Info on some Nikon Gear

[phoenix]

Hi everyone. I have a D200 and a 70-200mm 2.8 lens. i also have a 17-55mm 2.8, and a 105mm 2.8 macro lens. I also have a 2x teleconverter for the 70-200mm. I have an SB-600, and a few other bits and pieces like the battery grip, extra batteries etc. The lenses are all Nikon brands, and are excellent lenses.

I was hoping people could give me there suggestions on some other gear i want to get soon. I do a lot of sports photography, concerts, and I'm about to start to get into some weddings. I feel like I'm a bit lacking with my lenses in particular. The one thing i find myself struggling with is the low light i often shoot under. I am thinking about getting a 50mm prime 1.4 or 1.8 for concerts, weddings, and for some of the sports shots i do. Any suggestions on that? I also want a longer telephoto lens. The 70-200 is ok for some of the stuff, but i really want to get closer with some of the work. I shoot a lot of aussie rules footy and the grounds are pretty big.

I am also looking at getting either the new D3 or another D200. I know there is a massive difference, and the good higher ISO on the D3 is pushing me towards that. Basically i can either get the D200 in a fortnight or so, or wait a few months and get the D3. I feel like the D3 will suit my need much better.

That's the main things i am looking at getting over the next few months. Money isn't too big of an issue, i want quality and realise you have to pay for it.

There are other smaller things i want to get now that i would love some advice on as well. I am looking for a Plamp or similar. Is there anywhere in Australia that sells them? Or where can i get one to be shipped here easily. Does anyone use a photo vest? If so what one, and your thoughts? I'm also looking at some studio lighting as well, and am fairly inexperienced with that, and would love some advice.

Thats about all i can think of right now. Any experiences, thoughts, and opinions would be really welcome right now.

Thanks!

[MHD]

Welcome!

either of the 50mm is a good choice...

I got the 50/1.4 as I did not want to regret my purchase...

I love the 50/1.4... Great "artistic" lens with very nice Bokeh...

You already have the 105/2.8 macro which is one of my favs....

[radar]

I am thinking about getting a 50mm prime 1.4 or 1.8 for concerts, weddings, and for some of the sports shots i do. Any suggestions on that?

Go for the 1.4 if 50mm is the focal length you want. It will be sharper then the 1.8 at the wider apertures. By the time you get to about f4, both are very similar. If you want something wider, I've heard some good things about the Sigma 30mm f1.4.

I also want a longer telephoto lens. The 70-200 is ok for some of the stuff, but i really want to get closer with some of the work. I shoot a lot of aussie rules footy and the grounds are pretty big.

A 200-400 lens is great for sport. For longer, you are getting to look at some serious cash. You may be lucky if you don't want the VR as some photogs may be upgrading to the VR versions of the big lenses and you may be able to get a 500 or 600 second hand at a good price. You would just have to be patient.

I am also looking at getting either the new D3 or another D200. I know there is a massive difference, and the good higher ISO on the D3 is pushing me towards that. Basically i can either get the D200 in a fortnight or so, or wait a few months and get the D3. I feel like the D3 will suit my need much better.

Don't discount the D300 for low ISO. Look for Dave Black, sports photographer, he uses a D300 for some great sport photography and he was raving about the D300. You can always sell the D200 later and still get the D3 and the combo of D3/D300 would suit you even better from what you describe.

http://www.daveblackphotography.com/wor ... 2-2008.htm

There are other smaller things i want to get now that i would love some advice on as well. I am looking for a Plamp or similar. Is there anywhere in Australia that sells them?

I got some Wimberley plamps from B&H. They are very nice and their shipping was also pretty reasonable. And the Aussie dollar is going pretty good right now too.

HTH,

Cheers,

André

[johnd]

Hi Phoenix, welcome to the forum.

For weddings, I think you've got close to the gear already. 17-55 2.8 is the right focal length for the group shots. 70-200 for the candids. You might want to consider the 85/1.4 - as a portrait lens. The 24-70 may give you more flexibility than the 17-55.

For sports, the 70-200 will do for up close stuff, but a 300 2.8, 400 2.8 or 200-400 VR might be better to get you in close for the Aussie Rules.

For concerts, how does the 17-55 perform? Maybe a 24-70 2.8.

As far as bodies, don't forget about the D300. My wife has a D300 and I have a D3 and although I love my D3, the D300 is a bloody good camera. I have a D200 as well and prefer the D300 (or D3 of course).

