Torturing Myself Over Lenses

[neverdie]

Is 1.4 to 2.8, considered ONE STOP on the scale?? I may have missed that when speed reading .

A standard F-stop sequence:

1.4 2.0 2.8 4 5.6 8 11 16 22

Each stop is 1/2 light of the previous stop. In this case going from 1.4 to 2.0 reduces light by half, then from 2.0 to 2.8 another half. Thus, going from 1.4 to 2.8 would change the amount of light by 1/4. Or conversely, from 2.8 to 1.4 will give 4 times the amount of light.

Probably more then you want to absorb at the moment > tedius explanation

I like the tedius explanation, thanks for that. So, for me, if I wanted the convieniance of zoom, if I went for a Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8, I'm going to be letting in 4 times the light (WHEN REQUIRED) of the cheaper 18-200mm lense (when its fully zoomed to 200mm) or it at very least runs in the 3.5-5.6 range.

Edited July 12, 2009 by neverdie

[Serpico]

BUY QUALITY / OWN QUALITY

I'd look for second hand, mint pro gear versus new consumer grade stuff.

I had the 18-200. Could not get rid of it fast enough. Too slow for me.

It will get you some good pictures but compared to the 24-70. No contest.

Why not get the 50mm f 1.4 and zoom with your feet.

Primes are so much better for walking around.

The f2,8 zooms are huge and for pros that absolutely need every mm. No?

I have the 14-24, 24 - 70 and 70-200 f2.8 but when I walk around it's my 35 f2 or 85 f1.4.

[Tywais]

Tywais, Something that was mentioned earlier in relation to that lense the 18-200mm with the VR & I commented about VR allowing 3-4 f stops down....is mentioned in that article you posted above & in the pinned thread.

I can't remember if that article explains the difference. There are two ways at looking at stops. There's F-stop which is the aperture opening and then stops relative to shutter time, both control the amount of light being received by the sensor. In the case of VR it is referenced to shutter speed (stops) in that if you have for example a 1/4 sec exposure the VR will stabilize it to approxmately the same as if it was a 1/64th Sec (16X difference) exposure but not actually effecting the total exposure time.

1 stop in shutter speed change is 1/2 or 2X change in time depending if changing down or up in shutter speed. In comparison increasing shutter speed by one stop and decreasing aperture by one stop should give you similar exposure levels. Example of one stop speed change is from 1/125 to 1/250 Second.

A very basic video tutorial here > Camera Shutter Speed and Aperature explained

A tip. The shutter speed should be 1 over the focal length as a rule of thumb. Example a 30mm FL, use no less then 1/30th second exposure.

[neverdie]

BUY QUALITY / OWN QUALITY

I'd look for second hand, mint pro gear versus new consumer grade stuff.

I had the 18-200. Could not get rid of it fast enough. Too slow for me.

It will get you some good pictures but compared to the 24-70. No contest.

Why not get the 50mm f 1.4 and zoom with your feet.

Primes are so much better for walking around.

The f2,8 zooms are huge and for pros that absolutely need every mm. No?

I have the 14-24, 24 - 70 and 70-200 f2.8 but when I walk around it's my 35 f2 or 85 f1.4.

Yes Serpico, so thats how I was thinking almost the same as you. A 24-70 (good quality one) as my main, then the macro (105 suggested) because its also good for portraits and then a bit later I can look at something similar to a 14-24. Its this prime lense thing thats got me thinking now

Tywais, Something that was mentioned earlier in relation to that lense the 18-200mm with the VR & I commented about VR allowing 3-4 f stops down....is mentioned in that article you posted above & in the pinned thread.

I can't remember if that article explains the difference. There are two ways at looking at stops. There's F-stop which is the aperture opening and then stops relative to shutter time, both control the amount of light being received by the sensor. In the case of VR it is referenced to shutter speed (stops) in that if you have for example a 1/4 sec exposure the VR will stabilize it to approxmately the same as if it was a 1/64th Sec (16X difference) exposure but not actually effecting the total exposure time.

1 stop in shutter speed change is 1/2 or 2X change in time depending if changing down or up in shutter speed. In comparison increasing shutter speed by one stop and decreasing aperture by one stop should give you similar exposure levels. Example of one stop speed change is from 1/125 to 1/250 Second.

