Lens (and dSLR) advice?
Discussion
In my long drawn-out, procrastinating plans to upgrade to a dSLR I'm currently being tempted by a good deal on a D80 + DX 18-135 (f/3.5-5.6) Most of my (very amateur) photography is either motorsport (most often rallies) or landscape type stuff as I do a fair bit of tramping/ climbing/ mountaineering and that sort of carry-on.
So a few questions for those who know their Nikons...
1)Would I be right in thinking that 135 is too short for motorsport? If so what is a good option for a longer zoom to go with it? Are the 70-200 or 70-300 VR much good - I notice most of them are f/4.5-5.6, is that fast enough for the uses mentioned above?
2)Is the 18-135 much good as an all-rounder, or would I be better off to try and find a deal with say 18-70 and 70-200/300, or the 18-200 VR and potentially buying a longer zoom as well if I thought 200mm was too short?
3)Any recommendations on a good lens for landscapes if none of the others would cut it for that? I presume wider and faster is generally better.
I'm currently using a Fuji S5500 bridge type camera which has lasted me a few years and is not a bad all-rounder (10x optical zoom, decent manual control etc but only 4mp) but image quality isn't that great (noise etc) and having played with a mates D50 I've realised how much better dSLRs really are. I expect that any dSLR/lens combination I get would be a huge step up in performance, but I'd prefer to get better gear and grow into it than get upgrade-itis in a couple of years time.
I didn't really like the feel of the Canon 350D/400D so the other main option I'm considering is the Pentax K10d, which from reviews seems to be almost as good a camera as the D80 but significantly cheaper, and with the advantages of in-body VR and much better weather/dust-proofing which appeals due to the weather and dust where I'm often taking photos. Pentax lenses seem a bit cheaper in general and no need to buy VR lenses with it in-body, however they don't seem to have many longer zooms which could be an issue I guess.
Any relevant advice and experience would be welcome.
So a few questions for those who know their Nikons...
1)Would I be right in thinking that 135 is too short for motorsport? If so what is a good option for a longer zoom to go with it? Are the 70-200 or 70-300 VR much good - I notice most of them are f/4.5-5.6, is that fast enough for the uses mentioned above?
2)Is the 18-135 much good as an all-rounder, or would I be better off to try and find a deal with say 18-70 and 70-200/300, or the 18-200 VR and potentially buying a longer zoom as well if I thought 200mm was too short?
3)Any recommendations on a good lens for landscapes if none of the others would cut it for that? I presume wider and faster is generally better.
I'm currently using a Fuji S5500 bridge type camera which has lasted me a few years and is not a bad all-rounder (10x optical zoom, decent manual control etc but only 4mp) but image quality isn't that great (noise etc) and having played with a mates D50 I've realised how much better dSLRs really are. I expect that any dSLR/lens combination I get would be a huge step up in performance, but I'd prefer to get better gear and grow into it than get upgrade-itis in a couple of years time.
I didn't really like the feel of the Canon 350D/400D so the other main option I'm considering is the Pentax K10d, which from reviews seems to be almost as good a camera as the D80 but significantly cheaper, and with the advantages of in-body VR and much better weather/dust-proofing which appeals due to the weather and dust where I'm often taking photos. Pentax lenses seem a bit cheaper in general and no need to buy VR lenses with it in-body, however they don't seem to have many longer zooms which could be an issue I guess.
Any relevant advice and experience would be welcome.
Some thoughts.
D80 is a good camera.
D300 is better if you can stretch (prices will come down)
I use the 17-55 ED DX 2.8 for landscapes and love it.
I think 135 is too short for motorsport - 300 is just long enough. On sunny days the cheap 70-300 f4 is great ... but it aint fast enough in the rain.
If you intend to do this over the next 10 years - bear in mind that the DX lenses are good for the current crop of Nikon bodies, but if future bodies use the full frame sensor (like the new D3) then your lens collection will work, but not utilise the full capability of the sensor. (I hope that made sense?)
conclusion... you will spend much more than you want... forever.
D80 is a good camera.
D300 is better if you can stretch (prices will come down)
I use the 17-55 ED DX 2.8 for landscapes and love it.
I think 135 is too short for motorsport - 300 is just long enough. On sunny days the cheap 70-300 f4 is great ... but it aint fast enough in the rain.
If you intend to do this over the next 10 years - bear in mind that the DX lenses are good for the current crop of Nikon bodies, but if future bodies use the full frame sensor (like the new D3) then your lens collection will work, but not utilise the full capability of the sensor. (I hope that made sense?)
conclusion... you will spend much more than you want... forever.
Thanks for the replies - I think the D300 will be too far out of budget, once I start to factor in lenses, cards, etc the D80 is around the top end of what I'll be wanting to spend. Also the extra weight isn't so good when you're carrying it up a mountain, but that's less of an issue than the $$.
Sounds like the 70-300 may be a decent option for the price, I guess the VR could help a bit in low light too.
I'm beginning to get that impression...
Sounds like the 70-300 may be a decent option for the price, I guess the VR could help a bit in low light too.
GetCarter said:
conclusion... you will spend much more than you want... forever.
