DSLRUsers.com

We're once again looking for advice from the wonderful gurus in this forum.

Lens lust is upon us, and we're not quite sure about the way to go. Would love some advice.

Here's what we're thinking:

Shooting handheld indoors with kit lens (18-70mm) at son's primary graduation, at least half the shots were at 70mm (and we weren't all that far from the stage). We feel that for such situations, we need more reach and it's generally not convenient to change lenses - eg you want to take a wide of the people on the stage, then zoom in on the primary participant (your child, of course, even if they're right at the back!). To solve this issue, we have a few options in mind.

Option 1 - Nikon 24-120 VR/3.5-5.6
Pluses - Nikon glass, VR allows stable handheld shots, membership of that elite establishment, the VR club?
Minuses - Quite a slow lens (one review I read said that it was F5 at 50mm) - VR makes up for this in some situations, but I'm assuming it won't help if the subject is moving? Also mixed reviews about softness and variable quality of product.

Option 2 - Sigma 18-125/3.5-5.6
Pluses - Good glass, Macro ability, Better range than Nikon. Around $200AUD cheaper than Nikon.
Minuses - Equally slow as Nikon and no VR to help. Mixed reviews with accusations of some softness and vignetting if care is not taken.

Option 3 - Sigma 24-135/2.8-4.5
Pluses - Good glass, Reasonably fast lens (esp for the price). Better range than Nikon About $50USD dearer than Option2, but still cheaper than Nikon.
Minuses - Mostly good reviews (esp for the price), but some softness (esp wide open) still reported and we think range would be not quite as useful 18-125 for us, but think this may be a compromise that should be made in favour of the speed.

We're thinking of pairing this with a "walkaround" lens (Sigma 28-300/3.5-6/3) for outdoors - zoo etc, since we find around half the outdoor shots taken with 70-300 - eg day at the zoo - tend to cluster around the 70mm mark (ie same problem as kit lens indoors, but at opposite end), indicating a desire to go wider. We dislike changing lenses outdoors (because of the dust on CCD issue) so are looking for a reasonable (we know it won't be perfect) quality walkabout lens. As long as quality is no worse than Nikon 70-300G, we'll be satisfied - do you think it would be?

...and to round out the set, a 50mm 1.8 Nikon for shooting in low light situations, especially indoors (will we still need this if I get a 2.8 wide zoom?).

We'd really appreciate any advice you can offer.

Mr and Mrs ru32day

I would spend the littl extra (yeah I know it's a lot) and go for the nikon. It does seem slow, but remember that VR is equivilent to 3 (?) stops. I can't believe the difference vr makes. 70-200 VR s my only experience. Not sure if you are near a good shop, but mine will let me shoot test photos before buying.

Andy

Mr and Mrs ru32day
My recommendation is going with the Nikon 24-120VR.
It's going far better than the Sigma 24-135/2.8-4.5 cos with VR built in.
It's a great walk around lens.
Yes from the start, it has some QC issues but disappeared after few months. Mostly the complaints came from the guy behind the viewfinder not the lens itsself.
This range of lens from Nikon, Sigma, Tokina, Tamron are accusations of some softness and vignetting , but it can be control by your hand and eyes same as your experiences once used to it.
With the Nikon 24-120VR/3.5-5.6, it still beat the Sigma 24-135/2.8-4.5 in low or natural light photography.

Thanks for your help so far. I'm sorry to impinge further on your time by asking further questions, but I'd really like to be comfortable in a decision fairly soon, so we can get the new lens and try it out while I'm still on hols ... also so that I can get some sleep. I've been researching this stuff non-stop for about the last four days and the more I look into it, the more desperately confused I get (esp at 3am)

I'm still, unclear about the ability of the 24-120VR to cope well with moving objects. For example, atencati's VR is 2.8 - much quicker (and more expensive!) than the one I'm considering.

I've been looking at some shots taken with the 24-135 2.8-4.5 and they include what appears to be a pretty clear and bright shot taken from a moving platform:
http://morrobayphotos.com/Sigma/24-135/pages/24mmf11-a.htm

...and one taken in what looks to be reasonably low natural light:
http://morrobayphotos.com/Sigma/24-135/pages/40mm-f3.6-125th-iso%20800.htm

Also, the last one on the site looked pretty near perfect to me:
http://morrobayphotos.com/Sigma/24-135/pages/bDSC_7690.htm

I know that a lot of the difference between shots is the quality of the head behind the lens and this guy is clearly a pretty good photographer, but it does seem to indicate that this lens is capable of some pretty good shots.