A very basic video tutorial here > Camera Shutter Speed and Aperature explained

Thanks Tywais, I need to absorb all of this....lol, the head is working overtime today. Still I would rather make sure I am getting the right lenses, not wanting to replace them later in the year.

[Tywais]

Thanks Tywais, I need to absorb all of this....lol, the head is working overtime today.

I've been finding this topic very useful in removing the rust from my photography concepts.

Seems the f2.8 24-70mm would be a good general purpose walk around lens. That comes out to about 38 - 112 mm film equivalent. 50mm (full frame like on a film camera) is equivalent to the field of view the eye sees. Just to put it in perspective.

[skippybangkok]

I was worried about the appetures, but the VR compensates for that. I was sitting in a hotel lobby , bit darkish waiting for some one, and tried my new lens, and the 200mm fixed lens ( forgot which one, but it was a top lens, i think f2.8 ). The 18-200 VR won hands down. So dont worry about that.

You obviously have no clue whatsoever, you cannot compare a prime lense to a "compact camera extension lense".

perhaps mr cras can provide some insights. Did alot of research before buying both lenses, and it's a great lens. If ur requirements are so super, then don't buy a nikon, get ur self a digital hasselblad with 13 fstops dynamic range, and take 30 mins to set up ur shot, or stick with Velvia Asa slide film

[neverdie]

Thanks Tywais, I need to absorb all of this....lol, the head is working overtime today.

I've been finding this topic very useful in removing the rust from my photography concepts.

Seems the f2.8 24-70mm would be a good general purpose walk around lens. That comes out to about 38 - 112 mm film equivalent. 50mm (full frame like on a film camera) is equivalent to the field of view the eye sees. Just to put it in perspective.

Yes, well I think I said a big THANKYOU before and I meant it. Actually, you know me, bit of a clown, like to laugh at stuff (its the only way I can stay sane). Anyway, I've been reading in this forum for ages but never really posted b4. Didnt want to come out and bother you all until I was getting close to the actual purchase or at least nearly there, so to speak.

Thanks guys, its really appreciated.

[monkfish]

nerverdie not going to tell you what to buy but can tell what I have and what i think of it.

Got my D200 3 years ago and still love it Its quick, easy, and very very strong, so I'm guessing the D300 is going to be even better.

With the advent of D700 even cheaper!

Dropped D200 loads of times and its still works perfect! No plastic! Just titanium and rubber! Lol

Lense wise i went through same process as yourself don't worry its part of the fun.

Budget did play a role in my decision making.( and i spent more than intended )

Firstly got the Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G bundled with the camera apposed to the 18-200mm which

was another bundle option at the time. I decided against the 18-200mm because i wanted another lens which i though

covered my needs better (also didn't like the reviews). Anyway its a great all purpose zoom lens great for walk about a sits

on my cam most of the time. Not too heavy either.

Second lens: Opted for the Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G VR and what can I say but amazing lens! for the price and i am more than happy with it.(and cheap!) I paid about 15k 2 years ago, think they have a VR2 version out now so that should be better. It is light! very light! focuses very quick, quicker

than the the 18-70mm You can take shots at 300mm hand held no problem.

Third lens i got is the Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G AF-S VR, this is also a great lens, although may be a tad heavy but again with VR hand held macros are possible! Great depth of field up to f50 on macros although a little bit soft at 50. You also don't need to get too close on macro shots with 105mm

Would only recommend if you want to do macros though, does good portrait shots but every little and blemish is visible. (no forgiving with this one)

I should really use it for every shot quality wise but I have so much more fun with the zoom.

Also I know you said your GF doesn't like flashes but I will mention anyways as it's <deleted> good flash the SB800 it's just awesome!

Why? you can take it off your camera (no cables!! )and use as a studio light! Buy a little tripod put it where you want and even out door shots with no

light look great, recommend putting the diffusion filter on and nobody will know it was even a flash unless you tell em. By the way I was also anti flash until I got this baby, its not a flash but an extra light.

