What to buy next...tripod or lens?

[Finno]

Im just a beginner essentially, and doing lots of reading! There is a wealth of knowlege here which is fantastic.

On of my main subjects is my (and others) marine aquarium. However I do enjoy panoramics, portrait, etc. The other more common use is motor sports.

The 70-200 VR with f2.8 looks pretty high on my list as the next lens in my arsenal. I want to do macro shots of aquarium subjects, and this seems to be the go. It needs to be fast, for motor sport and fish, as neither stands still for long.

Is a tripod worth it with the VR stuff?

Eventually I would like to learn to do nice long exposure nighttime shots, lighting etc etc.

I didnt realise the cost of high end tripods until reading here...I have a dodgy little travel one I use now that is just crap but does the job when I have the DT's

Do you think Im on the right track here?

Example of what im doing (taken first day with my new D70) :



[/img]

[Mj]

mmm... ok a few things for you to take note of...

firstly, a tripod is pretty much and essential for long exposure/low light stuff. VR won't help you there.

secondly, whilst the 70-200VR is certainly a nice lens it won;t doo all the things you're talking about. Portraits, yes, if the subject isn't tooo close. Panoramic... no... best to stick with the kit lens or one of the other wide angles for that. Motor sports, yes, as long as you can get close enough, or buy a teleconvertor or get the 80-400VR instead. Macros of fish etc, no, you probably best to look at one of the macro lenses like the 60/2.8, and you might actually be able to do quite well (and more cheaply) with a 50/1.8.

Michael.

[skyva]

Hi Finno,
I too am a newbie, with only the camera and kit lens to start. I, like lots of people here lust after lots of fun lenses: long, short, wide aperture etc. What I did buy was a tripod.
As I am an L-plater, using a tripod has taught me lots about the camera. It allows you to take the same shot many different ways, and know that essentially the only differences are those you control, as the camera is steady and in the exact same position. I have been experimenting with apertures, shutter speed, exposure, full manual, exposure compensation and bracketing. I am sure I could have learnt about these things without the tripod, but I find that having the ability to control the variations in the image allows me to play with the features of the camera. Perhaps I would have learnt other things by getting different lenses (which I definitely want).
I also baulked at the cost of some of the tripods out there, and I had no experience with anything like tripods. I ended up buying a Manfrotto 055pro and a 448rc4 head. I am happy with their features but I am using it on a balcony with only the kit lens so time will tell whether it will handle a monster lens on the side of a hill in a gale.
Nice fish, by the way. Makes we want to get a aquarium. I also like macro work and would like to get something that allows me to catch fine detail. In your case perhaps a tripod would allow you to experiment with camera settings that get the best shot. I could be wrong, but working out how to get the best shot out of your current lens may help you get the best out of any lens you buy. It may also help you decide what is lacking in your current lens.
Good luck, and I look forward to seeing more photos of the fish.
Skyva

[MHD]

I love my tripod...
some samples can be seen at http://potofgrass.ath.cx/gallery/nz

in particular the panos and the cathedral shot

[atencati]

While lenses are glamorous and make the pics, tripods (and monopods) are no doubt a must! A lot of us can't justify the Gitzo level (see Birddog) and have opted fot a little known company called Feisol. they make carbon fairly cheap. See this thread here

http://forum.d70users.com/viewtopic.php ... highlight=

Some good product reviews, and they won't break the bank! My only complaint is the shipping time to the US, 10 days and counting.....still.

A

[birddog114]

finno,
1/ tripod is a must for most of the things you're after, but please reconsider it prior to make your commitment, coz it'll cost you in duplicating works if you change you mind later.

2/ The 70-200VR can do as much as what you're asking, macro can be achieved with the Canon 500D/ perfect for macro but you have to be patience to use the gun into manula mode and slowly learning it on the move, of course, also depend on your budget, you may end up getting the TCs as well for extra reach on the 70-200. You won't regret when you own it!

3/Doing macro work is another area and we have couple members in our forum as flyer and sirhc55, they can offer their advise to you.

[Finno]

So am I wrong in assuming the 70-200 would be good for zooming right up to corals and fish in aquariums (and obviously motor sport).

I am very happy with the kit lens for most things at the moment (portrait landscapes etc.)

[gstark]

Finno,

For aquariums, I would be thinking the 105 Macro might be a better choice. Otherwise, the minimum focus distance will be forcing you to be quite some distance away from the tank.

And IME, 200 is way too short for most motorsports photography. IT depends upon the track, and level of access you have as to whether this actually is the case, but from most spectator accessible vantage points, this will generally be the case.

I'll be using the 80-400 in Melbourne in March. I'm not overly concerned at the relatively slow focussing speed because I'll be using manual focus, pre-focussed on a fixed point on the circuit.

[Finno]

Well that pic is the kit lens zoomed right in. Marine aquriums tend to be a lot larger than normal ones (mine is 5'x2'x2', but I know people with 8x4x3 etc..)

