The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)

[jmmtn4aj]

Originally Posted by skyline889

Hmm, sorry to bring the topic of telephotos backup again but what are your opinions of the 70-300mm VR? It seems like a pretty good bargain for only $450. F4.5 is once again making me a little leary as I would be shooting in low light situations occasionally but otherwise for the price, it seems like a very good buy.

It's getting rave reviews at DPReview at least, probably the most recommended 70-300, right before the 70-300 APO DG Macro from Sigma

[skyline889]

Originally Posted by dj_mocok

Just ask yourself how occasional it is, because with 4.5 you can forget about shooting anything apart from daylight. Even 2.8 struggles at late afternoon without flash.
But I assume you have other faster lens? so even if you can't shoot with your 70-300mm, you can probably switch to your other lens. Well, unless the object is still distant one, then you have no option since fast telephoto means $$$.

What is it for anyway? Maybe you can look around eBay and get a used, but good quality tele?

Originally Posted by jmmtn4aj

It's getting rave reviews at DPReview at least, probably the most recommended 70-300, right before the 70-300 APO DG Macro from Sigma

Thanks for the help guys! There're just so mnay options that I really don't know what to go with at this point of time. When I really think about it, most of my shots will be outdoors so in the few instances where I do have less light, I can just bump up the ISO as they probably won't be "serious" shots anyway.

Right now I have it narrowed down to the Nikkor 80-200 AF-D, the Nikkor 70-300 VR, the Tokina 80-400 AT-X, and the Sigma 50-500 DG. I think if I can swing the price, I might go for the Sigma 50-500 because it seems like an amazing lens for the price. That 50-500mm range is a definite plus for me because while often times I shoot offshore objects and need the extra range, not having to switch lenses when I want a wider angle shot would be really nice, especially at the beach with the salt air blowing god knows what into my camera. Plus F/4 really isn't that bad for a telephoto. Though f/6.3 is on the slow side, I can probably shoot at ISO 400 or 800 if I really need the extra light. What do you guys think? Good choice or buy something else?

[morphine]

Skyline I agree with you there really are simply too many choices The 70-300 sounds like an excellent lens but I'm also wary of low light conditions. I don't shoot in them often, but if I'm traveling I DO NOT want to miss a possible shot I won't get another chance at simply because I don't have a fast enough lens.

Another thought that has popped up concerns the new lenses supposedly being released by Nikon that appear to be overdue. It would really be painful picking up a lens only to have it bettered with VR II or something to that effect in a couple weeks. Is this an unfounded fear?

The Sigma 50-500 simply sounds frightening What a monster! That's the equivalent of 75-750 and I can only imagine that it makes a solid tripod a necessity for decent shots in bright sunlight starting in the middle of its range.

--

On a somewhat related note.. I've been looking at tripods and most of the solid ones come in at 4-6 pounds or so. Couple that with a ball head and quick release plate and I could be looking at carrying 8-10 pounds in just tripod gear along with a telephoto lens, 2-3 other lenses, a D200, and misc. in the bag. Does anyone have experience with this? How does it feel and is it ok walking around all day with such a setup?

I realize I've hopped about some

Thanks,
Richard

[flamerz]

Well I just got my first DSLR a few days ago off of a user from Nikonians.org after lots of posting classifieds and such. I managed to get a steal.

D50
18-55mm lens (kit)
55-200mm lens (AF broken)
Nikon bag
2 batteries
Battery charger
A 2 GB card
A 1 GB card
Some flimsy table tripod
Lens cleaner

All for under $500. Anyway, I'm on my last week of school now, so I haven't taken very many pictures. I'm definitely looking to get a tripod and speedlight ASAP, but I don't have the most money ATM. Luckily I just got almost $100 off of some old clothes, and I'm hoping to get $50 for a few games. I might even sell my iPod, as I use my Shuffle more often than it. I could probably get somewhere between $150 and $200 from that. Anyway, I'm clearly on a low budget, so I believe I'll be getting a SB-400 for my flash and a Bogen/Manfrotto 3001 for my tripod. With my D50, it doesn't seem like there are many advantages of the SB-600 over the SB-400 besides overall power, but am I wrong in this assumption? Also, are there any better valued, yet still cheap tripods I should consider instead? From my quick search, the 3001 seemed to be the consensus and there was little talk about other products, so I have no idea what some other strong options are.

Man, I'd really like a macro and fisheye lens also, but I definitely can't afford those.

[Sherwood]

So, I'm moving to Turkey for a year and intend to document my trip photographically. I love the feel of the D40, and the price is great. I borrowed a friend's With some clever coupons, I can get it for under $500 and 24 month free financing from circuit city. Only thing is, I'm addicted o used gear. Is there any reliable used gear/ discussion forum akin to head-fi for the camera world?

[flamerz]

Well I got my deal from Nikonians. It's a pretty busy place. eBay was probably my second most likely option, then Craigslist or FredMiranda.

[Dimitris]

I got a refurbished Nikon D200 for a friend of mine for $1150 2 weeks ago. Its a great camera and I have been enjoying it a lot. To me its more or less on par with my 20D and it wins on some points like ergonomics and meter although the Canon is a bit better at high iso. I really love that i can use my manual nikors again.

[dj_mocok]

Yeah, D200 is not so great at high ISOs. I'm using my own D80 and my brother's D200 alternately, the ISO performance from D80 is much better. But D200 wins out at ergonomic and feels much more like a solid camera. Can be heavy at times if you're using it with 17-35mm and SB800 - especially when doing vertical shots.

[Edwood]

Originally Posted by dj_mocok

Yeah, D200 is not so great at high ISOs. I'm using my own D80 and my brother's D200 alternately, the ISO performance from D80 is much better. But D200 wins out at ergonomic and feels much more like a solid camera. Can be heavy at times if you're using it with 17-35mm and SB800 - especially when doing vertical shots.

The D200 exposure is better than the D80. The D80 tends to overexpose quite a bit.

-Ed

[dj_mocok]

I actually never done real test in terms of difference in exposure, because I use old MF lenses most of the time.