Anyways that my little set up, only thing i would like to add at the moment is a really serious wide angle lens, but that will have to wait! spent enough already! Photography is only one of my hobbies if I spent more i would really have to try to make some money with it

P.S. if the D300 is like the D200 recommend setting everything to no on Camera adjustment i.e. no sharpening no contrast and saturation and do it in lightroom or nikon software.

[neverdie]

monkfish,

Thanks, I really appreciate hearing what you have had to say. I also have dealt with a guy in a Camera shop in Australia, hes D200 mad, has also been using it for years and is very happy with it. Aparently the D300 is considered an improvement on that. I'm probably similar to you, I don't need the latest and greatest model to be happy, so it doesnt concern me that the D300 was released 2 years ago.

You lense choice is interesting, as is the comments about the speed of you large zoom. I am assuming the Nikkor VR is alot better than I thought it was or you have a very steady body and hand (unlike me ).

The more I look at the 105mm f/2.8 macro with VR, I realise that despite its cost, it will be our 2nd lense.

The third lense will be something for ultra wide, like you have on ur wishlist.

I'm still up in the air about what to do with the first lense. My initial pick was the 24-70 f/2.8. It doesnt have VR, but should at its price , but the fixed apeture of f/2.8 is certainly alot better than all the packaged lenses people walk around with & the build quality is certainly there. Its very heavy at 900g, but thats one of the trade offs for quality, its weight, its got something to do with steel and glass aparently.

Thanks so much for your story, it kinda makes me feel like I walking down the right track.

After reading everything Tywais has posted yesterday, I'm starting to feel as if I should just go out and buy one fixed 50mm lense with f/1.4 & be done with it. That would certainly change my comfort zone with photography.

ps: I have noted what you said about the flash. My wallet is empty, but if and when a flash is required, I will take a look. I already have a spare small tripod, so ur idea about a difuser and it acting as an extra light is good.

Edited July 13, 2009 by neverdie

[neverdie]

Yo neverdie,

I agree that the D300 is getting old, and is probably due for a new model very soon however it's one of the best cameras you can buy so you won't regret it.

Lenses, as above buy one use it to the fullest and see where you miss more, you miss longer lens or maybe shorter. Then buy another one, when you get VR you won't go back to non-VR it is a lifesaver, absolutely brilliant.

Good luck with new camera and lens have fun...

Thanks Bard, good advice too. cheers

[Serpico]

Every photographer should have a 50mm. f1.8 or f1.4. Why not get one. I think you will be pleased.

I had the D300 and was very happy with it..but I'm even more happy with the D700.

That FX sensor is unbelievable. You can practically shoot in the dark.

A quik look on ebay and a used D700 costs about the same as a new D300.

Over to you.

[neverdie]

Hi Serpico,

Yes, I must admit a few of the comments here have got me thinking a littlebit.... whereas before I was feeling satisfied with the D300. Fancy a situation where some more experienced photographers are giving me the advice, I don't necessarily want to hear .

The D700 is just so BIG and the other half has such small hands.....maybe I should go for the D700 and upgrade ladies at the same time .

What to do, I don't like second hand, never have. We've been saving for a while for this. I went and had a look at a few lenses today at Panthip but most of the stores are running out of the 24-70mm f/2.8 & in any such case the 'GREY' version of it is selling for 60,900 verses 66,900 at camera store offering factory warranty. Being someone who always or nearly always seems to get a dud when buying stuff I don't think the savings are big enuf for me. A few of the shops were also offering GREY D300 for 47,500 & I know I can get a fully legit one for 51,500.

When Ive got some more time, I want to go and have a play with the D700, BUT THATS A REAL SERIOUS CAMERA.

A few of you have commented on the D300 being OLD and I see its officially 2 years old this month, in ur experience how often do they update these things....ie: D200 to D300 was how long?

edit: I nearly forgot, the 50mm 1.4 was only 11,000 baht and the 1.8 was 4,400 baht, GREY, now I would buy a lense like that at those prices, I can't see how one would go wrong. How do you go with the D700 with the 1.4 50mm on it? I'm guessing you would be taking great shots with next to no light??

Edited July 13, 2009 by neverdie

[Tingnongnoi]

the D700 and the D300 are pretty much exactly the same size wise

[Tywais]

edit: I nearly forgot, the 50mm 1.4 was only 11,000 baht and the 1.8 was 4,400 baht, GREY, now I would buy a lense like that at those prices, I can't see how one would go wrong.

One thing of concern with a fast lens is the bokeh (aka depth of field). Here is some user comments on the 1.4 and 1.8 and seems several have issues with the 1.4 (50mm). photo.net

Example 50mm bokeh > flickr

Actually I need to do a little more research in the definition of bokeh and what parameters effect it.

//edit - ok, just found out bokeh and depth of field (DOF) are not necessarily the same.

Lots of bokeh information here > http://www.rickdenney.com/bokeh_test.htm and here http://toothwalker.org/optics/bokeh.html

[neverdie]

the D700 and the D300 are pretty much exactly the same size wise

Tingnongnoi, I'm not trying to split hairs and in a mans world you are essentially right, BUT, there is a size difference, we handled both cameras the other day & the D700 definately feels bigger in the hand.

The specs are:

D700 147 X 123 X 77mm

weight: 995g.

D300 147 X 114 X 74mm

weight: 825g.

As I said, to me & certainly the 'human handbrake' that follows me about the place, the D700 feels bigger.

I nearly forgot to mention the massive weight difference the D700 could possible make to my wallet

Edited July 13, 2009 by neverdie

[neverdie]

edit: I nearly forgot, the 50mm 1.4 was only 11,000 baht and the 1.8 was 4,400 baht, GREY, now I would buy a lense like that at those prices, I can't see how one would go wrong.

One thing of concern with a fast lens is the bokeh (aka depth of field). Here is some user comments on the 1.4 and 1.8 and seems several have issues with the 1.4 (50mm). photo.net

Example 50mm bokeh > flickr

Actually I need to do a little more research in the definition of bokeh and what parameters effect it.

//edit - ok, just found out bokeh and depth of field (DOF) are not necessarily the same.

Lots of bokeh information here > http://www.rickdenney.com/bokeh_test.htm and here http://toothwalker.org/optics/bokeh.html

Tywais, Both of those websites about bokeh go into alot of detail. Some of the information you posted previously in the pinned section here touch on this issue as well. Very interesting.

[moneyshot]

Mate, go the full frame D700!! I want one;-)

The 50mm 1.4 is a great lens, I bought the G model, which is around 17k. There are more aperture blades with the G, which produce better Bokeh plus it has a manual override on the auto focus.

Its hard to say when new camera models will come out but there is talk around the net about upgrades soon to the D700 and D300, which if you are still happy with the older (now current) models, the price will drop considerably ;-)

[Tingnongnoi]

the D700 and the D300 are pretty much exactly the same size wise

Tingnongnoi, I'm not trying to split hairs and in a mans world you are essentially right, BUT, there is a size difference, we handled both cameras the other day & the D700 definately feels bigger in the hand.

The specs are:

D700 147 X 123 X 77mm

weight: 995g.

D300 147 X 114 X 74mm

weight: 825g.

As I said, to me & certainly the 'human handbrake' that follows me about the place, the D700 feels bigger.

I nearly forgot to mention the massive weight difference the D700 could possible make to my wallet

the big difference in them is the viewfinder with a larger head on the D700 which im guessing is the 123 vs the 114 measurement, other than that it is pretty much the same body, it's probably the difference in weight that makes it seem bigger

[neverdie]

Ting, Thats exactly what I was thinking and then u drop that 24-70 lense on the front of it and you really notice the weight.

Moneyshot, Thats what I was also thinking today regarding the D300, at one point I nearly put my hand on my wallet and thought to myself, just have a bit more of a dig around and see whats going on first. I like the specs of the 300, the 700 is a beauty too. I am ever so ever edging closer. Maybe we should see if we can get a discount for two D700's (two big spenders with one of our last orders)

thanks all and cheers

[Serpico]

Hey, if your now thinking about the D700 ...why not go all the way with a D3X...

So many decisions.

[Tingnongnoi]

yeh if you have a spare 300,000 baht hanging around the D3X is the way to go

[neverdie]

Hey, if your now thinking about the D700 ...why not go all the way with a D3X...

So many decisions.

yeh if you have a spare 300,000 baht hanging around the D3X is the way to go

We're funny little fellows today, arnt we?

