The Next step

[_robbo_]

Ok sorry but here's another thread about where to spend my hard earned money. Any advice from people would be greatly appreciated.

Alright first of all, what i do.... I want to concentrate most on sports, being football, soccer, and most of all Volleyball. Any others i'll do too but these are my main ones. I'd also like to do nightlife work too, ie parties, gigs, clubs etc. Snowboarding is another big one, with my summers currently spent in Japan in the snowfields. Also wanting to try some skating shots in the skateparks. Wow when i write it down it seems like a fair bit

Secondly my current equipment. I currently have a D80, cheap 18-135 kit lens, 50mm 1.4, SB800 flash. I'm just about to buy a D300 and trying to work out what lens to buy at the same time.
I'm thinking these are my main options for all the stuff i do.
- 70-200 2.8 VR
- 17-55 2.8
- 10.5 Fisheye

I guess they are all for my different areas so i'm thinking people might just tell me to go for the one which matches what i do most...

[gstark]

I would tend to look beyond the currrent body, and even the next one. Remember that your investment is in good glass, which will see you through many bodies, if chosen well.

Think about whether you believe that the D300 will be the last ever body that you buy, or will the D3 be the final full frame body that Nikon will make.

Given that no is the likely answer to both of those questions, and with history suggesting to you that there will be a Nikon full frame body in the sub 3K price range within maybe 18 months, you should ask yourself about the longer term wisdom of buying any DX glass.

When Nikon announced the D3, they also brought out some new glass, with the implied (and stated, in some quarters) that a good zoom kit for photographers to have would be the 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200. All f/2.8. All good quality.

What arguments do you offer to counter this?

[chrisk]

you have the 50/1.4 for concerts in low light. you have the 18-135 for "day to day" use. so i would question buying a 17-55/2.8, (DX lens), for $1400. perhaps you are better served dropping the 17-55 and the fisheye and putting that money towards the absolutely brilliant 24-70, (as gary mentioned, that lens will be with you forever). line that puppy up with the d300, 50/1.4 and the 70-200/2.8 and you have a kick ass kit that can handle everything.

[dm_td5]

I'd also go with what Gary says (I have all three). I tend to keep the 24-70 on my D200. It is a brilliant lens and incredibly fast focusing.

[losfp]

I'm going to go against the grain here and actually recommend the 17-55

IMO 24mm is not wide enough for group shots on a crop body. Sure, if you are just doing single portrais, the 24-70 is awesome, but for parties and whatnot, I like the 17-55.

I managed to get a second hand 17-55 for $1000, so I'm pretty happy! When I eventually go to FX, I will get the 24-70, or whatever is the most awesome at the time. I really didn't want to be constantly thinking "this lens will be GREAT!! .... when I upgrade my body"

[gstark]

Des,

IMO 24mm is not wide enough for group shots on a crop body.

Which is why the 14-24 is in my list.

At this stage, and as I mentioned, I'd be seriously questioning any DX lens purchase at this time; there will surely be an affordable FF body within the next 18 months or so.

[PiroStitch]

Another option is the 20-35 or the 17-35. both are f2.8 and fast as well. Works well for group shots on the DX body and if you go to FX later on, you'll have a decent WA lens. At 35mm, it's good for group shots w/out distortion.

[losfp]

At this stage, and as I mentioned, I'd be seriously questioning any DX lens purchase at this time; there will surely be an affordable FF body within the next 18 months or so.

I'm not doubting that, Gary

My point though, is that IMO you should simply buy the tool that will serve your purposes best at the time.

I'm sure there will be a more affordable FX body in the next 18 months - however with supply problems and whether I can afford such a thing, perhaps it might be 2 years before such a beast lands in my hands. In the meantime, I will have had two years quality shooting with my 17-55, and can then sell it off with not TOO much of a loss to a DX shooter (or keep it!). I can then purchase a 24-70 which might be cheaper at that stage, or buy the upgrade to that lens if one is available.

