| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/15/2013 01:32:28 PM · #1 |
Hi,
I am going to Alaska this year and I need to get my photographic act together for this once and a life-time trip. I want amazing landscapes and shots of bald eagles (my favorite critter ever!). It's time for a telephoto lense!
I've read through some of the forum posts and asked a friend a few questions and have arrived at the following possibility...(I have a Nikon D7000):
- Sigma 120-400mm f/4.5-5.6 AF APO DG OS HSM Telephoto Zoom Lens
- Sigma APO Teleconverter 1.4x EX DG for Nikon Mount Lenses (thoughts on the 1.4x vs the 2x? The way it was explained to me is that I only lose 1 stop with the 1.4x but they also told me that I'm such a noob I probably wouldn't notice that. LOL)
I am also looking at nabbing a macro lens. I was leaning toward the Nikon 85mm Micro-Nikkor but my hubby said to go all the way in case I ever go FF and get the Nikon 105mm Micro Nikkor review. I am guessing that is the right call (based on this review laregly //www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_Nikkor_Macro_Micro_lens_comparison/) ...
Last thing ... I've never shot RAW before and better start practicing. I'm guessing that Photoshop is the way to go? If I am blowing my bonus on camera gear I better do it in style? (i've been using Elements 11).
Am I on the right track for spending my money?
Thank you in advance for all responses. :)
Message edited by author 2013-02-15 13:44:16. |
|
|
|
02/15/2013 05:17:14 PM · #2 |
Charging off in all directions, I like it. Macro, telephoto and RAW developmer.
When I got my Bigma I got a 1.4 extender, and uses it once It hasn't been out of the bag in years. Skip it, unless you are putting it on a 2.8 70-200, there it makes sense.
I don't know macro, so no advice there. On the RAW tool, Lightroom 4 is a pretty good option and would be a logical next step since you will need it for it's storage and posting tools, is much cheaper than PS. Buy that and see if you still need PS. I use both, but as a RAW converter LR is the tool.
Lastly eagles in Alaska are common as dirt. You think it will be like chasing unicorns, then you see 20 of them hanging out over a dumpster. The reach of a 400 mm will be plenty, and if you approach them with the remains of lunch, 50mm is enough. As Franklin called the "dandified vultures". But they make good pictures. |
|
|
|
02/15/2013 06:02:24 PM · #3 |
I'm not familiar enough with your lens choices ot comment, but as far as RAW conversion, Yes, Lightroom is a great option and much less expensive than Ps. If you are comfortable editing in Elements, I don't see that there is a compelling reason for you to move to the full Ps product. At the point where you feel that you need to do more and you can point to specific features of Ps that you need, that is the time to move.
Lightroom is a great organization tool as well as RAW conversion. it's a little bit of a learning curve, though. I recommend you get a good book and read the section(s) on setting it up prior to installing it.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2013 08:12:45 PM · #4 |
With this lens, I'd skip the teleconverter. Teleconverters work well with faster lenses, especially primes, not so well with slow zooms. Your camera's autofocus won't work if the effective max aperture is slower than f/5.6, and at 400mm + a 1.4x tc, your max aperture will be f/8.
400mm on a crop sensor is a long lens. It should be plenty long to get anything you're going to see on this trip.
As far as macros....I haven't tried the 85 myself, but I hear it's quite a nice lens. I have the 105. It's a big, heavy lens. I personally don't take it with me when I travel anywhere, because of the size and weight. The 85 is smaller, a lot lighter, and a lot less expensive. If I had a DX camera and I wanted a macro lens for travel, I'd either pick this or the 60. If I was looking for a macro lens that doubled as a portrait lens, I'd get the 60. If I was looking strictly for a macro lens to shoot small critters, I'd get the 85, then take a fast 50 for portraits. Another alternative is the Tamron 90, which is excellent, and also relatively small and light.
As far as RAW processing, I agree with the people who are suggesting Lightroom. It's cheap, it works well, and anything that you're likely to want to do that can't be done with Lightroom can be done in Elements. |
|
|
|
02/15/2013 09:50:57 PM · #5 |
I'll add... I'm planning an African safari for later this year, which has similar photographic requirements, so I've been thinking about much the same topics. I think the sigma is a fine choice, especially if weight doesn't matter. The main disadvantage over, say, the Nikon 80-400 is that it's a couple of pounds heavier, I believe. But the sigma image quality is apparently at least as good as the Nikon. I have an 80-400, and that is actually a surprisingly sharp lens.
