ng6 - welcome here, as most of the previous members told You to get d700, I will not be one of them. If You are happy with this what You have, than that's the way to go. Also, in the kind of photography You doing, I think that what matters is getting contact with Your model - and for me big zoom, attached to even bigger body will not do the work. Moreover, You said You are happy with this what You have, so I will stick to it. D300 is a great camera, and even the fact there are better cameras on the market, can still do the job!
As for lenses, I would not go for the new 70-200, as I don't think it's a lens for You. 135 dc would do the job better. also You can take a look at some zeiss glass for nikon, as they render excellent, 3d like scenes. I would go for:
- Zeiss Distagon 3.5/18mm - LINK - as the wide lens
- Zeiss Makro Plannar 2/100mm - LINK - as a moderate tele
(Another) lens dilemma topic
(64 posts) (11 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
I am not convinced that it is bigger on the D700. You have to factor in the 100% coverage on the D300 and the 95%? coverage on the D700.
Re: the lenses. I still think you have all you need for a while. However, the 70-200 is a great lens. even the older version, for what you are going to be using it for and on.
If size is an issue consider the Sigma 50-150 F2.8. Its very sharp at 50mm and still very good at 120 less so at 150 but for portrait its ok. its DX and its not VR but for your kind of work that should not matter. Its got great flare control so images are contrasty. Its internal focusing so the lens does not change size. CA is good and bokeh is also good. I almost bought this lens but I went for the 150 macro instead..As I dont do enough portraits. I prefer beasties to beauties ! :-)
Oh another nice thing is if you put a TC1.4 on it you can use it as a FF F4 70-210 ! :-)
Posted 3 years ago # -
to the OP, I think you just might be covered. . .I have only a few zooms myself, the 17-55 and 35-70 (sort of the same coverage for my DX and film cameras), and continually find myself using my 24 2.8/35 1.8/50 1.4's more often than naught. . .the weight of any of those primes enables me to carry my D200 with me far more often than I could lug a 17-55 or 24-70 2.8. . .
I would say wait for another month to see what Nikon "leaks" for Photokina 2010, and then make a sound decision. . .
I think the new D700 replacement would be a worthwhile investment, as would be any prime updates they offer. . .
Posted 3 years ago # -
heartyfisher said:
I am not convinced that it is bigger on the D700. You have to factor in the 100% coverage on the D300 and the 95%? coverage on the D700.Of course it's bigger! You don't need to factor in coverage or anything like that. That rectangle you see around the focus points in the D700 is the DX crop. I fit the 100% viewfinder of the D300 in that rectangle to get my over layed image.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Welcome NG6 - If street photography is going to be your game, I'd lean toward grabbing the 70-200. The thing about PJ work is that you never know quite what its going to throw at you. You need, therefore, to be as flexible as you can be, which means zooms will probably serve you better than primes (especially if you only have one body).
Don't worry about the FoZoom issue. On DX, I was able to fill a frame with my little office plant, which is a good bit smaller than a human head.
The new 70-200 is sharp enough to replace all of the primes in the range it covers, and the VR is effective enough that it makes up for some of the speed you will loose (DOF considerations aside). It's really quite amazing to be able to shoot hand held at 1/6-1/8 and still get sharp results. Go check out my thread on it if your curious.
Long term, I see you shooting with a D300 w/ your 35mm prime (BTW - go grab the newer 35 1.8. Its $200 and on DX its gorgeous), and a D700 with the 70-200... that's probably all the lens you will ever need if you can resist the temptation to become a wide angle junkie.
Posted 3 years ago # -
heartyfisher said:
I am not convinced that it is bigger on the D700. You have to factor in the 100% coverage on the D300 and the 95%? coverage on the D700.If you're still not convinced, hearty, I did it your way. I made sure the viewfinder images were the same size (actually, the aspect ratio isn't exactly the same, so I made sure it was the same width--it's only like a percent or two off in height). Then I stretched the D700 finder image by 143% (150% for DX->FX and 95% for innacurate VF on D700). It comes out basically the same as alpha's:
blue is the D700 here.
edit: That still makes me wonder if they redesigned it for FX anyway, why didn't they get more coverage of the frame? Is this all we can expect to see in the AF modules of the FF cameras? Does anyone know offhand what the coverage is like on the FF canons?
edit 2: sorry for hijacking your thread, ng6!
Posted 3 years ago # -
There we go, that proves it!
Nice diagram BTW Jonny—much better than mine anyway :^)
As for why they didn't design it better if they redesigned it anyway, well, I'd ask Nikon personally about that.
Posted 3 years ago # -
alphanikonrex said:
There we go, that proves it!Nice diagram BTW Jonny—much better than mine anyway :^)
basically identical to yours, alpha. But if you're wondering how to add color, I just made a raster layer above each one filled with the color I want, then change the blend mode to screen and merge the color layer down onto the black and white.
Posted 3 years ago # -
-
jonnyapple said:
basically identical to yours, alpha. But if you're wondering how to add color, I just made a raster layer above each one filled with the color I want, then change the blend mode to screen and merge the color layer down onto the black and white.LOL, I used Gimp to make mine—I'm not experienced at all with doing things like this. I'll try and follow your instructions, see if I can figure it out anyway...
Posted 3 years ago # -
Wow, that makes me think that maybe this is as good as it gets on FF. Thanks for finding that, alpha. On second thought, since when has Canon cared about autofocus? ;-)
BTW, when I said not enough light gets to the sensor from both sides of the lens, I meant the AF sensor and not the imaging sensor. Maybe this is naive of me, but it seems like any AF sensor in the image circle should work fine. Does anyone know if that's wrong? I think it must be wrong because it bothers me that it should have been easy to scale the FX version of the AF sensor by a factor of 1.5 and they didn't. Could it be a cost issue?