The OP mentioned "parties, gigs, clubs". IMO that's where the 17-55 shines. Wide enough on a DX body to fit in group photos, and long enough to get nice portraits. Of course the OP might try the 24-70 and decide that it IS actually wide enough for their needs, in which case that's that settled!

That's my argument

[gstark]

Des,

My point though, is that IMO you should simply buy the tool that will serve your purposes best at the time.

But the question then arises as to how many times you're going to be buying the same (or similar) item? Too frequently, buying what seems to be the cheapest option is usually the most expensive way to acquire your gear. Buying the right item, just the once, is usually way less expensive.

[losfp]

Ahhh... I think we are actually arguing subtly different points here, Gary.

IMO there is a difference between these scenarios:

1a) Person buys 55-200 because it's cheaper. They then buy a 70-200VR for the added quality
1b) Person buys 70-200VR in the first place and has that quality from the beginning

2a) Person buys 17-55 because the zoom range suits their needs. They then buy a 24-70 when they upgrade to an FX body.
2b) Person buys 24-70 in the first place, and puts up with a lens that's not quite wide enough for 2 years until they upgrade to an FX body.

In scenario 1, option (b) is both cheaper and provides a good experience throughout. No brainer.

In scenario 2, there is a clear trade-off between options (a) - more expensive, good experience throughout, and (b) - cheaper, compromised experience to begin with.

My point is that I personally chose to ensure that I was happy in the short/medium term with the full understanding that I MAY have to buy again in the longer term IF there is an FX body to upgrade to in a couple of years and IF I buy one. Of course, the fact that I scored the 17-55 second hand for $1000 and not $1700 means that I will probably lose comparatively little in the changeover compared to if I bought it new.

Everyone's mileage may vary.

My advice to the OP is to try both the 17-55 and 24-70 and pick whichever one does it for them more.

[_robbo_]

thanks for all the usefull discussion here guys. I think i have to agree most with losfp here. There's always a time to "start planning for the future" but since i still need to do jobs in the meantime and i dont have the money for the D3 just yet, i think i should go with "whats best for me" right now.

Just not sure how to weigh up the differences between a) buying the fisheye and being able to use it for whichever body i have, b) buying the 70-200 and being able to use it with whichever body i have, or c) buying the 17-55 which is perfect for the party stuff i do, and then sell it and upgrade when i upgrade the body....

well i have access to a mates 14-24 and 24-70 so i might try them out and see whether all that switching is worth it....

[indigoreef]

Here's my little suggestion.
I currently have the following lenses for my D300 and D200.
Nikon 50mm 1.8, 85mm 1.8(wish I bought the 1.4), 24-70mm 2.8, 18-200mm VR, 70-200mm VR 2.8 and Tamron 17-50mm 2.8, 200-500mm.

I bought the 24-70mm 2.8 only a week ago and went through the thought process of buying the 17-55mm Nikon, I had lens envy over this lens for a long time. I was talked out of it by the local camera sales guy who I deal with all the time. His recommendation was that he is often trying find some extra length after the 55mm stage. I used the 24-70mm on my D300 on the weekend as I had a 50th party to shoot at a local restaurant. I took along the Tamron 17-50mm just in case. At one stage I swapped lenses and tried the Tamron and was frustrated by the lack of zoom. I took no more than 5 shots with this lens and left it in my bag for the rest of the night. I absolutely love the Tamron 17-50mm lens and the results I have achieved with it are amazing (IMHO).

I then got home and loaded the images from the night into my trusty Mac Pro and was amazed at the results of the 24-70mm lens. The images just seemed to pop of the screen, there was something about them that made me realise the benefits of spending the $'s on the best lenses you can afford.
Hence I have put the Tamron 17-50mm and 200-500mm and Nikon 18-200mm on e-bay to save the cash for the 14-24mm which is meant to be even sharper again.

So get the 24-70mm Nikon lens, you cannot and will not be disappointed. Spend the money on the lens, you will be amazed at the images you can get out of the D80 with it. Then wait till Nikon bring out an FX body in between the D300 and D3 in pricing and upgrade then.