Geez, what sort of salesman am I. I have a D200 for sale and I'm raving on about the D300.

Cheers
John

[joey]

If you go to a popular gallery, search for pictures captured on the S5 Pro, you will find most of them will be pictures of weddings or portraits. The S5 Pro with 85mm F/1.4 AF-D is a popular setup for this type of photography. But that's extra $3K just for the camera and a lens.

[Glen]

Welcome Phoenix, your gear is crap but as you are new here I can offer you $1,000 for it I would agree with Andre and John, I think for weddings you have great gear and to solve the low light problem get a D300. A 50 1.4 also would be nice, but the D300 will make all your lenses work better in low light. Those 2 would be my first step and sounds like you could do it now. The D300 also offers 8 fps if you get a a battery grip later (6fps now).

In terms of sports I don't feel qualified to comment on focal lengths but in terms of gear, the cheapest option would be a tele converter for the 70-200, then probably a 300mm f4 (which could also use the tele converter), after that all the options are real money with usually superior results

[phoenix]

Go for the 1.4 if 50mm is the focal length you want. It will be sharper then the 1.8 at the wider apertures. By the time you get to about f4, both are very similar. If you want something wider, I've heard some good things about the Sigma 30mm f1.4.


A 200-400 lens is great for sport. For longer, you are getting to look at some serious cash. You may be lucky if you don't want the VR as some photogs may be upgrading to the VR versions of the big lenses and you may be able to get a 500 or 600 second hand at a good price. You would just have to be patient.

Don't discount the D300 for low ISO. Look for Dave Black, sports photographer, he uses a D300 for some great sport photography and he was raving about the D300. You can always sell the D200 later and still get the D3 and the combo of D3/D300 would suit you even better from what you describe.

http://www.daveblackphotography.com/wor ... 2-2008.htm

I got some Wimberley plamps from B&H. They are very nice and their shipping was also pretty reasonable. And the Aussie dollar is going pretty good right now too.


André

Hi André, Thanks for the quick response. I only say the 50mm 1.4 because it's what i've read to be peoples favourite for low light photography. I would consider other ones, if people could give me some explanation as to why. A 200-400 might be what i'm after i think. I'm assuming it would be very similar to putting the 2x teleconverter on the 70-200 though? Would i see noticeable differences in paying for the new lens over just using the TC? I would definitely be interested in a second hand 500 or 600 if it became available.

Sorry i actually meant the D300 in my first post. This is probably the biggest decision out of the lot really. For the price difference of the D300 from the D3 i could get a lot of the other stuff i need. But the D3 just seems like the ideal camera. Maybe i can get the D300 and buy the D3 sometime down the track. It is really the low iso that drew me more to the D3. I have heard terrific things about it, and i do a lot of stuff in low light. If the D300 was similar or noticeably better than the D200 maybe that's the best for now. Anyone have any real world experience or have seen some?

Do a lot of people shop at B&H? I have looked at them all the time and they seem great for the amount of stuff they had, but i had never really gone and checked about shipping over to here.

Thanks again André!

[phoenix]

I'm thinking by the responses that the D300 might be the best bet. Does anyone know wether the difference in just the low light would be noticeable between the D300 and the D3? That's my biggest concern.

As to the lens for the footy. I have the 70-200 with a 2x TC which does really good. However in low light the TC is unusable so i am looking for something better, and with around about the 400mm minimum.

For the weddings, from the ones i've assisted with previously the 17-55 and the 70-200 were basically all that was needed. The 50mm 1.4 seemed like a great lens to have for the lower light situations, but the 85mm that was mentioned by Johnd may be the way to go. I'm not sure on that one.

The 17-55 is great for the concerts, i've only run into trouble a few times, and that's when the lighting setups were terrible. But again i've run into it enough to realise that something at 1.4 would be terrific. The only question would be the 50mm or the 85mm now?

So it sounds like the D300 would solve some of the low light stuff. Can people tell me how much difference the D300 is to the D200 with this. Is it really that much better? If it is that might be prefect for what i need. I also should look at getting something around the 400-600mm lens for the footy, and the 50 or 85mm 1.4. Is that what people would recommend? Thanks again everyone! Much appreciated.

And Glen, as much as the $1000 offer is tempting, i might have to give it a miss this time. I dare say the accountant would be asking questions.

[Glen]

Some people buy from B&H but many buy through HK through the facilities on this forum, it is usually cheaper. Keep an eye out for the next meet we have up here, there are quite a few D300 around now and you are welcome to try mine or I am sure others. It would be worth the drive to have a play with the gear.