I cant really get to the level of detial I want with the kit lens. I want to see individual polyps.

The 80-400 sounds great for motorsport. Its makes sense that MF would be the go, so good call. Would love to join u down in Melb, see how we go.

[birddog114]

The 80-400 sounds great for motorsport. Its makes sense that MF would be the go, so good call. Would love to join u down in Melb, see how we go.

The 70-200VR with TC-17 is perfect for what you're after

[gstark]

The 80-400 sounds great for motorsport. Its makes sense that MF would be the go, so good call. Would love to join u down in Melb, see how we go.

The 70-200VR with TC-17 is perfect for what you're after

It's also currently made of unobtanium.

[MHD]

Finno,



I'll be using the 80-400 in Melbourne in March. I'm not overly concerned at the relatively slow focussing speed because I'll be using manual focus, pre-focussed on a fixed point on the circuit.

Time to play with trap focusing

[birddog114]

Finno,



I'll be using the 80-400 in Melbourne in March. I'm not overly concerned at the relatively slow focussing speed because I'll be using manual focus, pre-focussed on a fixed point on the circuit.

Time to play with trap focusing

with manual focus? yes it can be achieved by pre-foccused at the fixed point/ target, but once you moved the lens into difference direction, on the return you have to re-focus.
The 200-400VR has focus memory function and you can use it for pre-focussed and move the lens away to shoot other target, once the lens return to the previously target with pre-foccussed, it automatically lock in and ready to shoot.

[sirhc55]

Finno

The following link is for 35mm film cameras but would apply to digital as well:

http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesArticle/id-538.html

or


http://hem.bredband.net/maxstr/links.htm#aptf

Chris

[nodabs]

iuf you want to get into macro you can get decent results with for instance the 70-200 and close up filters/extension tubves but no doubt the best option os a macro lense the focusing distance will allow you to be much closer to the tank and the reproduction ration will be higher. if you want to shoot motorsport the 70-200 is good especially if you have track access but first work out the focal lengths you will be using the most if it turns out that you need say 300mm to be perfect on the best solution would be a 300mm prime

[atencati]

So am I wrong in assuming the 70-200 would be good for zooming right up to corals and fish in aquariums (and obviously motor sport).

I am very happy with the kit lens for most things at the moment (portrait landscapes etc.)

Just remember not to mistake zoom for minimum focusing distance. If you want to get closer to the subjecct and physically can, macro is the way to go. If you want to get closer but are limited (ie motorsports for safey reasons) zoom is the way to go. However, I have found the 70-200 to be very versatile for many types of shooting.

A

[nigels]

Hi BirdDog,

How much is the TC-17 converter

Nige

[birddog114]

Hi BirdDog,

How much is the TC-17 converter

Nige

Nigel,
It's in the bargain section. Under Lens Lust thread

[Finno]

Ok im kinda confused (does it show?). By "prime" i assume you mean some sort of optimal focal length? OPtimal would be roughly 50cm for that sort of stuff.....

[atencati]

Ok im kinda confused (does it show?). By "prime" i assume you mean some sort of optimal focal length? OPtimal would be roughly 50cm for that sort of stuff.....

Prime is a fixed focal length (non-zoom) lens. 50cm focal length is 500mm if i can figure out that crazy base 10 metric system...so
Nikon Telephoto AF-S Nikkor 500mm f/4D ED-IF only US $6000-7000 ouch.

Maybe the 50-500 Sigma US $1000, but I think a better jumping off point for you might be the Sigma 70-300 APO Macro. Fairly low price, good lens, macro functions, wide focal range. I don't own one but there are some reviews around the forum. Can be had new for about US $200. Slower than the 70-200vr, but also 1/10th the price!!!

Any other ideas gang???

A

[birddog114]

Ok im kinda confused (does it show?). By "prime" i assume you mean some sort of optimal focal length? OPtimal would be roughly 50cm for that sort of stuff.....

Prime is a fixed focal length (non-zoom) lens. 50cm focal length is 500mm if i can figure out that crazy base 10 metric system...so
Nikon Telephoto AF-S Nikkor 500mm f/4D ED-IF only US $6000-7000 ouch.

Maybe the 50-500 Sigma US $1000, but I think a better jumping off point for you might be the Sigma 70-300 APO Macro. Fairly low price, good lens, macro functions, wide focal range. I don't own one but there are some reviews around the forum. Can be had new for about US $200. Slower than the 70-200vr, but also 1/10th the price!!!

Any other ideas gang???

A

Yes, I vote for the Sigma 70-300APO if money is an object!

[Finno]

What about http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/lens/af/micro/af_zoom-micro70-180mmf_45-56d/index.htm

Thise sorta thing? The closest of 1.5 meters of the 70-200 VR is useable in most circumstances...and it would provide nice depth of field, and its quite sexy. Hard to resist. Im already suffering from lens envy.