Hopefully this has helped.
IndigoReef

[_robbo_]

Here's my little suggestion.
I currently have the following lenses for my D300 and D200.
Nikon 50mm 1.8, 85mm 1.8(wish I bought the 1.4), 24-70mm 2.8, 18-200mm VR, 70-200mm VR 2.8 and Tamron 17-50mm 2.8, 200-500mm.

I bought the 24-70mm 2.8 only a week ago and went through the thought process of buying the 17-55mm Nikon, I had lens envy over this lens for a long time. I was talked out of it by the local camera sales guy who I deal with all the time. His recommendation was that he is often trying find some extra length after the 55mm stage. I used the 24-70mm on my D300 on the weekend as I had a 50th party to shoot at a local restaurant. I took along the Tamron 17-50mm just in case. At one stage I swapped lenses and tried the Tamron and was frustrated by the lack of zoom. I took no more than 5 shots with this lens and left it in my bag for the rest of the night. I absolutely love the Tamron 17-50mm lens and the results I have achieved with it are amazing (IMHO).

I then got home and loaded the images from the night into my trusty Mac Pro and was amazed at the results of the 24-70mm lens. The images just seemed to pop of the screen, there was something about them that made me realise the benefits of spending the $'s on the best lenses you can afford.
Hence I have put the Tamron 17-50mm and 200-500mm and Nikon 18-200mm on e-bay to save the cash for the 14-24mm which is meant to be even sharper again.

So get the 24-70mm Nikon lens, you cannot and will not be disappointed. Spend the money on the lens, you will be amazed at the images you can get out of the D80 with it. Then wait till Nikon bring out an FX body in between the D300 and D3 in pricing and upgrade then.

Hopefully this has helped.
IndigoReef

yeah thanks thats a great example you've put forward.

Did you find any difficulties with wanting a wider angle at all at the party using the 24-70 on the crop?

[aim54x]

I have the same kit, Tamron 17-50 and Nikkor 24-70. I bought the Tamron initially because I could not afford the Nikkor, and is has served me well, becoming my day to day lens due to its lighter weight. Now that I have got the Nikkor, I find that I use that for everything. I shot almost a whole wedding with the one lens, it is beautiful. A little on the tighter end of things for group shots, but take a step back and there you go!

I would say ditch the 17-55 f/2.8 and go for the 24-70 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8 (for your sports, maybe add the TC-17 for extra length). Dont worry too much about the lack of width, I find most of my party shots are of small groups so I dont miss the extra width. I actually use my 50mm f/1.8 for a lot of my party work.

[indigoreef]

Robbo, I found only once I needed/wanted the extra width, I moved the group around slightly and moved to where I could take a step back and all was good. I did realise how good the extra length was and particularly for the candid shots where you didn't want to be in peoples faces.
I thought I would miss the 17mm to 24mm section, however the gaining of 50mm to 70 mm is so much more valuable.

I also second aim54x, get the 70-200mm VR and the 24-70mm and you have the perfect kit. I am just waiting to get the 1.7TC and will be buying the 14-24mm once I have the cash as I am so blown away by the performance of the 24-70mm. Good luck getting one in a hurry though.

Regards
IndigoReef

[_robbo_]

Well i just purchased the D300 on friday and i'm really happy with it so far. Can't wait to get out there and take some more sports shots.

I bought it from Ted's with the $300 cashback thing going on at the moment. The catch that i found out at the time of purchase is that you need to buy a lens along with the camera. And not just any lens either. It's gotta be an AF-S lens. One of the following:
AF-S 14-24mm f2.8G ED,
AF-S 17-35mm f2.8D IF ED,
AF-S 24-70mm f2.8G ED,
AF-S 24-120mm f3.5-5.6G IF ED VR,
AF-S 70-200mm f2.8G IF ED VR,
AF-S 70-300mm f4.5-5.6G IF ED VR,
AF-S 200-400mm f4G IF ED VR,
AF-S DX 12-24mm f4G IF ED,
AF-S DX 16-85mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR,
AF-S DX 17-55mm f2.8G IF ED,
AF-S DX 18-70mm f3.5-4.5G ED,
AF-S DX 18-200mm f3.5-5.6G IF ED VR,
AF-S 300mm f2.8G IF ED VR,
AF-S 300mm f4D IF ED,
AF-S 400mm f2.8G IF ED VR,
AF-S 500mm f4G IF ED VR,
AF-S 600mm f4G IF ED VR,
AF-S Micro 60mm f2.8G ED,
AF-S Micro 105mm f2.8G IF ED VR.