Posted 3 years ago # -
The gimp should work fine, alpha. http://docs.gimp.org/en/gimp-concepts-layer-modes.html
edit: if you really want to learn powerful techniques in [insert your favorite pixel editor here], learn how to use layers.Posted 3 years ago # -
I have no idea—remember the D3 was Nikon's first FX camera, so maybe they're still figuring things out, and they don't want to release any big AF improvements until the D4 series...
As for the Canon, well, Canon's FF's are targeted at D3X-type-people, who probably don't need super AF-point coverage.
Posted 3 years ago # -
jonnyapple said:
The gimp should work fine, alpha. http://docs.gimp.org/en/gimp-concepts-layer-modes.htmlOh, I see now! Thanks jonny!
Now, any other viewfinders to overlay? Maybe I'll put a D3 VF on a 1Ds MKIII VF...
Posted 3 years ago # -
I wonder if they have to do it that way to make it work in DX Crop mode. Seems like if you had sensors outside of the DX range, then thy might not be able to shut them off when a DX lens is attached.
Either way, the center is where you want them. I don't want to be taking pictures where the focus is way outside the center of the frame.... at least not most of the time. Of course you can always focus and recompose, but who wants to do that?
Posted 3 years ago # -
I agree with you as far as my personal shooting goes, willis, but have you tried the D300 in 3D tracking mode (custom setting a3)? It's actually a thin slice of technological heaven. I used it to focus and recompose portraits (you focus on the eye and watch as the focus spot magically follows the eye while you're recomposing), but it will follow things like athletes because it locks on to a certain pattern of colors it gets from the metering CCD. I wouldn't call it perfect, but it's fast and it's better than me for moving things. I'm sure no D3/D3s users shooting sports would complain if they had more of the frame for 3D tracking.
You may be right about problems with the DX crop. If that's true, hopefully they can work that out and get full frame coverage on their next releases.
Posted 3 years ago # -
+1
Besides, even if your not shooting when the subjects way off center, who wouldn't mind focus tracking?
Same for the DX thing. I say they still let all the focus points work so you can track your subject even if it leaves the DX frame, just not let you shoot when the active focus point is outside of the DX frame.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Never done sports before. I can see how better coverage would be helpful though. I'd probably opt for the D300s over the D700 for sports anyway on account of the faster frame rate and better reach. D700 might be better for night games & basketball though. Gym's are notoriously hard to shoot in.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Right again, willis.
alpha, if a DX lens is mounted, light won't even get to the sensors outside the DX image circle.
Posted 3 years ago # -
-
Willis said:
Welcome NG6 - If street photography is going to be your game, I'd lean toward grabbing the 70-200. The thing about PJ work is that you never know quite what its going to throw at you. You need, therefore, to be as flexible as you can be, which means zooms will probably serve you better than primes (especially if you only have one body).Don't worry about the FoZoom issue. On DX, I was able to fill a frame with my little office plant, which is a good bit smaller than a human head.
The new 70-200 is sharp enough to replace all of the primes in the range it covers, and the VR is effective enough that it makes up for some of the speed you will loose (DOF considerations aside). It's really quite amazing to be able to shoot hand held at 1/6-1/8 and still get sharp results. Go check out my thread on it if your curious.
Long term, I see you shooting with a D300 w/ your 35mm prime (BTW - go grab the newer 35 1.8. Its $200 and on DX its gorgeous), and a D700 with the 70-200... that's probably all the lens you will ever need if you can resist the temptation to become a wide angle junkie.
Thanks :)
I tried to pick up the lens today but unfortunately the place that had it shipped it to their other store in DC (...even though it had my name on it... :/ ) The nice thing about it though is they knocked off $115 off the lens and I get to pick it up tomorrow.
As for the primes, I had thought at one point to steer away from it, constantly swapping lenses is kind of ehh but I love how fast they are. If the new generation of lenses end up being sharper and they're zooms, I might have to reconsider swapping my primes out.
My setup right now is that I have the 85/1.4 always attached to the body and ready to go is the 50 and 35. My ideal setup? I'd say a D700 (or newer) with a 24-70/2.8 and another D700 with the 70-200/2.8 I plan on picking up tomorrow. I don't know if I'd sell all my primes, I do love my 85/1.4 a lot. I doubt I'd end up going to the D3 series... I think.
I've always been a fan of working lighter with gear, hopefully this will be a step towards it. But as it stands, if I get the 24-70 & 70-200 & say a 14-24, I'd have all the range but 3-5x the weight then if I had prime equivalents wouldn't I?
As for wide, I considered it for a while but overall I'd only use it for maybe 1% of my photos I take. I still have my money so I guess I'm trying to rationalize it all.
Posted 3 years ago # -
adamz said:
ng6 - welcome here --- ......take a look at some zeiss glass for nikon, as they render excellent, 3d like scenes. I would go for:
- Zeiss Distagon 3.5/18mm - LINK - as the wide lens
- Zeiss Makro Plannar 2/100mm - LINK - as a moderate teleThanks!
I did consider getting zeiss when I was shopping for my 85/1.4 back in the day. I ultimately didn't like the fact that it was ONLY manual focus. I do hear they are making new zeiss lenses with auto focus motors, that will be interesting.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Yeah, I would go for the 14-24 2.8, although that may be an issue if you're staying with your D300, since it really isn't that much wider isn't it?
In that case, like others have said, I'd go for the 70-200, either new or old.
On a side note, how does the camera focus if it happens to be at the very edge of the camera? Do you need to recompose? That's kinda annoying no?
Posted 3 years ago # -
-
Reply »
You must log in to post.