Tell your accountant if you sell at a loss you can write off the remainder of the cost in that tax year

[radar]

A 200-400 might be what i'm after i think. I'm assuming it would be very similar to putting the 2x teleconverter on the 70-200 though? Would i see noticeable differences in paying for the new lens over just using the TC?

Big difference. For one, you will have a one stop advantage on the 200-400 f4 compared to the 70-200 f2.8 with a 2x TC. The 200-400 will be sharp wide open, focus will be lots faster. Don't get me wrong, the 70-200 is a great lens, I've got one and I use it with the 1.7 TC.

I would definitely be interested in a second hand 500 or 600 if it became available.

Get in line

If the D300 was similar or noticeably better than the D200 maybe that's the best for now. Anyone have any real world experience or have seen some?

Coming from a D200, taking a D300, you will feel right at home. Check out that article of Dave Black above. Also search on the forums here. Lots of people have recently bought a D300 and have posted how much better then a D200 it is.

Do a lot of people shop at B&H? I have looked at them all the time and they seem great for the amount of stuff they had, but i had never really gone and checked about shipping over to here.

Lots of people shop there. I have a few times and their shipping is reasonable. You can even have then use the US Post for the small stuff, just have to ask.

Cheers,

André

[phoenix]

Big difference. For one, you will have a one stop advantage on the 200-400 f4 compared to the 70-200 f2.8 with a 2x TC. The 200-400 will be sharp wide open, focus will be lots faster. Don't get me wrong, the 70-200 is a great lens, I've got one and I use it with the 1.7 TC.

I would definitely be interested in a second hand 500 or 600 if it became available.

Get in line

Coming from a D200, taking a D300, you will feel right at home. Check out that article of Dave Black above. Also search on the forums here. Lots of people have recently bought a D300 and have posted how much better then a D200 it is.

Do a lot of people shop at B&H? I have looked at them all the time and they seem great for the amount of stuff they had, but i had never really gone and checked about shipping over to here.

Lots of people shop there. I have a few times and their shipping is reasonable. You can even have then use the US Post for the small stuff, just have to ask.

Cheers,

André

If i can get my hands on a D300 for a little bit that might be the best thing. Glen thanks for the offer. I would love to meet up with people, so the next time something happens i'll be there for sure. It's really good to find a community of like minded people. I've been looking for someplace like this. Glad i finally found it!

Thanks again for all the info everyone, i think it's made it all a lot easier. The second body was definitely the big decision, and it looks like the D300 will be ideal. I was wondering if someone knows of somewhere that compares the D200 and the D300? Or if someone owns both, would it be possible to put up a few photos of the comparison iso settings? That might be a big help before i can actually get one in my hands to try it out.

Thanks again guys!

[methd]

i've got comparisons and i can dig them up when i get home, but basically the image quality of the D200 @ 800-1200 ISO is roughly the same as a D300 at 3200 ISO. I'd say at least 1.5 stops difference.

[who]

I can't add much other than - if you go D3, also budget for even longer lenses than for the D300 as you are losing the sensor crop effect of the DX format when you go FX.

And you will have to replace the 17-55 with a 24-70 or 28-70 f2.8 lens......

As for choice of fast primes, look at where you have the zoom lens set commonly and buy from there - if you are ~50mm buy 50mm, if ~85mm, buy there.

I have to admit that I don't seem to shoot that much around 50mm with the 28-70 f2.8 I have, I am generally either wide, or close. Hence I rarely seem to use the 50mm f1.8 lens, and wonder whether a 30 f1.4 &/or a 85mm prime would suit me better.

But first I need other gear.......

[phoenix]

Well i just thought i'd let everyone know about what i've decided. I've decided to buy the D300 for now, with the idea of buying the D3 in about 6 months. I'm going to buy the 50mm 1.4 if i can get hold of one soon. I've gone through a lot of my photos and unfortunately i'd say about 60% are around the 50mm mark and the other 40% are around the 80-100mm mark, for the stuff i need the 50mm for. So i think i'll see how the 50mm goes and then look at an 85mm at some stage also.

I am going to start to look for a longer than 200mm lens for the sports stuff i do. I'm really a bit stuck with this part of it. I don't know wether a prime lens would be best, or getting a longer zoom would be better. I just know that the 70-200 with the TC is good for some stuff, but i need longer! If i can get my hands on something longer to compare that's probably my best bet.

Again thanks a lot everyone! It's made things a whole lot easier.