I'm beginning to get that impression...You could always take the "Ken Rockwell line" and get a D40 and the 18-200. Apparently it does everything including making your tea!
But seriously, if you're on a budget and need a coverall/workhorse, I suspect the 18-200 has a lot to offer.
Now, for your motorsport I don't think that's what you want. On the basis that NAS (Nikon Aquisition Syndrome) will kick in pretty soon anyway, you'll probably spot the potential for a 70-200 and having a TC-14 or 17 in your pocket. Not cheap, though! But unless you're going silly on a 200-400 f4 or a 300 f 2.8 you're just not going to get the flexibility for low light. In which case you really need a latest line up D300 that you can use at higher ISO with better noise capability!
And I was surprised how much bigger and heavier the VR version of the 70-300 has ended up. What you gain for the VR is lost on the back pain and, unless you really like your work outs, it's not going to be the best beast for some panning action ('pod included) - is it?
(So - secondhand non-VR 70-300ED? - I did and love it!)
But seriously, if you're on a budget and need a coverall/workhorse, I suspect the 18-200 has a lot to offer.
Now, for your motorsport I don't think that's what you want. On the basis that NAS (Nikon Aquisition Syndrome) will kick in pretty soon anyway, you'll probably spot the potential for a 70-200 and having a TC-14 or 17 in your pocket. Not cheap, though! But unless you're going silly on a 200-400 f4 or a 300 f 2.8 you're just not going to get the flexibility for low light. In which case you really need a latest line up D300 that you can use at higher ISO with better noise capability!
GravelBen said:
I guess the VR could help a bit in low light too.
Hang on! How will a VR help with motorsport pictures though? Somebody put me right, but I don't see how a VR is going to help with moving subject - unless it's one of your brilliant shots with subject and camera moving in harmony?And I was surprised how much bigger and heavier the VR version of the 70-300 has ended up. What you gain for the VR is lost on the back pain and, unless you really like your work outs, it's not going to be the best beast for some panning action ('pod included) - is it?
(So - secondhand non-VR 70-300ED? - I did and love it!)
Edited by beano500 on Wednesday 7th November 21:55
I'd suggest you go to 'your kind of race' and look what others are using. Personally I'm a Canon EOS user because I think you get slightly more for your money, also I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the Sigma EX 70-200 f2.8 as great value for money. On the Canon it's HSM with continuous manual focus.
135mm definitely isn't enough for motorsport, and whatever you get will be (relatively) big and heavy.
IMO, Canon and Nikon seem to lead the way, Pentax and others are followers.
135mm definitely isn't enough for motorsport, and whatever you get will be (relatively) big and heavy.
IMO, Canon and Nikon seem to lead the way, Pentax and others are followers.
Pah! Don't listen to the Canonistas. In time they will rot in hell with the rest of their "look at me I've got a grey lens" acolytes.
Sorry had to get that one off my chest. Nikon D80's are a fine bit of kit and at 3 frames per second make a reasonable body. The issue with Zooms generally (including Canon!) is the F stop they quote is at the shortest focal length. By the time you've wound it out to 300mm it's probably at F5.6 and a much slower exposure. Especially in low light you are going to get some less than sharp photo's. The monster 400mm f2.8 lenses the pro's use are big money. A halfway house is to get prime or fixed lenses. Generally cheaper than equivalent zooms they may do it. It depends on how much light you have when shooting...
This is taken with a Nikon D80 with a s/h 300mm F4 prime lens off Ebay. VSCC sprint meeting at Goodwood - cold overcast day. Edit to add it's an Austin 7...
Sorry had to get that one off my chest. Nikon D80's are a fine bit of kit and at 3 frames per second make a reasonable body. The issue with Zooms generally (including Canon!) is the F stop they quote is at the shortest focal length. By the time you've wound it out to 300mm it's probably at F5.6 and a much slower exposure. Especially in low light you are going to get some less than sharp photo's. The monster 400mm f2.8 lenses the pro's use are big money. A halfway house is to get prime or fixed lenses. Generally cheaper than equivalent zooms they may do it. It depends on how much light you have when shooting...
This is taken with a Nikon D80 with a s/h 300mm F4 prime lens off Ebay. VSCC sprint meeting at Goodwood - cold overcast day. Edit to add it's an Austin 7...
Edited by Felters on Thursday 8th November 06:24
I don't disagree, the Nikon body seems more solid, but I think the lenses are a bit more expensive and there are fewer lenses available.
I only buy fixed-aperture lenses between f1.8 and f2.8 as this is the bit which makes the most difference. Search google for Sigma EX 70-200 f2.8 as I've been very happy with mine, I also use a x1.4 teleconverter.
I only buy fixed-aperture lenses between f1.8 and f2.8 as this is the bit which makes the most difference. Search google for Sigma EX 70-200 f2.8 as I've been very happy with mine, I also use a x1.4 teleconverter.
Edited by Ordinary Bloke on Thursday 8th November 16:42
beano500 said:
GravelBen said:
I guess the VR could help a bit in low light too.
Hang on! How will a VR help with motorsport pictures though? Somebody put me right, but I don't see how a VR is going to help with moving subject - unless it's one of your brilliant shots with subject and camera moving in harmony?PS Not sure that I take any shots like that.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff