Lens progression advice, please
Discussion
RobDickinson said:
Looking at the tdp iso crops for the 18-200, at 200/6.3 it is utter garbage.
Compared to the (I think, not sure on nikon lenses) decent nikon 70-300:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-122...
WOW ! I`m speechless Rob !Compared to the (I think, not sure on nikon lenses) decent nikon 70-300:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-122...
As you say, the Tamron is horrendous compared to both of those you have posted; it really is shocking !
This has now, though, given me major encouragement that I should be able to get far more sharpness from the Nikon 70-300.
Many thanks mate, I really do appreciate this !
Edit: Also - I was initially thinking, before, that I`d lose some lens-speed (slightly) in swapping my Tamron for the Nikon, as the widest aperture on the Tamron is F3.5, due to the 18mm wider angle, and the Nikon being widest at only F4.5.....however, having checked my Tamron, by the time I`m at 70mm on that, my widest aperture is only F5 in any case.
Edited by nomad63 on Monday 16th January 22:13
Right; update on this:
Been a busy boy today, and after the advice given, (cheers Beano, you were right about sometimes just "going for it") I nipped out first thing and bought myself Nikon`s latest version of the 70-300mm F4.5-6.3 lens, to attempt to cover my increasing bird-photography needs, and also a Nikon 35mm F1.8 prime to cover things at the shorter end. The Tamron, which was supposed to be (somewhat) fulfilling these roles all-round, has been part-ex`d against the 300 lens.
To all those that have contributed to this thread - RobDickinson, Beano, Simpo and Nigel - gents, what can I say, other than a MASSIVE thankyou !
I haven`t yet tried the prime lens, which I know will be good anyway, as everyone that uses one states that, but the 70-300 has been an absolute revelation; seriously, it`s completely changed my photography (short a time-span as it has been so far..) in a way which I wouldn`t have believed - this lens is just SO sharp, all the way to the 300; it really is that good, and with the longer reach, surprisingly for only an additional 100mm over the Tamron, it has enabled me to do just what I wanted; certainly for now at any rate.
I`ve managed to get out today, despite the crappy weather, and haunt some of the bird-hides at my local nature park, to try this lens out. In a way, the weather did me a favour, because it was exactly the same as last time I was down there - dead pan grey sky, ready to rain at any moment etc - so I was able to replicate the shooting conditions, light, and location probably as well as you`re ever going to on two different days a few weeks apart, and on loading the pics into Lightroom later this afternoon, I was immediately able to see the enormous difference in sharpness, clarity and tone in my pics compared to those taken last time.
Basically a huge difference, which has now given me a good basis to crack on from here, as I really did feel that the pics should have been so much better from a DSLR...
I guess maybe I was expecting too much from the Tamron; certainly at that price range and zoom-spread, but it`s certainly taught me a valuable lesson in that a large part of this game really is all about lens-quality.
Anyway gents, thanks again; I really do appreciate all the help I was given last night with this !!
Been a busy boy today, and after the advice given, (cheers Beano, you were right about sometimes just "going for it") I nipped out first thing and bought myself Nikon`s latest version of the 70-300mm F4.5-6.3 lens, to attempt to cover my increasing bird-photography needs, and also a Nikon 35mm F1.8 prime to cover things at the shorter end. The Tamron, which was supposed to be (somewhat) fulfilling these roles all-round, has been part-ex`d against the 300 lens.
To all those that have contributed to this thread - RobDickinson, Beano, Simpo and Nigel - gents, what can I say, other than a MASSIVE thankyou !
I haven`t yet tried the prime lens, which I know will be good anyway, as everyone that uses one states that, but the 70-300 has been an absolute revelation; seriously, it`s completely changed my photography (short a time-span as it has been so far..) in a way which I wouldn`t have believed - this lens is just SO sharp, all the way to the 300; it really is that good, and with the longer reach, surprisingly for only an additional 100mm over the Tamron, it has enabled me to do just what I wanted; certainly for now at any rate.
I`ve managed to get out today, despite the crappy weather, and haunt some of the bird-hides at my local nature park, to try this lens out. In a way, the weather did me a favour, because it was exactly the same as last time I was down there - dead pan grey sky, ready to rain at any moment etc - so I was able to replicate the shooting conditions, light, and location probably as well as you`re ever going to on two different days a few weeks apart, and on loading the pics into Lightroom later this afternoon, I was immediately able to see the enormous difference in sharpness, clarity and tone in my pics compared to those taken last time.
Basically a huge difference, which has now given me a good basis to crack on from here, as I really did feel that the pics should have been so much better from a DSLR...
I guess maybe I was expecting too much from the Tamron; certainly at that price range and zoom-spread, but it`s certainly taught me a valuable lesson in that a large part of this game really is all about lens-quality.
Anyway gents, thanks again; I really do appreciate all the help I was given last night with this !!
Edited by nomad63 on Tuesday 17th January 21:43
awesome, ok so its not a cheap solution but imo your better off taking shots that are worthwhile than worth throwing away 
The 70-300 nikor is pretty well liked for that zoom range. Its a little unfair for me to compare your old 11* zoom tamron to a quality 400mm prime
Anyhow the extra 100mm is 50% more 'reach' and in crop terms you have gone from 300mm effective to 450mm effective.
The VR will be useful at times esp for larger birds and when you are pushing the margins.
The 70-300 nikor is pretty well liked for that zoom range. Its a little unfair for me to compare your old 11* zoom tamron to a quality 400mm prime
Anyhow the extra 100mm is 50% more 'reach' and in crop terms you have gone from 300mm effective to 450mm effective.
The VR will be useful at times esp for larger birds and when you are pushing the margins.
RobDickinson said:
awesome, ok so its not a cheap solution but imo your better off taking shots that are worthwhile than worth throwing away
The 70-300 nikor is pretty well liked for that zoom range. Its a little unfair for me to compare your old 11* zoom tamron to a quality 400mm prime
Anyhow the extra 100mm is 50% more 'reach' and in crop terms you have gone from 300mm effective to 450mm effective.
The VR will be useful at times esp for larger birds and when you are pushing the margins.
Yes, absolutely Rob !The 70-300 nikor is pretty well liked for that zoom range. Its a little unfair for me to compare your old 11* zoom tamron to a quality 400mm prime
Anyhow the extra 100mm is 50% more 'reach' and in crop terms you have gone from 300mm effective to 450mm effective.
The VR will be useful at times esp for larger birds and when you are pushing the margins.
To be honest, the deciding factor really was that comparison you posted up between the Tamron and the Nikon 70-300..
I couldn`t believe the difference in sharpness, so seeing that really gave me the confidence to splash out a bit this morning, and wow....has it paid dividends !
I know the thanks is probably getting a bit boring now mate, but seriously, your advice has helped me greatly, and I really appreciate it.
Maybe the 400 prime is one for the future for me !
If only nikon made a 400/5.6 prime !
TBh the current crop of super zooms 100-400mk2, nikor 200-500, sigma 150-600 etc are all pretty decent.
I'm thinking of switching my 70-200/2.8 and 400 for the 100-400mk2 myself.
Oh another advantage of a sharp lens on top of that extra 100mm is you can crop more and still get a usable image
TBh the current crop of super zooms 100-400mk2, nikor 200-500, sigma 150-600 etc are all pretty decent.
I'm thinking of switching my 70-200/2.8 and 400 for the 100-400mk2 myself.
Oh another advantage of a sharp lens on top of that extra 100mm is you can crop more and still get a usable image
RobDickinson said:
If only nikon made a 400/5.6 prime !
TBh the current crop of super zooms 100-400mk2, nikor 200-500, sigma 150-600 etc are all pretty decent.
I'm thinking of switching my 70-200/2.8 and 400 for the 100-400mk2 myself.
Oh another advantage of a sharp lens on top of that extra 100mm is you can crop more and still get a usable image
Well talking about the Sigma 150-600, I happened to try one of those out in the shop today, although it was fitted to a Canon 750D, as they had no Nikon fitment one in.TBh the current crop of super zooms 100-400mk2, nikor 200-500, sigma 150-600 etc are all pretty decent.
I'm thinking of switching my 70-200/2.8 and 400 for the 100-400mk2 myself.
Oh another advantage of a sharp lens on top of that extra 100mm is you can crop more and still get a usable image
I`ve never tried a camera with a 600 lens on it before, could NOT believe the size and weight of the thing !
However....on holding on to it for a bit longer, and altering my grip further up towards the end of the lens, I found that the weight somehow added to the stability of the thing, sort of made it all feel more solid, if that makes sense ?
Probably one for the future for me, once my pockets have deepened a bit, and I`ve learned my trade a bit (read: "lot") more !!
I took a quick look at the photos posted on flickr - according to the info on there you seem to have the ISO cranked up quite high - I would have been expecting somewhere between 100 and 400 but you were at 3600 and upwards which seems massively high to me. Of course this depends on the light available.