After seeing what people have said here, i'v decided that the best option for the moment would be the 24-70, but considering that i have purchased all my lenses and flashes online so far and paid very cheap prices for them, i would like to continue this process as it's so cheap. So i guess that since i have to purchase a lens at full price from a store, i'm kind of wanting to buy the cheapest possible lens for the moment, then continue buying my full kit online when i have the cash. AFAIK the cheapest is the 18-70...... is this still a decent lens that i should think about using for all my event stuff? better than my 18-135 i'm guessing.... any thoughts?

[who]

I'd actually look at the online price of the (say) 24-70 f2.8 and compare it to the store price.....

With these new lenses I think the gap isn't wide yet due to demand........

I have the older 28-70 f2.8 and love it -- have made some nice pics at weddings etc as a guest, certainly wide enough, more length would have been handy at one wedding where seated more towards the back - instead had to use the feet (but had been requested to take photos during speeches by mother of bride, so not rude)

[aim54x]

Get the 24-70 you wont regret it. It is proving to be fairly similar in price to get it AUST stock and grey, and a lot of places dont seem to have stock.

If you need to get another lens due to the cost, can I vote the 16-85?

[the foto fanatic]

For the last few years the 17-55mm DX was my main lens, firstly on a D70; then a D200; and after that the D300. There is no doubt that it is a cracker of a lens. There seems to be a lot more support for it now than when I bought mine. Then, for some reason, people were questioning its build quality.

During that time, the only negative I had was that the maximum focal length was 55mm.

Recently I bought the AF-S 24-70mm and the AF-S 14-24mm; selling the 17-55mm DX and the 12-24mm DX in the process. I don't have a FF camera yet, but I am assuming that I probably will at some time in the future; whether it will be a D3 or a later and cheaper model I don't yet know. I wanted to line up my glass a little better, and now I have the 10.5mm DX, the AF-S 14-24mm, AF-S 24-70mm, and the 70-200mm VR, as well as some faster primes.

Last weekend I shot my niece's wedding. I had the D200 with the 14-24 and the D300 with the 24-70. I barely used the 14-24 (about 50 shots) in comparison to the 24-70 (over 400 shots). So, I found that the 24-70 was wide enough for almost everything, and having the telephoto end out to 70mm was a godsend. I didn't need to take the 70-200 mm VR, but I certainly would have if I still had the 17-55mm DX.

IQ from both lenses is outstanding, and the new Nano Crystal Coating gives great performance in bright sunlight, even shooting contre-jour.

Perhaps some of you might find that experience useful.

[gstark]

I bought it from Ted's with the $300 cashback thing going on at the moment. The catch that i found out at the time of purchase is that you need to buy a lens along with the camera.

Do you think that's the catch?


Let's see ... buying from Ted's you paid .... how much? Their website says PP2700 perhaps for the body? Let's say that the 24-70 is another PP2800 (I'm just guessing, but I suspect I'm low - their website lists the no longer available 28-70 at this price, and the 24-70 is more expensive) meaning a PP5700 investment in total, and you're going to get a PP300 rebate: total cost to you, PP5400.


Buying grey, you should be able to pay less than PP2K for the body, and around PP2300 for the glass. Total cost to you: PP4600, and probably another 400-500 less than this using forum prices, for those who are eligible.

I'll let you decide on the value of the rebate.

[chrisk]

trevor, how much faster, if at all, is the af-s on the 24-70 than the 17-55 ?