I decided to go with an AFS 300mm f/4 and teleconverters. The zoom is much more flexible, of course, but..... I bought a used 80-400 and a used 300 the same week, figuring I'd sell the one I didn't choose, then proceeded to take them both out shooting. I would probably have been perfectly happy with the 80-400, but the first three times I took the 300 out shooting, I came home with something new for my portfolio. The downside of the 300 is that I was then "forced" to buy a 70-200 f/4 and a pair of teleconverters. This is not a path I'd suggest if you're price sensitive, of course.... it was a little over the top, even for me. |
|
|
|
02/16/2013 01:03:48 AM · #6 |
If you are going in the summer, when wildflowers will be in bloom, you may want to think about getting or renting an extra wide or fisheye for those "big sky with foreground" shots.
 |
|
|
|
02/16/2013 01:21:17 PM · #7 |
what a gorgeous picture. I will definitely have to look into a fish eye. I am saving money not getting Photoshop and possibly going with the 85 so it may be possible. I also need to look at and get my hands on the other lenses to be more aware of weight it seems. Going to a friend's place tomorrow and he has a couple of these I can test drive. when I get back to a computer versus my phone I will look up the other lenses suggested as well. :)
this is so much fun! |
|
|
|
02/16/2013 02:16:03 PM · #8 |
I would second Ann's recommendation to look into the Tamron 90mm 2.8 macro.
It's in the price range that you're looking at with the Nikon 85mm micro, but with the advantages of being an FX lens as well as fast (2.8). Light, sharp, great lens. |
|
|
|
02/16/2013 06:38:53 PM · #9 |
I have a Sigma 10-22mm wideangle which is great for the landscapes, in fact, I use it more than my 10.5 mm fisheye lens.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2013 06:56:34 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Ozzie:
I have a Sigma 10-22mm wideangle which is great for the landscapes, in fact, I use it more than my 10.5 mm fisheye lens. |
The 10-20 (I think she meant) is a very good lens, relatively compact too. But I love the 10.5 fisheye just as much, if not more. :)
For a nice compact travel kit, I see you have the wonderful 18-200 already...my favorite general purpose lens.
18-200
10-20
and maybe the fisheye (though perhaps less important outdoors)
This is what I used to carry everywhere (all three). I can squeeze them and the D7000 into a Tamrac Velocity 6 sling, which is barely bigger than a small backpack-type purse women carry, and it's very comfortable.
Of course, if you don't care about weight/size, then pile em on.
New Nikon 18-300 is an option instead of the 18-200. I can't speak for it though...
I have the 28-300 which is very good, but also much heavier than the 18-200. And you lose the lower mm for the D7000.
For a macro lens, I have the Nikon 85mm VR DX macro, which is pretty good, light, and small. In the lower cost price range too.
I also have the Tamron 70-300 VC DX lens, and I don't use it much (hardly at all) but when I've tested it, it is a very nice lens, and it's also very light.
Anyway, I may not have addressed your questions directly, but I hopefully gave you some insight into lens choices for the D7000.
One other thought--If you think you might be moving up to FX, then remember, all the DX lenses you buy will eventually need to be replaced.
|
|
|
|
02/16/2013 07:02:04 PM · #11 |
| Oops, yes it is a 10-20.. I was thinking of the Canon 10-22 for some reason. |
|
|
|
02/17/2013 12:12:36 PM · #12 |
Ah. I didn't see that you already have an 18-200. On DX, my preferred travel kit was just an 18-200. I've taken that lens everywhere, and there were very few situations where I would have wanted to deal with the weight and size of a second lens. I took an extra Tokina 12-24 on a couple of trips, but never ended up using it.
For something like an Alaska trip, though, where the 18-200 doesn't have enough reach, I'd add a long lens, but the 18-200 at 200 can get close enough to things like butterflies and flowers that I never found the need to take a macro lens.
For the Africa trip, my wife is taking a D300, 18-200, and 70-300 VR.
The other thing...if you're taking a big long lens, you have thought about how you're going to support it, right? I would think a monopod would be a necessity. |
|
|
|
02/19/2013 02:18:57 PM · #13 |
I was able to play with a AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II over the weekend. You should have seen the hubby's face when he found out the price on THAT bad boy. LOL
After talking about DX and FX for a bit this weekend with one of our friends. We were able to successfully convince my hubby that going to FX is not like moving from a 50" to an 80" TV. (Bigger is not always better.) I love that he wants me to have the best but I love what I have. Now to get toys for it!
Based on replies and such I am still leaning toward the Sigma (w/o the teleconverters). I am looking at Manfrotto for the monopod. I'll need to get two heads (one for tripod - just need to check compatibility). The prices are much lower than I expected for the monopod based on what I paid for my tripod. I guess that is a good thing.
I'm going to rent the macro before making a decision. I need a better understanding of what I can get with macro to see if it's worth carrying it. Especially now that y'all added a wide angle or fish eye to my radar. :) I'll be looking closer at the 85 and the Tamron 90.
In terms of RAW ... I was able to play with a few shots this weekend there too. Wow, does that add a few steps to the process! I think I need to play more with bracketing and read those books on light I promised my team I would read before jumping in on that one. I think half my battle is being more aware of my subject than I am today.
Does anyone have a Tamrac Expedition 5, 6 or 7 that can comment on the usability of the bags? I think the 5 may be too small. I like the fact that the 6 has the waist strap. But my hubby, who typically wears the bag, likes the huge cushioned straps on the 7.
Amazon has lenses on sale now with a 2% rebate (plus I get 3% back on my CC) through 3/2. I better get my thoughts together. ;)
Message edited by author 2013-02-20 09:50:58. |
|
|
|
02/19/2013 04:16:47 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Neil:
One other thought--If you think you might be moving up to FX, then remember, all the DX lenses you buy will eventually need to be replaced. |
One thing I like about my D600 is that it will adapt itself to DX format with the DX lenses.
Not that I've done that since I love my 28-300 so much.
|
|
|
|
02/19/2013 05:41:42 PM · #15 |
ive not read this all but you know the 1.4x and 2x only work with certain lenses?
i have the 1.4x sigma for my 120-300 2.8 thats a great combo 420 @ f4 for under a £1000 :)
//www.sigmaphoto.com/sigma-lens-teleconverter-compatability-chart
Message edited by author 2013-02-19 17:42:02. |
|
|
|
02/19/2013 09:39:03 PM · #16 |
As somebody who spends ample time in the mountains of Colorado, I'll say an ultrawide should be a requirement unless you plan on stitching photos. I just found 18 to not be wide enough. And I find the 18-200 does not stitch particularly well, on that front. I don't generally like the look of a fisheye on landscapes, so I'd lean you towards an ultrawide for general utility, but fisheye's can definitely be fun, as well.
Don't fret too much over what head you get for your monopod. It won't be holding as much weight anyway. I got one of these to use on my mono and it has worked quite well. The action is not quite as smooth as my GV2, but it's still generally nice. I went this way instead of a Manfrotto because I'm just not very convinced of QR plates that don't use a lip to grip the body. This doesn't really matter if you're only using smaller lenses/setups, but as you start increasing the weight, it gets to be more and more important. I also like that the Arca Swiss design isn't proprietary and many manufacturers use it, so I'm not pigeonholed to just Manfrotto, should my needs change.
The head for your tripod is a much different proposition and should take some thinking. I'd also sway against you getting the same one as you are perusing for your monopod (not sure if that's what you're planning, but that's how it sounded from your phrasing. |
|
|
|
02/19/2013 10:41:37 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
The head for your tripod is a much different proposition and should take some thinking. I'd also sway against you getting the same one as you are perusing for your monopod (not sure if that's what you're planning, but that's how it sounded from your phrasing. |
Yes, you interpreted correctly. It was recommended that I get one that is interchangeable. But now that I pay attention ... With the big lens the dang thing doesn't even attach to the camera. Aye yie yie. I can keep my tripod as is. |
|
|
|
02/19/2013 10:55:33 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Neil:
One other thought--If you think you might be moving up to FX, then remember, all the DX lenses you buy will eventually need to be replaced. |
One thing I like about my D600 is that it will adapt itself to DX format with the DX lenses.
Not that I've done that since I love my 28-300 so much. |
True, but I find it a bit harder to compose when you see more than what will be in the frame!
I too like the 28-300 but it's really heavy on the neck to walk around with that lens compared to my old 18-200 (the D600+ the 28-300 is about 3.25 lbs)
I have my own crazy idea on how to carry a big zoom into the field (which might help the OP) when I go on my hiking trip to the Grand Canyon later this year. I've been thinking it would be cool to have a MFT camera with the 100-300mm (200-600mm) lens sitting in my bag, easy to pull out and shoot wildlife as it appears while leaving my wide or near range lens on my D600. I was also considering the FZ200 which is a smaller sensor camera but has a 25-600 F2.8 constant aperture zoom. But I didn't like what samples above base ISO looked like while pixel peeping it. The MFT cameras on the other hand look pretty good up to ISO 800 or even 1600. So with the sales this week, I ordered a Panny G5 and 100-300mm (200-600mm) zoom. Camera and lens together were $1000 and weigh just 1.9 lbs, much less than a Bigma 50-500 at 4.33 lbs or the 150-500 at 4.19 lbs. It's also "only" 5" long (lens)
Anyway, the camera and lens come tomorrow so I'll let you know what I think when in hand. I know that's not what you're thinking, but I thought I'd share.
