| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/16/2006 04:34:59 PM · #1 |
When I bought my new D70 in December, I got a great deal on a package. With it I got a Nikkor 70-300 AF lens. I personally do not like the lens. When I shoot at a further distance with it, all my shots come out blurry (I know using a tripod will help, but I don't like tripods.... I can't shoot with them, I am all over the place too much) I have a Quantaray 70-300 that I use all the time and I get great shots with it. So I am looking to sell the extra 70-300 and use the money to get another lens.
This means I will have about $150 - $200 to use on a new lens. What should I invest in? I have been looking at the fish eye lenses for weddings, but I wasn't sure if there is something else that would be better.
I already have a Nikkor 28-70 that came with my first D70, a Sigma 28-80 2.8 that came with the second D70, and the Quantaray 70-300 that I use most of the time.
I am also thinking about selling the lens and putting the money away twords the 28-200 2.8. But that will take awhile for me to save up for - I'm still paying off the credit card from other photo equipment I bought in 2005!
What do you think?
Thanks,
Lorrie
Message edited by author 2006-01-16 16:36:08.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2006 04:40:27 PM · #2 |
I'm surprised you are having better luck with the Quantaray. I have the same lens and find that it hunts or focus all the time.
From the sounds of it I think you might be best off saving the money for a VR lens so you don't need to worry about a tripod as much. |
|
|
|
01/16/2006 04:41:01 PM · #3 |
| From the looks of your photography (very nice portraits) I would say you might consider selling both the Nikon and Quantaray 70-300's and save for a Nikon 70-200 VR 2.8. It would fit what you do better and give you a very powerful combination with the Sigma you have. |
|
|
|
01/16/2006 04:41:18 PM · #4 |
$200 won't get you far.
Do consider the Zenitar 16/2.8 Diagonal fish. Costs around $100 and is plenty sharp. There's not a huge amount of fish distortion, so it becomes a decent quality cheap 24mm (give or take)
Lots and lots of great info about it on the internet.
Just do a search on google with logical keywords.
(I'm buying the lens as soon as I get the money from those photos I had a newspaper buy from me) |
|
|
|
01/16/2006 05:19:58 PM · #5 |
| Like jbsmithana said, the 70-200 f/2.8 VR might be a great fit for you. The f/2.8 and the VR give you a lot more hand-held capability than other options. It is really huge and heavy though. It may take a while to save up for, but if you sell one lens and buy another in the same category/price-range then you will in general not really see much difference. |
|
|
|
01/16/2006 05:30:37 PM · #6 |
Looking at your photography, which is mostly some really nice portraits, why not invest in a 50mm 1.8 prime, which is dirt cheap and pin sharp with great depth of field. I have one of these and love it. I also have the Sigma 30mm 1.4, but like the 50mm more. There are some people who would argue for the 50mm 1.4, but it's double the money for no great advantage in my opinion.
The new Nikon 18-200 VR is my next lens of choice and I can't wait to get one along with my new D200 that I am waiting for. Is the 18-200 out of your price range...it's worth saving and getting what you really want, because you could have it a very long time and it will service your needs very well.
Hope that helps |
|
|
|
01/16/2006 06:05:37 PM · #7 |
I was thinking about a 50mm because I do alot of portrait of work and weddings. It was mentioned to me before that this is a wise choice. Maybe I'll look around and see what I can do.
Thank You!
|
|
|
|
01/16/2006 06:20:53 PM · #8 |
| I'd second hotpasta's advice on the 50mm, I've one as well and have been pleased with the results. |
|
|
|
01/16/2006 06:23:45 PM · #9 |
First - a simple lens lesson:
A long tele (like the long values of your 70-300 for example) usually has a very small angle of view. The 300mm of this lens can only cover about 8-9 degrees of view.
Now, let's assume that you breath while shooting, and while you're doing so you are moving. The tinyest move. Let's say about 2 degrees.
Now do simple math: 2 degrees out of a total of 8 degrees means 25% motion blur in your picture! I.e. Extremely blurry photo.
Compare this to a wide lens of let's say 35mm which covers about 65 degrees of view. In this case, your very same movement of 2 degrees will only be 3%
A small movement that is not as visible to the eye anymore.
I don't think you actually move in 2 degrees while shooting. But still, you can understand a bit more how it is possible that you get blurry shots with your large tele lens.
In order to get focused and shar shots with your 300mm lens, you have to have enough lighting to be able to shoot in at least 1/250 of a second. Usually, this is fast enough speed to freeze even your own movement in a shot. Unfortuantely, this is not always possible.
Since you are so un-happy with your lens, and since you do shoot mostly portraits and weddings and such, and you already have the mid-range lens I would suggest that you get yourself a decent wide lens.
My personal suggestion for the Nikon would be the Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4
For weddings and portraits it is great!
Do take into account that with such lens you have to be close to your subject. There's no point in shooting from a distance with such lens, unless it's a landscape photo where it is important for you to capture lots of things within the same shot.
Edit to add: somehow I missed your inital price. The 17-35 is a bit more expensive then what you currently have. It should be around 400-500$
The 50mm f/1.8 is a very cheap lens. Less then 100$ You should get it anyway. but I would save the money ;-)
Message edited by author 2006-01-16 18:26:36. |
|
|
|
01/16/2006 06:25:18 PM · #10 |
| Save your money for thenew 18-200VR. I just got one and it an amazing lens. You wouldn't think that a lens with that much range would be as good. But the new VR2 is awesome. It will definitly be my most used lens |
|
|
|
01/16/2006 08:13:15 PM · #11 |
I just recieved my 18-200 VR today and have only been able to take a few test shots in the dark and rain. Looks pretty good for the 10x + range it has with less distortion or light fall off in the corners that I had thought. Better than my old Tamron 28-300 for sure.
But with that said I would not compare it to a high quality low light lens like the Nikon 70-200 VR 2.8. I would still say for your type of shooting save for either the Nikon 70-200 VR 2.8 or a wide angle. I bought the 18-200 VR soley as a travel lens so I can pack light on pleasure trips.
Message edited by author 2006-01-16 20:14:04. |
|
|
|
01/16/2006 08:38:04 PM · #12 |
you can add me to the group puzzled by a Quantaray outperforming the Nikkor. I do realize you are likely talking about the cheaper G model, but that is what I have and it is quite sharp. Here is a sample picture, taken on a tripod (considering on your D70 it's angle of view is equiv to a 450mm full frame) and from about 15 feet away. I also used the built in flash for fill to bring out the eyes. (and post processed with desaturation and enhancing shadows) 
The point is that the lens is sharp...but as others have pointed out, unless you are shooting at 1/500 sec or faster, you are at great risk of camera shake.
I would also second (or third or fourth) the opinion that a 70-200 VR would be ideal. In fact buy two and send one to me....hehehee
Ernie |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 03:26:44 PM EDT.