Have you tried bracketing or shooting RAW?
What focal points have you got set (e.g. single point or multiple auto?) and how are you setting the exposure sample (centre point, centre weighted or whole area?) and White Balance set to Auto on the camera?
Are you taking a single shot or burst / continuous?
I'm not so sure you need to be setting the shutter speed quite so fast on a lot of those photos, as the subject is sitting there. But of course they do flit off!
Have you tried bracketing or shooting RAW?
What focal points have you got set (e.g. single point or multiple auto?) and how are you setting the exposure sample (centre point, centre weighted or whole area?) and White Balance set to Auto on the camera?
Are you taking a single shot or burst / continuous?
I'm not so sure you need to be setting the shutter speed quite so fast on a lot of those photos, as the subject is sitting there. But of course they do flit off!
Simpo Two said:
Happy to help; now you know that if you take your photos seriously, cheap and lightweight are not good parameters on which to choose!!
NB: For big lenses (eg 70-200mm f2.8 upwards) think of it as a lens with a camera on the back, not the usual way round.
Absolutely Simpo - In the last couple of days I really have seen the value in paying a bit more (or a lot more if it suits) for decent lenses. It seems that you`re rarely going to get decent quality on a low-budget, and I definitely won`t be making that mistake again.NB: For big lenses (eg 70-200mm f2.8 upwards) think of it as a lens with a camera on the back, not the usual way round.
Thanks again for your help bud; I really appreciate it.
eps said:
I took a quick look at the photos posted on flickr - according to the info on there you seem to have the ISO cranked up quite high - I would have been expecting somewhere between 100 and 400 but you were at 3600 and upwards which seems massively high to me. Of course this depends on the light available.
Have you tried bracketing or shooting RAW?
What focal points have you got set (e.g. single point or multiple auto?) and how are you setting the exposure sample (centre point, centre weighted or whole area?) and White Balance set to Auto on the camera?
Are you taking a single shot or burst / continuous?
I'm not so sure you need to be setting the shutter speed quite so fast on a lot of those photos, as the subject is sitting there. But of course they do flit off!
Thanks for your input mate, much appreciated.Have you tried bracketing or shooting RAW?
What focal points have you got set (e.g. single point or multiple auto?) and how are you setting the exposure sample (centre point, centre weighted or whole area?) and White Balance set to Auto on the camera?
Are you taking a single shot or burst / continuous?
I'm not so sure you need to be setting the shutter speed quite so fast on a lot of those photos, as the subject is sitting there. But of course they do flit off!
In relation to ISO, if you`re referring to the last few taken yesterday, yes, it is up pretty high as I have it set on auto-ISO. The weather was really dull and grey, and trying to drizzle a bit, and I was inside one of the nature hides, so light was really poor.
I had the shutter speed set around 1/1000th as invariably the small birds flit off again almost as soon as they`ve landed, and even whilst relatively stationary, they still move their heads quickly to feed, etc, so that was my thinking behind that. Of course, I know that that will also bump-up the auto-ISO, but with the aperture open as wide as I could, at F6.3, something had to give, and it was the ISO...
I must admit, I`ve not particularly tried bracketing, as I tend to fix most things in post, if they`re fixable, unless you can tell me it`s advantageous, and I`ll give it a go ? I do shoot only RAW, so I can take full advantage of any post re-touching etc.
As for focus I shoot single-point, as I like to use back-button focus, and then re-frame if I need to. I`ll also be quite honest about this in that I`ve always used single-point focus from day one, and then just re-framed whilst holding down the shutter-button if I needed to (before I got into BBF), as I don`t really get the advantage of all these multiple focus-points - please forgive my ignorance though here; i`m well-aware that again, it may be advantageous to shoot using the multiple-points, and it`s probably something I need to look into a bit more...
White balance I always set to auto, again to correct in post if I need to (Adobe Lightroom), a bit lazy, I know, and something else I need to brush-up on, LOL, for situations that may arise when I really need to over-ride the camera !
I also shoot in burst-mode; certainly for the bird-stuff and animals, and I generally leave the camera set to that as I`ve learned to be very light on the shutter not to crack off another 4 shots I just don`t need (5 fps on the D5500).
Lastly, I have metering set to matrix, to take in the whole scene. Again, being honest here, I`ve read so many differing view on whether it should be set to matrix, centre point, or c/weighted etc..
