|
EL BROMANCE posted:This is the reason I was happier going for the 50-150 over the usual 70-200. Losing that wide 20mm would just end in frustration for me I'm sure. I like shooting at 50mm and use it a lot. I am trading my 18-140 kit lens for the dx 55-300 refurb and it's like 240$. I guess you could imagine that the fx 70-300 would be worth it if you think you will upgrade some day but at 500-600$ I would be waiting a long time to get over 140mm of zoom. I already have a 11-24 wide angle and the 35mm prime lens so I can't really imagine a good use for the 18-140 other than "muh one lense" and for that it's still pretty crap due to the f3.5 aperture. I'd like to keep the ability to shoot with 55mm so the 55-300 seems ideal for my stuff. I was just trying to make sure the 55-300 wasn't a total piece of secret poo poo because no one really explained why the fx 70-300 was so desirable in the review I read. For a first big zoom lens I think the cheap 55-300 will be good enough until I go all crazy or whatever and start getting fx gear. Marzzle fucked around with this message at 19:22 on May 23, 2016 |
#
?
May 23, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 12:22 |
|
|
I guess I'm done complaining about the weight of my old D200 now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BwQ9jS1xKc
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Is there any way to get wireless stuff with a d7200 and an iPad? The App Store doesn't seem to have anything official looking. Trip report: used wmu and was pretty disappointed, is there anything better? I'd like a live scene from the camera if possible Marzzle fucked around with this message at 20:33 on May 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Wmu should give you a live feed, but you don't get much control other than focus point and shutter release.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:
Fine, VERY MUCH LIKE the top-end body. After a decade of using D1's and D2's of all flavors, I picked up a D7000 and it was Similar Enough (with a battery grip), the D5x00 and D3x00 felt like toys (or Canons  ).My main reason for getting the D7000, though, was because it can drive the non-motorized lenses. Old ones are cheap, and I could use the paper's backup 80-200 f/2.8 when I shot football for them on a contract basis after they laid me off. Which reminds me, I need to get a couple of EN-4 batteries and resurrect my D1x as a second body for conditions when I don't want to risk my D7000. Any reputable aftermarket brands? I remember we got a bunch of third-party batteries for the OG D1 back in '06 or so, and they were crap out of the box. Long story of why I have a dead D1x (tldr: the newspaper never asked for it back, just scroll down to the next quote box): When they laid me off, they told me to hold onto the gear in case they needed to call me in as a contractor to fill in when the guys took vacations or whatever; they asked for the lenses back pretty quick when the newer 70-200s broke down (at least one of the three was in the shop at any given time, "my" old 80-200 just kept on truckin, even though it was missing several screws and the nameplate, had been sent back from its last trip to the shop with a "just take it out back like Old Yeller" note because of a bent AND excessively worn mount, trashed front and rear elements, and various other expensive problems, but it never let me down. Well, you have to keep pressure on it in the "lock" direction on the more worn-out bodies because of the tolerances stacking, but it still worked.) and there was one guy with tenure who was real rough on the 17-35mm. But they don't seem to care about the body -- ofc, it's a beat-to-hell D1x, it was my backup even then, they all had D70s or D700s with various flavors of D2 as emergency spares when I left, and I remind one of the guys I still have it occasionally, just in case they start looking for it. XBenedict posted:I guess I'm done complaining about the weight of my old D200 now. It wasn't actually all that much heavier than the D1/D2 -- remember, the lenses back then were much smaller-bore, so the extra weight of the body is kind of a wash with the extra glass in modern lenses. I once put the D1x (with 70-200 f/2.8 and SB450 speedlite) and my Pacemaker Speed Graphic (with Graflite flash and Gramatic six-shot 4x5 back) on a fishing scale, and both weighed ten pounds. And both kits retailed for about 1/10th of what a new middlin'-high luxury car cost at the time. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 03:29 on May 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2016 03:15
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
the D7000 doesn't have the same controls as the top-end body since it uses the mode dial instead of mode button
|
Marzzle posted:Is there any way to get wireless stuff with a d7200 and an iPad? The App Store doesn't seem to have anything official looking. http://camranger.com Not cheap, but is a pretty useful tool for remote viewing/triggering. The built-in intervalometer of the 7200 negates one of Cam Ranger's functions, but then again you can set it up, start and monitor it through the iPad.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Anyone know what the turnaround time is on sending a d600 back to Nikon for the free-even-out-of-warranty cleaning? I definitely have the dust/oil issue with mine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