As far as bags, I haven't tried the Expeditions...but I have read good things about them. Also Kata and Thinktank.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2013 02:10:50 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by ciaeagle:
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
The head for your tripod is a much different proposition and should take some thinking. I'd also sway against you getting the same one as you are perusing for your monopod (not sure if that's what you're planning, but that's how it sounded from your phrasing. |
Yes, you interpreted correctly. It was recommended that I get one that is interchangeable. But now that I pay attention ... With the big lens the dang thing doesn't even attach to the camera. Aye yie yie. I can keep my tripod as is. |
I would definitely not recommend that head for a tripod setup. If you are going for a single head, I'd lean towards a ballhead of some variety. You can look into pan/tilts, which will be much cheaper for the same sturdiness, but they lack ease of use and take much longer to setup. This may or may not be of issue to you. I would be amazed if the head you linked to didn't provide you with many frustrations when used with a tripod. Tripods and monopods are just fundamentally meant to be used differently and the head reflects those differences. And although you can happily use a ballhead on a monopod, I wouldn't say you can use a monopod head on a tripod nicely.
It's much better that the larger lenses attach to a collar for support- it balances them MUCH better and also lowers stress on the coupling. But you still would use them in the same fashion, although depending upon the lens/head combo you're working with, you may use different QR plates for the mount. For instance, on my Bigma, I use a 4 inch long QR plate |
|
|
|
02/20/2013 09:55:45 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Don't fret too much over what head you get for your monopod. It won't be holding as much weight anyway. I got one of these to use on my mono and it has worked quite well. The action is not quite as smooth as my GV2, but it's still generally nice. I went this way instead of a Manfrotto because I'm just not very convinced of QR plates that don't use a lip to grip the body. |
The head you reference looks exactly like what is on my tripod today (style-wise). I know I'll have to replace the tripod head though as it barely holds up my 18-200 especially when flipped to the side. I think one of the dials has lost its mojo. Would I want a ball head for the monopod? Or is the straight/stable approach of the other one preferred? |
|
|
|
02/20/2013 09:58:14 AM · #21 |
Definitely seconding Derek on the pan-tilt head vs the ballhead, for the tripod anyway, I dont have a mono. Pan-tilts are very limiting. Try a ballhead for one shoot (esp if you go out and practice panning after unpredictable subjects like birds, which is what you plan to shoot in Alaska) and you will soon see what I mean. Borrowing Redès old ballhead for an osprey shoot (you will see them too, probably being hassled by eagles to drop their hard-earned catches so the eagle can snatch em) was an eye-opener.
Just be sure to learn how to lock the ballhead securely into place and alternately how to loosen it up enough so you can max it out. If you are going to invest in a tele, you sure as hell do not want to risk your lens tipping forward and crashing into a tripod leg.
Message edited by author 2013-02-20 10:00:05. |
|
|
|
02/20/2013 10:17:18 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by ciaeagle:
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Don't fret too much over what head you get for your monopod. It won't be holding as much weight anyway. I got one of these to use on my mono and it has worked quite well. The action is not quite as smooth as my GV2, but it's still generally nice. I went this way instead of a Manfrotto because I'm just not very convinced of QR plates that don't use a lip to grip the body. |
The head you reference looks exactly like what is on my tripod today (style-wise). I know I'll have to replace the tripod head though as it barely holds up my 18-200 especially when flipped to the side. I think one of the dials has lost its mojo. Would I want a ball head for the monopod? Or is the straight/stable approach of the other one preferred? |
The head you linked to will work fine for a monopod. It will behave different from a ballhead, but not in a problematic way. I would NOT recommend a pan/tilt head for a monopod. If you have issues with your current ballhead on a tripod with only your 18-200, you might consider using your existing ballhead on your monopod and invest in a new ballhead for your tripod that more securely locks. Locking strength isn't so important on a mono since the head will never be fully supporting the weight of your setup if you are using your monopod as a mono. This excludes if you brace and stand the monopod so it behaves as a tripod using rocks or whatever.
What is your current tripod/head setup? |
|
|
|
02/21/2013 10:44:48 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
What is your current tripod/head setup? |
I have the an amvona head with a Dynatran At-A101T tripod. |
|
|
|
02/21/2013 11:27:55 AM · #24 |
I assume that you will be flying to Alaska. It may be a good time to consider a carbon fiber tripod.
The weight savings on your round trip luggage charge may offset part of the extra cost of the CF tripod.
If you like 3 way capability, the Manfrotto 056 is nice for a monopod. I use one on my monopod sometimes when not using the ball head, and also have the next heavier model in use on my light walkabout tripod. The next heavier model, the 460 is similar, but much stronger.
This link may be useful if you want to browse what's out there for different styles of heads. Other brands have similar items.
Manfrotto Support System Configurator
|
|
|
|
02/21/2013 09:46:09 PM · #25 |
Thankfully my tripod is carbon fiber but a good reminder for the mono. :) thanks for the link. This looks very helpful. |
|