I've looked at the 24-120 VR shots posted by members and they all (eg Birdie's recent temple shots) seem to be of fairly stationary subjects. Given that Gary shoots musicians in bars (presumably these are both moving and in low light), I had hoped that some of his examples might be helpful, but the links to his 24-120 shots are broken.

Does anyone have an example shot of 24-120VR used for mobile subject/s that I could look at? I think this is going to be important for school concerts and the like (dancing, plays etc). I have quite a few failed attempts from previous similar outings, where the chorus line is just one long blur or the Irish dancer looks like a large fuzzy blob. PS: A good shop nearby? If only!

Pro shops...yeah. I just found out there is a great Nkon shop 10 minutes from my hous. Only lived here 1.5 years. Amazed they survive without advertising. I haven't been able to use the 24-120yet but hopefully soon. I am a definite VR believer now.

Love the pics, the boat shot is down by Santa Barbra, used to surf down there. And I lived in Morro Bay too!!!!! Gotta look these guys up!

A

Ru32day, sorry have no experience with any of those lenses (I use the kit plus primes in that range) but courtesy of sirhc55 who was good enough to post this link when looking at the 12-24 range, here are 4,000 shots with that lens! That should be a demo. Then do a search for the Sigma's. I know Gary and others are happy with the VR and get good results, don't know anyone with the Sigma's. Hope this helps.

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/24_120_35g_afs_vr

ru32day wrote:Thanks for your help so far. I'm sorry to impinge further on your time by asking further questions

Please don't apologise; that's what we're here for.

First of all, on your list of choices, I only see one lens listed. I don't believe that the Sigmas are in the same ballpark.

I'm still, unclear about the ability of the 24-120VR to cope well with moving objects.

What is the the issue here? I'm not sure I understand the question.

This was handheld at a half second, and clearly there's a moving subject within the image.

Mark is trying to make it all happen here, while this bird has clearly flown.

I know that a lot of the difference between shots is the quality of the head behind the lens and this guy is clearly a pretty good photographer, but it does seem to indicate that this lens is capable of some pretty good shots.

It's a brilliant lens, and excellent value for the money.

I've looked at the 24-120 VR shots posted by members and they all (eg Birdie's recent temple shots) seem to be of fairly stationary subjects. Given that Gary shoots musicians in bars (presumably these are both moving and in low light), I had hoped that some of his examples might be helpful, but the links to his 24-120 shots are broken.

Which links are broken? Please let me know.

Thanks for the pic links and info Gary.

The links in this posting are broken for me (Object not found error).
http://forum.d70users.com/viewtopic.php?t=614&highlight=24120

Clearly the 24-120VR is overall a superior lens, however I'm looking to buy a wide-tele lens to fill a particular need. I'm considering the Sigma 24-135 (have at least discounted the 18-125) because it seems to be the only wide-tele lens that I could afford that would give me access to faster shutter speeds. Although my greater lust is for the VR, I'm trying to be sensible about equipment that will best meet my shooting needs. Hopefully, the two will coincide!

The issue I'm trying to resolve is freezing movement in less than ideal light (while still retaining access to wide-tele capability). I know I won't find a perfect solution, especially at the price point I can afford.

I've seen how the 24-120VR will support capture of stunning pics where some artistic motion blur is desirable (as in your bird shot), or where the subject is stationary, but if your child is moving around on a stage (beyond the distance where the flash is helpful - or acceptable), could it achieve a frozen shot of them?

[digression] Have you ever noticed that on stage, children never stand still when they're speaking? Speeches/soliloquys (sp?) always seem to be delivered hopping from one foot to the other, pacing or swaying. [/digression]

Maybe I'm operating on an incorrect assumption about the extent to which a faster shutter speed will resolve my issue. In less than ideal light, perhaps the faster speed would be insufficient to achieve clear DOF front to back (or at least child width) anyway. I guess that there's only so much you can realistically do without a flash. In this case, I suppose some blur could be tolerated, so long as I could still get very clear focus on my son's eyes (or maybe this type of shot needs say the 50mm prime and I'd just have to live without the closer zoom).

Would you use this lens if you wanted to capture a frozen shot of someone walking across the stage/performance space in the pub, or would you choose something different? I notice in the "Mark" album, the drummer's stick is frozen. Was this pic taken using the same lens?


Glen, thanks for this link - I'm trawling through the samples to find ones that demonstrate how the lens copes with this challenge.

My favorite lenses for my D-70 are my Tamron 28-105 f/2.8, Nikon 50mm f/1.8D, and Tokina 19-35. All were from my film cameras; I haven't bought a dedicated digital lens yet. I also have a Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8.

If you want to shoot what we used to call "available light" shots, the little Nikon 50mm f/1.8 is incredible. I've used it several times when I could see virtually nothing of my subject's face in the "available darkness," modified the gamma in Irfanview, and gotten FAR more image than the naked eye could perceive. And, I got the lens used but perfect, for $60.

The Tamron 28-105 f/2.8 is a big lens, but not heavy, and has also given me superb images, both portraits and others. It makes as many pictures for me as all the other lenses I have for the D-70, put together.

Using the EI of 1600, with the faster lenses and moderate software manipulation, is allowing me to make pictures I could never before expect. I highly recommend Irfanview as a first editor, then whatever upper echelon software you prefer or can afford.

This is from someone who used Canon f/0.95 lenses, pushing silver halide film to 25,000 for photojournalism. I REALLY appreciate modern improvements!

The idea of small, light lenses entices, but if they are slow, you will not get images you could have gotten with a faster, probably bulkier and heavier, lens. Believe me, for those of us who formerly carried multiple Nikon F's or F2s with motors and the beautiful but heavy lenses back in the '70s, almost anything current is featherweight. And we're a lot older and decrepit than you youngsters.

If you shoot everything with flash or in daylight, this will not matter to you, but I'll bet your pictures could be better.

Peace,
Joe

ru32day, if that is your objective (child on stage) maybe as Joe suggested, 50mm 1.8 ($200 new, less s/h), 50 1.4 ($400 new, $300 s/h) or for reach 85 1.8 ($350 s/h) might all be worth considering. I have them all and all great lenses. Feel free to borrow one if you like

ru32day wrote:Thanks for the pic links and info Gary.

The links in this posting are broken for me (Object not found error).
http://forum.d70users.com/viewtopic.php?t=614&highlight=24120

Thanx. I've fixed those references now.

The issue I'm trying to resolve is freezing movement in less than ideal light (while still retaining access to wide-tele capability). I know I won't find a perfect solution, especially at the price point I can afford.

I've seen how the 24-120VR will support capture of stunning pics where some artistic motion blur is desirable (as in your bird shot), or where the subject is stationary, but if your child is moving around on a stage (beyond the distance where the flash is helpful - or acceptable), could it achieve a frozen shot of them?

Look at my images of Leigh's school's performance of Faustus. These were all with the 24-120, handheld, using just the stage lighting.

Most of the band shots will have a little bit of balanced flash to offset the atrocious red stage lighting that the Empire uses. My experience is that the D70 is not happy when red lighting is used as the primary light source.

Maybe I'm operating on an incorrect assumption about the extent to which a faster shutter speed will resolve my issue. In less than ideal light, perhaps the faster speed would be insufficient to achieve clear DOF front to back (or at least child width) anyway. I guess that there's only so much you can realistically do without a flash. In this case, I suppose some blur could be tolerated, so long as I could still get very clear focus on my son's eyes (or maybe this type of shot needs say the 50mm prime and I'd just have to live without the closer zoom).

I don't think that would be suitable, and so the greater reach is needed.

But don't lose sight of the need for greater accuity either. It doesn't matter how fast the lens notionally is, if the image doesn't have an acceptable level of sharpness you might end up with a well exposed photo of someone who muight (or might not) be your child.

If you shoot in raw and with the sharpest possible lens, then you'll have the best chance of getting what you need. Compromise on the sharpness, and who knows what you'll have as the subject matter

Would you use this lens if you wanted to capture a frozen shot of someone walking across the stage/performance space in the pub, or would you choose something different? I notice in the "Mark" album, the drummer's stick is frozen. Was this pic taken using the same lens?

Yes. I'll actually often slow down the shutter to 1/25 and switch to rear curtain synch when I'm shooting drummers, in order to try to catch some stick movement.

I agree with Glen (and what a generous offer!) and Gary, of course. What I present are the reasons I've preferred fast lenses and available light for my shooting, NOT an argument why you should, or anyone else shoul have.

There is a big difference in an image shot with flash and one shot by low ambient light; the flash being much more reliable for delivering a sharp, detailed image, near or far. Ambient light images are often blurred, through camera movement or the subject's, and almost all lenses are sharper two stops down, than they are wide open. When you must have a sharp, detailed image in low light, flash wins.

Moreover, I was thinking of shooting in lighting far inferior and more dicey than stage lighting. My D70 is giving me happy hour portraits where I really can't see faces clearly in the dark.

Maybe I'm still caught in adolescent rebellion. The first 7 years of my photography, high school and college photo bosses required everything to be shot with a 4"x5" Speed Graphic and a Stroboflash IV. F/22 was our friend. It seemed unimaginative and mechanistic; I hated it.

But in 16 years of SE Asian photojournalism, I continually wrestled with the philosophical and practical aspects of light. Shoot with the flash, and get the flat, detailed, frozen image, or shoot with available light and show the way it *really was*. (Bounce flash was much better, but this post can't deal with everything!) My editors and agent complained about it, but I also knew flash was disruptive, destroyed delicate atmosphere, and at times might have gotten me in big trouble---such as images of Western pedophiles with kids in the Philippines and Thailand, or treating the wounded by lantern light after a night time ambush. Thank goodness, most of us will never have to deal with situations like those.

Many of today's photographers use their flashes constantly though, often counterproductively. Note the thousands of little sparkles from the back of stadiums, folks hoping to light up the playing field far below, but only reaching as far as the bald head two rows down. However, the camera thinks it's OK to go at 1/60 and f/5.6, so the field will be completely underexposed.

For instance, before Xmas my group at work went to a local grotto, a rock covered with colored lights depicting Xmas themes. Sure enough, most of the photographers there were flashing away. It was very disruptive---I heard several complaints from people trying to meditate on deeper things. One of my colleagues shot a roll of flash images, while I shot by available light. Comparing the images, she'd completely overwhelmed the lights and atmosphere, although she showed good detail in the wiring and fixtures, while my pictures looked the way it was. Ya pokes yr shutter and takes yr choice, and your milage will vary!

Cheers,
Joe

Thank you Glen, for advice and for your incredibly generous offer, and Joe, Gary and Birddog for all your help.

Have been doing more research and looking at more photos on the net - I think I'm a little less confused now.

Think I'll mull it over overnight and try to start tomorrow with a clear head.

One other aspect of shooting a fast lens wide open with the D70, I have had considerable trouble putting the plane of sharp focus exactly where I want it. I'm 59, but my eyes are still pretty good.

For whatever reason, the D70 is more difficult for me to focus precisely than anything since the first Olympus OM-1's. The OM-1's had too fine a ground glass screen, to give the brightest possible image but that cut contrast for focusing. I suspect something similar in the D70, but haven't sat down to really puzzle it out yet. I've owned many Nikons, Canons and Leicas over the years, almost everything built since the 1950s has been easier to focus precisely.

To my hands, with the exception of the focusing difficulty, the D70 is the best-feeling camera I have ever used, bar none. Nikon really created a masterpiece in this thing, and I didn't have to buy new lenses to use it!

Joe

Joe,

You raise some interesting points in your posts. The finding of the focal plane manually wth the D70 can be tough, especially when shooting wide open with a fast lens. I certainly see this as an issue when I'm using the 50mm f1.4, and because you're not yet shooting in the lens's sweet spot, the problem manifests itself a little more obviously than perhaps we'd all like. :)

Regarding the focussing screen, the OM1 IIRC had a split prism, like the FM/FE2. These made manual focussing easier. Nikon seem to believe that we're all going to rely on the AF functionality of the camera, and the only focus aid we're given is the in-focus indicator in the viewfinder.

I understand what they're doing, and why, and while I rarely (these days) manually focus, I'm still inclined to query the wisdom of their decision.

Firstly, welcome Joe.

I must compliment you on a succinct and accurate appraisal of what has amazed me for a long time. There have been so many times that I have been in the position of seeing those twinkling lights of flash that might as well be the christmas tree lights of a city or stadium.

Watching TV this new year eve of shots from a helicopter all you could see (other than the fireworks) was a mass of twinkles.

Flash does have its place obviously, but your grotto comment is so spot on. Maybe Joe you could post in your profile which city or country you are from!

Chris

Joe,

You'VE also tempted my palette with some what sounds like compelling shots in your photojournalist days. Any way you can post some or tell us where we can have a peek?

Great posts by the way. It's nice to see that more people than me are having difficulty finding the focal plane. Really frustrating!

I started photography with an F80, a truly brilliant piece of camera, but next to the advancements of the D70 photography has taken on something completely new.

And yes, I too watch bewildered as people use their flashes only to expose the first 12 feet of the 300 feet of distance the subject posesses.

I agree that those little flashes in the crouds are quite useless, but in the right hands you could have a great portrait using flash with rear curtain synch and fireworks in the background.

I'm flattered to receive the positive feedback; it has not always been thus! I now live in Portland, Oregon, my activities limited by the most important job I've ever had, solo parenting my now-16 year old daughter since 1992.

I've never gotten around to putting together a definitive website of my work, but intend to do so soon. There are some images at http://www.Cicada.com, under Cantrell, most of which date from my photojournalism. They were the first scans I ever made, back in '97, and several were made from bad proof prints, but you'll get the idea and feeling of my shooting. IIRC, several of the shots are from Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and perhaps other countries hit by that terrible tsunami. Help them as you can, please, folks.

To Phillip, yes, with imagination and a combination of flash and fireworks, you can get interesting, or at least colorful portraits. Perhaps somewhere I'll post one made at the Nagaoka, Japan fireworks display where both the kimonos of the women in the foreground and the fireworks were cresanthemums. Makes no difference which curtain synchs for those, though; I left the shutter open several seconds for the fireworks, and flashed the flash from my hand, not the camera, when the time seemed right.

Peace,
Joe

Interesting topic this one as I'm soon considering selling my old Nikon F80 and some lenses to try and afford some of the VR range of lenses.

At the moment I have the 18-70dx, 70-300g, 50 (1.4) prime and a few other lenses that I had for my Nikon F80.

What I was considering doing is replacing (inclusing the kit lense) most of those except the 50 (1.4) prime and getting the following:

Nikkor 24-120VR
Nikkor 70-200VR
Nikkor Prime around the 18mm mark
Nikkor Prime around the 85 to 100mm mark

Then I think my lense kit will be fairly complete
Of course this will have to come after my leg and head lust.

A fellow Pacific West Coaster. Very Nice. I make my way to Portland quite often, some friends and even a sister that lives down there.

kipper wrote:Interesting topic this one as I'm soon considering selling my old Nikon F80 and some lenses to try and afford some of the VR range of lenses.

At the moment I have the 18-70dx, 70-300g, 50 (1.4) prime and a few other lenses that I had for my Nikon F80.

What I was considering doing is replacing (inclusing the kit lense) most of those except the 50 (1.4) prime and getting the following:

Nikkor 24-120VR
Nikkor 70-200VR
Nikkor Prime around the 18mm mark
Nikkor Prime around the 85 to 100mm mark

Then I think my lense kit will be fairly complete
Of course this will have to come after my leg and head lust.

What I was considering doing is replacing (inclusing the kit lense) most of those except the 50 (1.4) prime and getting the following:

Nikkor 24-120VR
Nikkor 70-200VR
Nikkor Prime around the 18mm mark
Nikkor Prime around the 85 to 100mm mark

Kipper:

You have to start from here:
Nikon or Sigma 12-24
Nikon 24-120VR
Nikon 70-200VR
Nikon 85/1.4 or 1.8
Nikon 105DC/f.2
With the target of around 6K Aussie(With 1.

Nikon 105DC/f.2


Is that a mistake or is that .2 correct?

kipper wrote:Nikon 105DC/f.2


Is that a mistake or is that .2 correct?

I wrote in English not Francais say two or deux
Please check with Nikon or Maxwell site.

Hmmm. Wider apperture really isn't overly required I guess for wide angle lenses as you're usually letting a lot more light in at 12MM then say a lense that has a focal length of 300MM. Well that's usually what Ive found when shooting landscapes.

So how much is this baby?

http://www.maxwell.com.au/products/niko ... _afdc.html

kipper wrote:So how much is this baby?

http://www.maxwell.com.au/products/niko ... _afdc.html

Check the Bargain Section

... Obsolete ...

VK4CP - I haven't seen a post here from Mr 'n Mrs ru32day for a number of months - probably the last time was following the last minimeet in Canberra (back in April).

I'm wondering where's ru32day, haven't heard from them since.