[chrisk]

After seeing what people have said here, i'v decided that the best option for the moment would be the 24-70, but considering that i have purchased all my lenses and flashes online so far and paid very cheap prices for them, i would like to continue this process as it's so cheap. So i guess that since i have to purchase a lens at full price from a store, i'm kind of wanting to buy the cheapest possible lens for the moment, then continue buying my full kit online when i have the cash. AFAIK the cheapest is the 18-70...... is this still a decent lens that i should think about using for all my event stuff? better than my 18-135 i'm guessing.... any thoughts?

well, its done now so no point crying over split milk, (or paying outrageous prices), but i think getting the 18-70 is a mistake. its not that much better than the 18-135. in fact the 18-135 is a sharper lens. i've had both.

you may aswell buy a lens that you;re going to get some good use out of. i'd suggest maybe the 105VR. without knowing the prices at all, i'd guess that the $300 cashback will bring you down to online prices so at least you dont get shafted on the lens. why the 105 ? well, it's a hell sharp short tele lens, a superb long portrait lens and its also a very good macro lens. i bought the 85/1.8 for a short tele, portrait lens and the 105 leaves it for dead. the more i use it the more pissed off i am that the 85mm primes aren't afs. they're slow-ass focussing and noisy operation is a joke...anyway...i digress....

i absolutely love using it...albeit not so much for its intended macro purposes.

[the foto fanatic]

trevor, how much faster, if at all, is the af-s on the 24-70 than the 17-55 ?

The 17-55mm DX was no slouch, but it would hunt a bit in low light, as most lenses do, especially if there is little contrast.

The AF-S 24-70mm seems to be a little quicker to snap into focus, and performs really well in low light (on the D300).

[aim54x]

I have never really used the 17-55mm but I have to say the 24-70 is one of the fastest and surest focusing lens that I have used. But then again I could be biased towards this lens.

Rooz I totally agree with the 18-135mm awesome lens, just a bit of chroma that you learn to live with, I am thinking of rebuying this lens for a light kit, but I really want the other lenses on my wishlist. Your comments on the AF-D nature of the 85's are something that have been holding me back from buying one, hmm maybe I should bump up the 105?

[chrisk]

i cant speak for the 85/1.4 cos i've never used one. (and its also 2 full stops faster than the 105VR. like they say...there's no alternative for a faster lens except...well...a faster lens. lol). now the 85/1.8 in really good light is brilliant. its fast, its sharp, the bokeh is outstanding. but put it in trying conditions, in low light at 800+ and its slow, noisy, the contrast at 1.8 is crap and by the end of the shoot i felt like throwing it out the damn window.

i cant say the 105vr is a viable alternative for alot of people cos they may need that 1.4 speed or the shallow dof or the amazing bokeh or whatever. its a great alternative for me and what i shoot though and i'm prepared to sacrifice that extra stop for the MFD, the whisper quiet af-s, the reliable and fast AF, (cant even believe i'm saying that about a macro lens lol !!), and of course VR is a godsend. really, there's just NO excuse for nikon to have a flagship prime not be af-s. i have almost no doubt it will be replaced by the end of this year.

run the 85/1.8, or even 1.4 aswell i suspect, alongside your 24-70 in similar testing conditions and you'll feel the same way i did...probably even worse given the speed of that beast !

[indigoreef]

Just buy the 24-70mm f2.8. I bought it from Camera House, it was $2400, perhaps dearer than grey, however I got the lens within the week and can absolutely recommend it.

[_robbo_]

hmmmm.... thanks again for all the help guys. I might head back to the store and get some prices on the 24-70 and the 105... I've got another 3 weeks to think about it though.

I've got a charity ball that i'm shooting this weekend so i might see if i can borrow a few of a mates lenses and then make my mind up....

[mickey]

going against the grain, consider the 70-200VR

It seems you don't have a long zoom, but then do you need it? Snowboarding and stuff may need the longer end so it would be handy.

Otherwise, for wide stuff I'd say get the 24-70 or 17-35 depending on how wide you really need it and your current kit.