took a couple weeks when I did it, but they replaced the sensor and shutter mech assembly, so ymmv
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
If I want a lens with a bit more reach, what stupid lens do I want? Looking to dabble in wildlife and sports photography, not sure how serious about either I am. Maybe a bit of car/racing stuff as well. Will the 70-300 4.5.-5.6 be fast enough to start out with? Should I go Nikon or Tamron in that case? Should I roll the dice on a BGN 80-200 2.8 from keh? I've been driving myself to distraction trying to figure this poo poo out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Has anyone tried the Tamron SP 45mm? Are the cromabs as bad as the reviews make out?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Startyde posted:Has anyone tried the Tamron SP 45mm? Are the cromabs as bad as the reviews make out? Image quality is great, but there is a high price to pay in convenience. Pro tip: keep the lens in a ziploc bag when not in use, otherwise the cromabs will get out. I made the mistake of leaving it unsealed in my backpack overnight and now every piece of foam padding has been chewed up and there's a clutch of gross purple & green eggs in my camera's mirror box. And I'll get no help from Tamron here because they're obviously the Hong Kong species! SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 14:27 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 14:19
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
I was recently gifted a D700 but all my glass (save soundmonkey's old 85 1.8D) are dx. Looking for a cheapo zoom to cover kit duty until I can afford better glass. Any opinions on the 24-120mm 3.5-5.6D vs the 28-85mm 3.5-4.5D? The latter is closer to my kit 18-55 vr but the extra range on the former could be useful. I suppose I could use the 18-55 vr in crop mode but idk I wanna buy a thing but don't have a ton of money atm
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
GrAviTy84 posted:I was recently gifted a D700 but all my glass (save soundmonkey's old 85 1.8D) are dx. Looking for a cheapo zoom to cover kit duty until I can afford better glass. Any opinions on the 24-120mm 3.5-5.6D vs the 28-85mm 3.5-4.5D? The latter is closer to my kit 18-55 vr but the extra range on the former could be useful. I suppose I could use the 18-55 vr in crop mode but idk I wanna buy a thing but don't have a ton of money atm Your 18-55 will cover most or all of the frame from around 24 mm and up, if you force the camera to full frame mode. Edit: Sample shot with my own old 18-55 DX (non-VR) on D700, zoom ring at 24. nielsm fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Jun 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
My favorite cheapo is the 35-135mm. It's push pull but it's great performer for the price if you can deal with the awful minimum focus distance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
GrAviTy84 posted:I was recently gifted a D700 but all my glass (save soundmonkey's old 85 1.8D) are dx. Looking for a cheapo zoom to cover kit duty until I can afford better glass. Any opinions on the 24-120mm 3.5-5.6D vs the 28-85mm 3.5-4.5D? The latter is closer to my kit 18-55 vr but the extra range on the former could be useful. I suppose I could use the 18-55 vr in crop mode but idk I wanna buy a thing but don't have a ton of money atm I use a Nikon AF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D cheaply for my walkabout lens. FX lens, even has a useful macro setting. Ken Rockwell even likes it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
You could always just pick up the 50mm f1.8d for $100. The nikon 35mm f1.8g DX does cover full frame with some hefty vignetting, if you already have one of those. The 24-85 3.5-4.5 is pretty good, and they also make one with VR (which I haven't used) if that's your jam.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
The variable aperture 24-120 is pretty bad. I'd get one of the other recommended lenses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Your 18-55 will cover most or all of the frame from around 24 mm and up, if you force the camera to full frame mode. nice, Yeah I've been using it in FX mode on and off, it's kind of frustrating to sometimes have chopped off corners and have to deal with it in post though. Results have been pretty good albeit with some pretty heavy vignetting but generally fixable. I do wish it went a tad longer though. Startyde posted:My favorite cheapo is the 35-135mm. It's push pull but it's great performer for the price if you can deal with the awful minimum focus distance. Cool, thanks, I'll look into it, I wonder if 35 is too long on the wide end to be a one and done kit casual walkabout sortof thing spookygonk posted:I use a Nikon AF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D cheaply for my walkabout lens. FX lens, even has a useful macro setting. Wild EEPROM posted:You could always just pick up the 50mm f1.8d for $100. Yeah, the 50 1.8G is on my list but idk if it's at the top top atm. I suppose i could just find a BIN 50 1.8D or preD on the bay and sell it again for the same price after I get my G though. I do have the 35mm 1.8G DX, I'll give it a shot (  ), thankspowderific posted:The variable aperture 24-120 is pretty bad. I'd get one of the other recommended lenses. cool, good lookin out, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
