Lens help please.

JamesJWeg · March 15, 2005

I am about to pull the trigger on a D2H, but now it's down to what lens to get. This being my first digital SLR I and not sure how well it will do low light compared to the F5 I had. With the F5 my all round lens was a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=151555&is=USA) I was happy with it except that it was a little short for some of my shooting needs. Now I am thinking of getting another of that same lens OR a Sigma 50-500 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=192446&is=USA) But with that lens I am unsure if I will be able to shoot the low light stuff that I want to. My budget will not cover more than one lens at this time, in fact both of these are stretching it. As for what I would be shooting low light, nature, wooded areas, night time sporting events such as high school soccer/football/basketball etc. As for needing something longer, I found the 200 way to short at the race track, and in the woods. Do I understand correctly that 100mm lens on a digital = about a 150mm on 35mm? I was told that but have not seen it from a good source. All thoughts are welcome.

James.

Harryb · March 15, 2005

Hi James,

I just got the D2H and it is a great camera. It has a 1.5 mag factor so your Sigma 70-200 (One of my favorite lenses BTW) would become a 105-300 on the D2H. The Bigma (50-500) is a fine lens but heavy and cannot be handheld with optimal results, IMHO. When I was looking for more reach I choose the Nikon 80-400VR over the Bigma (again my personal preference). The Sigma 80-400 also looks like a good choice and I've seen folks getting great results with it. Recently I got the Nikon 300mm/f4 and it and the 1.4 TC has become my main lens when shooting wildlife.

If money was no concern I would get the Nikon 200-400/2.8 VR but at 5K its out of my price range.

patch29 · March 15, 2005

Harryb wrote:

If money was no concern I would get the Nikon 200-400/2.8 VR but at 5K its out of my price range.

I had to look twice on this lens. I think you meant F/4.0 VR? I would be first in line to buy a 200-400/2.8 VR (or rather IS for a Canon) for $5K.

patch29 · March 15, 2005

James,

Do you still have a Nikon film camera, lenses or Nikon system stuff?

JamesJWeg · March 15, 2005

patch29 wrote:

James,

Do you still have a Nikon film camera, lenses or Nikon system stuff?

No, :cry

James.

joechiu · March 15, 2005

Nikon dSLR's have a 1.5 crop factor, so the 70-200mm on the Nikon D2H will have the same angle of view as a 105-300mm on a regular 35mm. The aperture/DOF properties stay the same (i.e., behaves just like a 70-200 on the 35mm).

So if you were happy with the 70-200mm, but wanted a little more zoom, this will do it. On the other hand, you'll need another lens to also cover the wider angle of view...

Harryb · March 15, 2005

patch29 wrote:

I had to look twice on this lens. I think you meant F/4.0 VR? I would be first in line to buy a 200-400/2.8 VR (or rather IS for a Canon) for $5K.

Oops, yeah I meant F/4.0. The 200-400 is a bazooka as is I don't want to even think about how big a 200-400/2.8 would be. :lift

patch29 · March 15, 2005

JamesJWeg wrote:

No, :cry

James.

Well than I am going to play devil's advocate, since your budget is limited on what you can get for a lens, what about a different route?

What is the main draw to the D2H?

I think for what you describe you might find that you are better served by a Canon 20D, about $600 less which could allow you to buy two lenses vs one. It might also let you get better lens too. It is also smaller if you take it into the woods and it has very good low light performance. I know you said you are buying a D2H, but I just wanted to throw that out there, you could also get a D70, but it is lower in performance than both the D2H and 20D (which is lower in performance than the D2H, but I think it makes up for it in other areas, plus it is still fast). OK, that was my two cents. If you want to consider this route I can help recommend some good lens choices for the Canon.

JamesJWeg · March 15, 2005

patch29 wrote:

Well than I am going to play devil's advocate, since your budget is limited on what you can get for a lens, what about a different route?

What is the main draw to the D2H?

I think for what you describe you might find that you are better served by a Canon 20D, about $600 less which could allow you to buy two lenses vs one. It might also let you get better lens too. It is also smaller if you take it into the woods and it has very good low light performance. I know you said you are buying a D2H, but I just wanted to throw that out there, you could also get a D70, but it is lower in performance than both the D2H and 20D (which is lower in performance than the D2H, but I think it makes up for it in other areas, plus it is still fast). OK, that was my two cents. If you want to consider this route I can help recommend some good lens choices for the Canon.

I have already been down that road, but thanks for the pointer anyway. I once was a diehard Canon guy, but the F5 changed all that, I still have some OLD Canon film hardware (Pre AF), and would have loved to have stayed canon, however, when thinking about this I went and played with the D70, D100, 10D, and 20D, I was unimpressed with all of them, didn't like the missing features, they felt like a toy, etc, I realized that I would just not be happy with the 20D, D1H or D2H was the next step, I decided that I really wanted the D2H. I approched this from a clean slate angle, considering both Canon and Nikon, The 1D was out of my price range, the 20D, not good enough, the D2H fits nicly in the middle.

James.

patch29 · March 15, 2005

JamesJWeg wrote:

I have already been down that road, but thanks for the pointer anyway. I once was a diehard Canon guy, but the F5 changed all that, I still have some OLD Canon film hardware (Pre AF), and would have loved to have stayed canon, however, when thinking about this I went and played with the D70, D100, 10D, and 20D, I was unimpressed with all of them, didn't like the missing features, they felt like a toy, etc, I realized that I would just not be happy with the 20D, D1H or D2H was the next step, I decided that I really wanted the D2H. I approched this from a clean slate angle, considering both Canon and Nikon, The 1D was out of my price range, the 20D, not good enough, the D2H fits nicly in the middle.

James.

That's cool. I figured you had it figured out, but just wanted to chime in now before you bought it, incase you had not and later would be saying, why didn't you recommend that.

I think the Sigma 70-200 will work well for you. I would think you will want something wider too? You could just get a 24 or 28/2.8 or a 35/2.0 to get some wide angle and speed in the future.

JamesJWeg · March 15, 2005

patch29 wrote:

That's cool. I figured you had it figured out, but just wanted to chime in now before you bought it, incase you had not and later would be saying, why didn't you recommend that.

I think the Sigma 70-200 will work well for you. I would think you will want something wider too? You could just get a 24 or 28/2.8 or a 35/2.0 to get some wide angle and speed in the future.

Yes, that is my plan, thankfully the wide stuff tends to be a lot cheaper.

James.

Lens help please.

Comments