[JordanP]

After thinking about the sports and other lenses you have I would think that the 70-200 and the 14-24 would have to be strong options. 70-200 gives you fair reach for football/soccer (you will probably appreciate more though) - good for snowboarding - and great reach for volleyball. In terms of the sports (especially skating and to perhaps a lesser extent snowboarding) the 14-24 would do more for you than the 17-55 ... and as Gary has mentioned sets you up well if you end up fx in the future (your lenses will out live a few camera bodies any day so it doesn't hurt to consider this factor). As for the other work (non sport) you have mentioned again the 14-24 will be very handy and the 50mm you currently have + your legs covers the mid range (between 24-70) quite well and all at 1.4

All that said I have a retired 17-55 if you want to buy it

[indigoreef]

Hey Robbo
Thought I would check out the 70-200mm at a local soccer game.
Here are my thoughts, great lens if you are in good lighting and want to get the general action. I shot two games, one at 3pm and the other under lights at 5pm. The game at 3pm I could have used a teleconverter from the grandstand, when the action was at the far end of the field, however when the action was closer, I would have been in too tight.
The late game I had the ISO on my D300 cranked to 1600 to try to retain some sort of crispness. I found myself wanting the 24-70mm as I was standing behind the goal and the 70-200mm just wasn't wide enough.
From this lesson, I found that there are two types of shooting for soccer matches, one is with a zoom lens trying to get in tight on the action perhaps middle of the field or in a grandstand. The other is shooting with a wide to normal lens from the back of one of the goals in order to try and get the goals being scored, remembering that you will not get the action at the other end.
Anyway, although I probably have not made too much sense, my recommendation is the 70-200mm with 1.7tc, wide angle, perhaps 17-55mm might be good, however I feel you might me a little short at 55mm, so the 24-70mm would probably be the go.
Maybe take a tripod, set the camera up down low to the ground behind the goal and get a remote release, used with a really wide angle you might have some luck.
Hope you can make sense of this.
Late night, too much red wine and not enough sleep.

IndigoReef

[gstark]

too much red wine

No such thing.

[_robbo_]

Hey Robbo
Thought I would check out the 70-200mm at a local soccer game.
Here are my thoughts, great lens if you are in good lighting and want to get the general action. I shot two games, one at 3pm and the other under lights at 5pm. The game at 3pm I could have used a teleconverter from the grandstand, when the action was at the far end of the field, however when the action was closer, I would have been in too tight.
The late game I had the ISO on my D300 cranked to 1600 to try to retain some sort of crispness. I found myself wanting the 24-70mm as I was standing behind the goal and the 70-200mm just wasn't wide enough.
From this lesson, I found that there are two types of shooting for soccer matches, one is with a zoom lens trying to get in tight on the action perhaps middle of the field or in a grandstand. The other is shooting with a wide to normal lens from the back of one of the goals in order to try and get the goals being scored, remembering that you will not get the action at the other end.
Anyway, although I probably have not made too much sense, my recommendation is the 70-200mm with 1.7tc, wide angle, perhaps 17-55mm might be good, however I feel you might me a little short at 55mm, so the 24-70mm would probably be the go.
Maybe take a tripod, set the camera up down low to the ground behind the goal and get a remote release, used with a really wide angle you might have some luck.
Hope you can make sense of this.
Late night, too much red wine and not enough sleep.

IndigoReef

I'm on the same page with you regarding late nights and red wine

I did the exact same thing for a soccer game the day after i bought the D300. I used a friends 70-200 and tried out vairous positions around the ground. Agreed that it was hard to be able to cover alot from the one spot. I also tried the stand behind the goals, sidelines, and just near the corner post. I found the corner post to be a good spot as i could catch someone just as they were shooting, and still get the keeper and the goals in too. Light was a little dull for me too, as it was very overcast for a 3PM game...

For Volleyball, the 70-200 is perfect, as i can stand at the end of the stadium and get 2 or 3 players involved in the action, or go sideline (just behind the coaching bench), and try to get some close ups of facial expression too.