Let me see 270,000 baht for the Camera & then you have to bolt on some real SERIOUS lenses to make a benifit from that Camera & THEN you have to find someone much more skillful than me to use it

I'm feeling the D700 and certainly the D3x monster is too much camera for me.....its kinda like putting an old lady in a formula 1 car

Its all good, I don't see how I could go wrong with a D300, its far more advanced than we are, we can grow into it & we have 150,000 photos to play with before the shutter wears out & we can look again. The thing that is most important to me is the lenses, rather than go from junk one to junk one, if I get reasonable quality it will be able to compliment a better camera and better operator in a few years time.

thanks again.

[skippybangkok]

When doing specific shots - ie. when doing underwater macro - prime lens is the way to go i feel. on land, i prefer some flexibility, and as such a good quality zoom. ( try swapping out prime lenses in dusty down town Cairo ). I dont like swapping out lenses unless i can do it in a relatively clean environment.

[skippybangkok]

We're funny little fellows today, arnt we?

LOL. Figured that much.

I loved my macro's on Digital, and loved wide angle on Fuji velvia slide film. For me there is nothing digital which comes close to slide film for wide angles ( that i have seen ) - maybe the hassleblad digital @ 1.500.000 baht.

As such, its a cost / benefits compromise.

[neverdie]

skippy,

Obviously people with very serious money buy lenses like that & once again I doubt very much that the worlds most expensive lense would make much difference in my hands.

It would be nice to have that much money that you could just have the best of everything, BUT, it would probably also take some of the fun out of hunting for the gear too. I think I will be more than happy with middle end consumer grade stuff.

Having spent alot of time in the middle east and the outback dusty Australian areas, changing lenses is one thing that concerns me greatly.

I'm surprised that nobody has come up with some type of bag invention when you can insert the camera, two lenses & change from the outside, thus elimating 90% of the dust in the air. Naturally the bag would have to be clear and soft....ohh and something that could be cleaned easily enuf. The bag wouldnt elimate dust 100%, but it would have to be better than nothing. I've heard many people talk about changing lenses in the car etc, but for those who have experienced outback travel, the car can be one of the dustiest places to do such a job.

[Serpico]

Hey, if your now thinking about the D700 ...why not go all the way with a D3X...

So many decisions.

yeh if you have a spare 300,000 baht hanging around the D3X is the way to go

We're funny little fellows today, arnt we?

Let me see 270,000 baht for the Camera & then you have to bolt on some real SERIOUS lenses to make a benifit from that Camera & THEN you have to find someone much more skillful than me to use it

I'm feeling the D700 and certainly the D3x monster is too much camera for me.....its kinda like putting an old lady in a formula 1 car

Its all good, I don't see how I could go wrong with a D300, its far more advanced than we are, we can grow into it & we have 150,000 photos to play with before the shutter wears out & we can look again. The thing that is most important to me is the lenses, rather than go from junk one to junk one, if I get reasonable quality it will be able to compliment a better camera and better operator in a few years time.

thanks again.

You are exactly right.

The good glass is a wise investment and you can use them for decades.

The DSLRs go almost obsolete in a couple years.

[bonobo]

If you are comfortable with the D300, then go for it.  I would rather pay more money on a better lens than a better body.

I bought an N90 almost 8 years ago, and it is still going strong for me.  I know there are newer models out ther, but the N90 works for me and I am happy with it. I have bought a few better lenses over the ensuing years, but the body is fine.

So if the D300 fits your budget and it matches your needs, then don't worry about newer or more advnaced models.

[Tingnongnoi]

yep I would agree about not worry so much about advance models, D300 is a great camera and should take great pics for a long time, don't agree so much that the body's become obsolete in a couple of years, but easy to get caught up in wanting the latest and greatest gear.

[Tywais]

Having spent alot of time in the middle east and the outback dusty Australian areas, changing lenses is one thing that concerns me greatly.

Don't forget to get a good quality UV filter to protect the lens face.

[neverdie]

^Yes Tywais, on my previous SLR (Film), a Nikon F80, I always had filters on the end, just for that protection.

What concerns me more is something grubby getting into the camera end of the deal during a lense change.