As I said mate, input much appreciated, and feel free to continue pointing me in the right direction if you feel it`s needed..........cheers.
nomad63 said:
In relation to ISO, if you`re referring to the last few taken yesterday, yes, it is up pretty high as I have it set on auto-ISO. The weather was really dull and grey, and trying to drizzle a bit, and I was inside one of the nature hides, so light was really poor.
AutoISO is a contentious issue. I never use it because (1) I like to know what my camera is doing (2) I've never felt the need to use it; however others here swear by it.nomad63 said:
I must admit, I`ve not particularly tried bracketing, as I tend to fix most things in post, if they`re fixable, unless you can tell me it`s advantageous, and I`ll give it a go ? I do shoot only RAW, so I can take full advantage of any post re-touching etc.
You can (probably) set your camera to autobracket 3 or 5 shots automatically, but they will be different photos and you will forget to take it of autobracket afterwards so that you can't figure out whey the heck your snaps the next time are all over the place... I tried it, scrapped it, and use the histogram to see how my exposure is and EV to adjust if required. Manual bracketing if you like.nomad63 said:
As for focus I shoot single-point, as I like to use back-button focus, and then re-frame if I need to. I`ll also be quite honest about this in that I`ve always used single-point focus from day one, and then just re-framed whilst holding down the shutter-button if I needed to (before I got into BBF), as I don`t really get the advantage of all these multiple focus-points - please forgive my ignorance though here; i`m well-aware that again, it may be advantageous to shoot using the multiple-points, and it`s probably something I need to look into a bit more...
Just because the camera has 100 features doesn't mean you have to use them all or that they're best - you're doing the right thing IMHO and deciding what works best for you. The centre point is usually the most accurate (google 'cross type') and it's what I normally use, but the other focus points are useful if you're using a tripod. Be aware that they may be less accurate.nomad63 said:
White balance I always set to auto, again to correct in post if I need to (Adobe Lightroom), a bit lazy, I know, and something else I need to brush-up on, LOL, for situations that may arise when I really need to over-ride the camera !
I do the same. I have no idea how to set WB manually; if you shoot RAW you don't need to - as you say, fix it later at your leisure.nomad63 said:
Lastly, I have metering set to matrix, to take in the whole scene. Again, being honest here, I`ve read so many differing view on whether it should be set to matrix, centre point, or c/weighted etc..
I use centre-weighted, perhaps because that's what my film SLR used, but use what you find works best. There are infinite ways to use the settings on a DSLR; find the mix that gives you the results you want quickly and easily.I think you know more than enough stuff and are off the runway
Auto ISO is handy when you are shooting auto modes and you start to hit limits ( shutter/focal length or aperture), modern cameras have some good controls around it and reasonable higher iso, but you do have to be careful for it to be sensible.
Bracketing as said will give you a bunch of exposures only 1 of which is correct, the worst part for wildlife is that when something interesting happens you have a 1 in 5 chance of the exposure being right..
As per above take a few test shots check histogram and change exposure. \
I prefer shooting in manual as it leaves you in total control, but in changing conditions ( clouds, sun to shade etc) you cant change settings fast enough so thats when you use auto modes.
Auto modes rely on metering, theres several metering modes (depending on camera/brand), none of them are wrong but all of them will go wrong, so it depend on what you are shooting and how much of it fills the frame etc
Spot metering on a black and white bird would be a big mistake..
I generally stick to centre weighted average.
White balance - I usually switch to a specific one ( sunny or cloudy etc) and leave it. its not so important in raw ( though your histogram is based off jpg with the WB applied..) but if you need accurate colours (wedding photos, or even nature magazine publishing etc) it helps to get it right ( at some point in the processing)
Bracketing as said will give you a bunch of exposures only 1 of which is correct, the worst part for wildlife is that when something interesting happens you have a 1 in 5 chance of the exposure being right..
As per above take a few test shots check histogram and change exposure. \
I prefer shooting in manual as it leaves you in total control, but in changing conditions ( clouds, sun to shade etc) you cant change settings fast enough so thats when you use auto modes.
Auto modes rely on metering, theres several metering modes (depending on camera/brand), none of them are wrong but all of them will go wrong, so it depend on what you are shooting and how much of it fills the frame etc
Spot metering on a black and white bird would be a big mistake..
I generally stick to centre weighted average.
White balance - I usually switch to a specific one ( sunny or cloudy etc) and leave it. its not so important in raw ( though your histogram is based off jpg with the WB applied..) but if you need accurate colours (wedding photos, or even nature magazine publishing etc) it helps to get it right ( at some point in the processing)
Simpo Two said:
nomad63 said:
In relation to ISO, if you`re referring to the last few taken yesterday, yes, it is up pretty high as I have it set on auto-ISO. The weather was really dull and grey, and trying to drizzle a bit, and I was inside one of the nature hides, so light was really poor.