Sell the dx glass or sell the fx body. There's a bunch of pretty good cheap glass for fx but if you don't know what focal length you like we can't recommend anything that's isn't personal preference.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 10:14
|
|
|
(Talking about Nikon 28-105 f3.5-4.5)GrAviTy84 posted:Nice, I didn't think of this one, I'll take a look. :krock: stamp of approval and all lol Seconding this, it's my fallback lens for almost anything. If you close it a bit it's quite sharp, at any focal length, and it covers a decent range of them. It's small, light, and it can also do some macro stuff (enough to fill the frame with a single daisy, just to give you an idea of what it can do). Even wide open the center is pretty sharp.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 13:15
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Sell the dx glass or sell the fx body. I still have my D200 that I would probably use as a backup for event work and I don't really have that much DX glass. Just lookin for something good for one and done kit work. I like going wide. 18mm on dx was fine but I think going wider would be cool which is why I'm spergin over the 24mm vs 28mm.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
I think I'm gonna get the 28-105 3.5-4.5D, thanks for the recs everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
MalleusDei posted:If I want a lens with a bit more reach, what stupid lens do I want? Looking to dabble in wildlife and sports photography, not sure how serious about either I am. Maybe a bit of car/racing stuff as well. Will the 70-300 4.5.-5.6 be fast enough to start out with? Should I go Nikon or Tamron in that case? Should I roll the dice on a BGN 80-200 2.8 from keh? I've been driving myself to distraction trying to figure this poo poo out. What body, and what sports? D7x00 and up will focus cheap screw-drive film lenses, long lenses with their own motors that work with D5x00 and D3x00 are much more expensive. F/4.x-5.6 is great for daytime sports, good enough for newsprint under Friday night lights, if the body has enough ISO range. The D1x/D2h with lovely stadium lights really needs f/2.8, my D7000 can get by with f/4.5 in the same stadium. The 80-200mm f/2.8 was part of my newspaper kit, and it's fairly decent for handegg and baseball. It's one of those that uses the motor in the body, though, so only works with the fancier bodies. Basically if you can afford f/2.8, go for it, and zoom with your feet. I use a '90s 75-300 f/4.5-5.6 on a D7000, looks a little better than the 80-200 f/2.8 on a D2 at night:  The newer 70-200 f/2.8 (with its own motor) is less good than the ol' 80-200 f/2.8 screw-drive, the former is in the shop rather a lot and the latter works fine despite the shop sending it back with a note along the lines of "it's hosed, we ain't touching it." But YMMV, newspaper shooters (myself excluded, I treat my issued gear as if it were my own) break poo poo. If you do buy the used 80-200, make sure it didn't come from a newspaper. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwGrC0KicSo
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 06:50
|
|
|
Speaking of the 70-200, I can get the tamron here for slightly more than half the price of the Nikon, is there really such a large difference in image quality to justify that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
All the reviews I read essentially said no. It's far better value and only lags behind the Nikon badged version slightly/if at all in most metrics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
Alright. I saw some that showed the Nikon is theoretically sharper, but as long as that doesn't matter in practice I'm fine with going with something else. In the fall I may need to get one, when my F5.6 lens no longer cuts it. (And the kitties have been growning up, and don't need near as much zoom as they used too) I saw a post a few months back saying sigma patented a new 70-200 2.8 lens design, but I guess going from patent to launch will take years. That would match my current zoom lens.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:What body, and what sports? D7x00 and up will focus cheap screw-drive film lenses, long lenses with their own motors that work with D5x00 and D3x00 are much more expensive. F/4.x-5.6 is great for daytime sports, good enough for newsprint under Friday night lights, if the body has enough ISO range. The D1x/D2h with lovely stadium lights really needs f/2.8, my D7000 can get by with f/4.5 in the same stadium. Thanks. Leaning towards the 80-200 used, but sounds like I could probably get away with a Tamron, since it'll probably be mostly daytime kids stuff, and maybe shooting for fun at events I go to (which is where I thought the 2.8 might come in handy). Body is a D300s, so I shouldn't have issues with focus motors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
MalleusDei posted:Thanks. Leaning towards the 80-200 used, but sounds like I could probably get away with a Tamron, since it'll probably be mostly daytime kids stuff, and maybe shooting for fun at events I go to (which is where I thought the 2.8 might come in handy). Body is a D300s, so I shouldn't have issues with focus motors. The Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 is not an option? I use it on my D750 and couldn't be happier.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
Caryna posted:The Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 is not an option? I use it on my D750 and couldn't be happier. I hadn't looked at it. I'll do a little research. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
I bought the Nikon 200-500mm yesterday as a replacement for my Tamron 150-600mm (which I'll be selling shortly) Holy poo poo, this lens is so good. It's so much better than the Tamron I'm a bit shocked. The focus speed is crazy fast, is super sharp wide open at full zoom, everything. I'm able to track swallows in flight and stay focused! Camping all weekend, hopefully I get some good hawk or eagle shots.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
So I'm going to be getting back into photography after a few years of hiatus, as a professional photog friend has recently lent/given us a D300s. I used to shoot Canon in the past, and I'm looking for some direction on a lens to pick up. I work on a Whale Watching boat, and I want to find a cheap 200mm or 300mm lens to snap some pics while I'm at work. My average range is 200-300yds, with plenty of sunlight. I'm only looking to spend ~$200-$300, and I'm fine with a slow AF as the subjects aren't not extremely dynamic usually.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
I'm still undecided on the Nikon 200-500 or the Sigma 150-600 S. Next weekend I'll get to take the Sigma out for a test, but I remembered that I have the 50-200~ hole to fill. How are the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR & VR II? Either would be used on a D7000, mostly as a backup for when wildlife gets close (and the big lens on a new D500). Seems like in either case, they beat out the Sigma and Tamron equivalents, especially on autofocus speed, but it looks like on a crop body the advantages of the VR II don'y really wrrant the huge price increase.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2016 11:39
|
|
|
I have the sigma 150-600 C on my new D500 and its amazing, probably can't go wrong with either of those. If anybody has info on the 70-200 question I wouldn't mind knowing as well. I'm quite unhappy with my 55-300, not sure if its just the copy of the lens or it in general but I am thinking about replacing it with a 70-200 VR II. That's a serious amount of cash though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 00:29
|
|
|
Have you looked at the 70-200 f/4? If you're not shooting low light and don't need the professional rugged build of the 2.8, you can save some weight and money on the f/4. Seems to be optically very similar and is a sturdy lens I've enjoyed using. The VR is pretty good, too.
Business of Ferrets fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Jul 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
If you can find it the sigma 50-150 f2.8 non OS is a nice fit on a d7000 and doesn't weigh more than the camera.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
The VR on the 70-200 F4 is unbelievably good and the focus speed is telepathic. it's some voodoo poo poo right there
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
My first thought was the Sigma 50-150 as well, but it's discontinued and I can't source it (at a reasonable price). The Nikon f/4 version does look pretty nice. For the most part the lens will be used as a backup when wildlife gets close, which includes early mornings and evenings. Turns out the Tamron equivalent is pretty meh on autofocus speed, whereas the Sigma is slightly worse across the board but has noticeably better autofocus. The first real test for this lens will be on a safari in October. Blah, so loving undecided.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 09:41
|
|
|
Mango Polo posted:I'm still undecided on the Nikon 200-500 or the Sigma 150-600 S. Next weekend I'll get to take the Sigma out for a test, but I remembered that I have the 50-200~ hole to fill. I have the VR. According to k*rock it has insanely bad distortion but "Pros don't care", also the in camera correction takes care of it and every post processing program has adjustments built-in for it. Capture One even dials in corrections based on zoom  On the D7k its probably going to feel front heavy (I used it with a Df for a year), a grip will help balance that out, and you're going to want a monopod because hand holding is going to hurt after a while. I'm probably going to upgrade soon, but the VR2 is only marginally better: faster VR (3 stops to 4), less distortion, shorter but heavier.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 12:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 12:22 |
|
|
Mango Polo posted:I'm still undecided on the Nikon 200-500 or the Sigma 150-600 S. Next weekend I'll get to take the Sigma out for a test, but I remembered that I have the 50-200~ hole to fill. I was in the same position, I decided on the 200-500 and am very happy with it. Its pin sharp and the AF is very fast. Regarding the 70-200, I dont have personal experience with this but I've read very favorable reviews on the Tamron, and I'm seriously considering it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2016 17:23
|
|
