required for this. My Canon lens did not have IS either.

Erbeman

Brascole wrote:

Russ.

You have to ask yourself what is your budget. From the looks in your original post $2200 minus camera body you say $1650 that leaves $550. That's not going to get you a Nikon with 2.8 and VR or a Sigma 2.8 with OS and forget Tamron they have VC in a walk around model. orry to be so blunt but that's the reality of lens quality. The motorcycle shots on your site are not going to make it into a magazine. They are nice but you know there are standards for that. Like I said a few posts ago are you getting paid for the work. An alternative would be to rent a lens for that shoot. Get it a few day's ahead then practice with it see what happens. You can get a Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 VR for a week for $55.

Yes, I've come to the realization that I'm going to go over budget and that's fine. I am just trying to find the best most reasonable lens that I can for what I need it for. Are you saying that Sigma is my only other option other than the 70-200 f/2.8 VR?

Erbeman

mercphoto wrote:

No, it won't. Can I ask if you have actually shot in these conditions before? I have. VR is not required for this. My Canon lens did not have IS either.

Yes, I've shot in these conditions. No, VR isn't required for this type of photography, but don't you think it sure couldn't hurt?

Brascole

Erbeman wrote:

Yes, I've come to the realization that I'm going to go over budget and that's fine. I am just trying to find the best most reasonable lens that I can for what I need it for. Are you saying that Sigma is my only other option other than the 70-200 f/2.8 VR?

No you have many options. One you don't have is the apeture you need for action night shooting. That is f/2.8 or lower. Use a monopod if you get a non stabilized lens, infact a monopod is a good idea even with it. Zooms 24-70, 70-200. I guess another option that someone may well be more knowledgeable to answer is the Nikkor 85mm 1.4 and the Sigma 50-150 2.8.

Well

ziggy53

For night sports, VR is not very useful. If you use flash, that will stop action very nicely. For that matter, I still recommend a monopod (or even a tripod) over VR any day. VR (or IS in Canon-speak) has some delay before actuation and any delay is to be avoided in sports applications.

The reason, I think, Mercphoto is recommending a short (standard) zoom over a telephoto zoom for night sports is because the flash just will not reach as far as you probably think for night work. If you use a longer lens you are stuck with both higher ISO and longer recycling times.

In standard zooms for a Nikon camera in a night sports application you might look at:

Nikkor 28-70mm, f/2.8D AF-S IF-ED
Nikkor 35-70mm f/2.8D

The 28-70mm is a modern, high performance, constant aperture lens with outstanding quality and speed. It's also kinda pricey but working photographers appreciate it regardless of cost.

The 35-70mm is kind of a sleeper and requires a camera with the focus screw (which the D300 has). It's a true "value" lens with the quality images you want but at a pretty reasonable price.

If you do decide that a longer zoom is for you, do look at the Nikkor 80-200mm, f/2.8D ED. It's about half the cost of the Nikkor 70-200mm, f2.8 VR but very similar image quality and almost as much speed to focus.

mercphoto

Erbeman wrote:

Yes, I've shot in these conditions. No, VR isn't required for this type of photography, but don't you think it sure couldn't hurt?

Considering Nikon VR doesn't have a panning mode, yes it can hurt. Besides, as Ziggy states, the flash will effectively increase the shutter speed (assuming you are not using high-speed synch mode, which you should not be). Ziggy is spot-on in his comments.

Erbeman

ziggy53 wrote:

For night sports, VR is not very useful. If you use flash, that will stop action very nicely. For that matter, I still recommend a monopod (or even a tripod) over VR any day. VR (or IS in Canon-speak) has some delay before actuation and any delay is to be avoided in sports applications.

The reason, I think, Mercphoto is recommending a short (standard) zoom over a telephoto zoom for night sports is because the flash just will not reach as far as you probably think for night work. If you use a longer lens you are stuck with both higher ISO and longer recycling times.

In standard zooms for a Nikon camera in a night sports application you might look at:

Nikkor 28-70mm, f/2.8D AF-S IF-ED
Nikkor 35-70mm f/2.8D

The 28-70mm is a modern, high performance, constant aperture lens with outstanding quality and speed. It's also kinda pricey but working photographers appreciate it regardless of cost.

The 35-70mm is kind of a sleeper and requires a camera with the focus screw (which the D300 has). It's a true "value" lens with the quality images you want but at a pretty reasonable price.

If you do decide that a longer zoom is for you, do look at the Nikkor 80-200mm, f/2.8D ED. It's about half the cost of the Nikkor 70-200mm, f2.8 VR but very similar image quality and almost as much speed to focus.

Ahhhh, the perfect responce I have been looking for Thanks so much Ziggy. I'm currently looking online to find the best deal I can on those two lenses. Reviews on that 35-70 are awesome!!! It sucks that I won't be able to buy a new once since they have been discontinued, but I've found a few so far. The 28-70 obviously is an awesome lens and I've found them new for $1200 and change and used at $1050. I'm just trying to decide if it's worth all that. While looking I stumbled across the Nikon 24-84 f/2.8-4 D-IF-AF on Amazon for $539. This seems like an awesome deal. It however has mixed reviews. I'm guessing that is why the price is low.

Erbeman

Erbeman wrote:

Ahhhh, the perfect responce I have been looking for Thanks so much Ziggy. I'm currently looking online to find the best deal I can on those two lenses. Reviews on that 35-70 are awesome!!! It sucks that I won't be able to buy a new once since they have been discontinued, but I've found a few so far. The 28-70 obviously is an awesome lens and I've found them new for $1200 and change and used at $1050. I'm just trying to decide if it's worth all that. While looking I stumbled across the Nikon 24-84 f/2.8-4 D-IF-AF on Amazon for $539. This seems like an awesome deal. It however has mixed reviews. I'm guessing that is why the price is low.

I ended up getting a used but in pristine condition Nikon 35-70 F/2.8. Ziggy, thank you so much for your suggestions. I think this lense will be about perfect. Oh btw, I got the lens for $500. That put me at $2150 which was fine with the wife. I look forward to the next race that I shoot in a few weeks.

Art Scott

Erbeman wrote:

I've read too many horror stories about Ebay and camera equipment to take that chance Art. I'm glad it has worked out for you, but I just don't want to take that chance.

With just a couple of common sense precautions one can have very rewarding Ebay experiences.......similar to the common sense precautions one uses dealing with car dealerships:D:D:D

I have heard horror stories coming out of the flea markets of other photo forums as well......there is dis-honesty all over........it is not just ebay.......very simply put ......We are in a buyer beware world.......and have been for quite some time.

Good Luck.

ziggy53

Erbeman wrote:

I ended up getting a used but in pristine condition Nikon 35-70 F/2.8. Ziggy, thank you so much for your suggestions. I think this lense will be about perfect. Oh btw, I got the lens for $500. That put me at $2150 which was fine with the wife. I look forward to the next race that I shoot in a few weeks.

Do be careful. I usually have someone with me who acts as a spotter, but they have also pulled me back when the "action" gets a little too close. (It's easy to get lost in the moment and not understand how close the riders are to you.)

Erbeman

ziggy53 wrote:

Do be careful. I usually have someone with me who acts as a spotter, but they have also pulled me back when the "action" gets a little too close. (It's easy to get lost in the moment and not understand how close the riders are to you.)

Will do thanks.