AutoISO is a contentious issue. I never use it because (1) I like to know what my camera is doing (2) I've never felt the need to use it; however others here swear by it.nomad63 said:
I must admit, I`ve not particularly tried bracketing, as I tend to fix most things in post, if they`re fixable, unless you can tell me it`s advantageous, and I`ll give it a go ? I do shoot only RAW, so I can take full advantage of any post re-touching etc.
You can (probably) set your camera to autobracket 3 or 5 shots automatically, but they will be different photos and you will forget to take it of autobracket afterwards so that you can't figure out whey the heck your snaps the next time are all over the place... I tried it, scrapped it, and use the histogram to see how my exposure is and EV to adjust if required. Manual bracketing if you like.nomad63 said:
As for focus I shoot single-point, as I like to use back-button focus, and then re-frame if I need to. I`ll also be quite honest about this in that I`ve always used single-point focus from day one, and then just re-framed whilst holding down the shutter-button if I needed to (before I got into BBF), as I don`t really get the advantage of all these multiple focus-points - please forgive my ignorance though here; i`m well-aware that again, it may be advantageous to shoot using the multiple-points, and it`s probably something I need to look into a bit more...
Just because the camera has 100 features doesn't mean you have to use them all or that they're best - you're doing the right thing IMHO and deciding what works best for you. The centre point is usually the most accurate (google 'cross type') and it's what I normally use, but the other focus points are useful if you're using a tripod. Be aware that they may be less accurate.nomad63 said:
White balance I always set to auto, again to correct in post if I need to (Adobe Lightroom), a bit lazy, I know, and something else I need to brush-up on, LOL, for situations that may arise when I really need to over-ride the camera !
I do the same. I have no idea how to set WB manually; if you shoot RAW you don't need to - as you say, fix it later at your leisure.nomad63 said:
Lastly, I have metering set to matrix, to take in the whole scene. Again, being honest here, I`ve read so many differing view on whether it should be set to matrix, centre point, or c/weighted etc..
I use centre-weighted, perhaps because that's what my film SLR used, but use what you find works best. There are infinite ways to use the settings on a DSLR; find the mix that gives you the results you want quickly and easily.I think you know more than enough stuff and are off the runway
nomad63 said:
RobDickinson said:
bracketing for wildlife is a nightmare imo and wont change the ISO for you anyhow ...
Yeah, cheers Rob. Must admit, that was the only part of EPS`s question I wasn`t sure why he was asking, but again, I`m the beginner here, so grateful for any advice.
Back button focus, love it!
Have you tried a monopod or similar?
Rob, Simpo: Good enough for me if you two are both using centre-weighted metering, so my setting`s already changed in anticipation for next time I`m out...
As for auto-ISO, I`m going to revert back to how I was shooting a little while ago.....by that I mean, full manual, and using the exposure meter to show the correct exposure. I think the auto-ISO use comes from finding that you (or me, anyway) usually know the aperture you need, and the shutter-speed, almost straight away, so to me, if those two are correct, and cannot be deviated from for that particular shot, then the only thing that can be altered can be the ISO ?
Due to this then, I was finding that I was nearly always having to increase the ISO, so I just thought I would give the auto-ISO a try, but, as has been pointed out by EPS, the ISO has soared in my last few pics, making them somewhat towards un-useable.
I think I`ll go back to using the exposure meter next time, and see if I can keep the ISO`s lower again maybe; we`ll see...
By the way gents, all of this advice is really helping, so keep it coming please, as-and-when; cheers !
As for auto-ISO, I`m going to revert back to how I was shooting a little while ago.....by that I mean, full manual, and using the exposure meter to show the correct exposure. I think the auto-ISO use comes from finding that you (or me, anyway) usually know the aperture you need, and the shutter-speed, almost straight away, so to me, if those two are correct, and cannot be deviated from for that particular shot, then the only thing that can be altered can be the ISO ?
Due to this then, I was finding that I was nearly always having to increase the ISO, so I just thought I would give the auto-ISO a try, but, as has been pointed out by EPS, the ISO has soared in my last few pics, making them somewhat towards un-useable.
I think I`ll go back to using the exposure meter next time, and see if I can keep the ISO`s lower again maybe; we`ll see...
By the way gents, all of this advice is really helping, so keep it coming please, as-and-when; cheers !
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff