Which Lense

[XT GIRL]

Originally Posted by mollydog

...I'm old school and suck at Photo shop. .... Not much rubbed off but I can dream....

Patrick

Hurray!!

It would have been very depressing (for me) if you were a bike guru as WELL as knowing your way round photoshop - at least there's ONE area where I can look like I know what I'm doing!

If anyone wants to swap bike know-how, for Photoshop skills...!

[klaus]

I got me a Nikon D40 lately and used the Nikor 55~200mm lense (I also got the regular lense - but the "big one" just seems to be more convenient). The few shots I took so far looked good or at least acceptable. Storage-wise I am using a small camera-bag (soemthing like 15x20x15cm) - not the ideal mode of transport - but until I come up with a better solution...
I am also very pleased with the Nikor 200mm lense - very fast, but to make it easy on myself, why not check here: Nikon 55-200mm VR. This should give you all the info you need.

[Xander]

Originally Posted by mollydog

I'd prefer to learn how to shoot and how to see light and shadow than learning tricks on the computer...even though I should.

No you shouldnt...Learn to shoot properly (like you said) that is the fun part ..A good shot that come out of the camera is better then a tweaked one every time. Photoshop is a great tool, no doubt, but there is no way it can make a bad photographer a good one.. MOST photoshoped pics have "tells" and a trained eye can see them (even just the filtering effects). Too much photo retouching and you are not a photographer you are a CGI engineer.

My brother is a CGI engineer and he is amazing at it, but even he admits there are tells... And he can spot the ones that most photographers would not even know could exist... Companies like National Geographic and BBC wildlife are starting to employ "Photoshop Busters" people to spot fake images as it is their reputation at stake ( I know this cus my brother was paid an outrageous sum recently to bust a NG spread) that photographer was found to have faked a couple of images and is now on a NG black list...

just something to think about...

[Mermaid]

Daveg,

Be careful if you're thinking of getting a teleconverter. I had a D70s and happily bought one only to find it didn't fit ...... can't remember now if it didn't fit the camera or the lens. Check your user manuals or Nikon website for compatability. I only checked with my local camera shop who got it wrong!

I always take my D200 (was D70s) on my travels along with the 'kit' lens and a 70-300VR. I make sure the VR is in the 'off' position when it's not being used and have had no problems.
I have a padded 'Tamrac' shoulder bag that sits inside a 'Buffalo' bag strapped to the back rack of my bike. It's easy to get at for impromptu photo stops and when I stop in towns etc. I just pull the 'Tamrac' bag out and take it with me.

[Touring Africa]

I travel in a car so have the ability to carry more than 1 camera and 1 lens.
The 18-200 is the one lens that never leaves a camera, it's either on my girlfriends d80 or my d200, as for the other stuff it depends what we are photographing. If you wanted to go for a little bit longer for an added extra few hundred buy the cheap plastic 70-300, don't bother with the VR version you will notice that you won't use the longer lens that much.

Milan
Touring Africa

[CrazyCarl]

If you're on a once in a lifetime trip good glass is critical. For a small kit AND all 2.8 glass on a D70 (or any DSLR for that matter) I recommend a Sigma 18-50/2.8EX and the 50-150/2.8EX. Take a teleconverter and have a blast.

My problem with all-in-wonder lenses like 18-200's is they suffer from softness or distortion at the extreme ends of the range. Either way, most any lens now will take good pictures and talking about edge2eedge sharpness and all this is splitting hairs. The most out of focus thing in a photograph is usually the photographer.

Good luck with whatever you choose!

CC

[CrazyCarl]

Originally Posted by impasto

I challenge any photographer (I knoooow this is revolutionary talk for the purist among you), to bring a filtered photograph, that I can not reproduce EXACTLY in Photoshop.

Well looky here! Big words from a high-and-mighty Canon user. Oh look at me and all my "pro" Canon buddies we all hang out and shoot Canon cameras together and use special Canon made tele-converters with flawless results. Toss the Nikon in the bin eh? I hope you're only pumping out this balloon-juice in jest. There's plenty of stuff to insult about Canon products, like their flimsy plastic bodied 1000+ dollar lenses which fall apart, but this is about photography and no matter what brand you use there will be issues.

Anyway, to the point. While I agree with you that most filters can be left at home and that PS is amazingly powerful, I'll take your ludicrous challenge Mr. Professional-Canon-Photographer-PS-Wizard-Man and offer you the following two pictures taken with a polarizer. Let's see you "EXACTLY" (your words) duplicate the effect in PS...and see the PSD too. When you're done not being able to do it, maybe you can tell us why you were wrong.

Before:


After:

Have fun! I shouldn't take too long.

CC

[Samy]

I can recommed a 18-200 lens and a 2x or 1.4 teleconverter.

this can cover most of your needs. You can decide 2x or 1.4x due to price and your needs of tele.

[Xander]

Originally Posted by CrazyCarl

Anyway, to the point. While I agree with you that most filters can be left at home and that PS is amazingly powerful, I'll take your ludicrous challenge Mr. Professional-Canon-Photographer-PS-Wizard-Man and offer you the following two pictures taken with a polarizer. Let's see you "EXACTLY" (your words) duplicate the effect in PS...and see the PSD too. When you're done not being able to do it, maybe you can tell us why you were wrong.

Have fun! I shouldn't take too long.

CC

:confused1::confused1:
your mean!!! I love it. (but she did acknowledge the usefulness of the polarising filter)

[CrazyCarl]

Originally Posted by impasto

1. Don't need them (ok - maybe polarizing - but how many times do you need that?). Use photoshop.

Yes, but not really. The point is if someone issues a challenge then they should either be willing to defend their claim or admit they are wrong. It wouldn't be so bad but this strikes me as a particualrly "un-professional" thing to say.

I'm interested to see what happens.

CC

[jkrijt]

Originally Posted by CrazyCarl

For a small kit AND all 2.8 glass on a D70 (or any DSLR for that matter) I recommend a Sigma 18-50/2.8EX and the 50-150/2.8EX. Take a teleconverter and have a blast.
My problem with all-in-wonder lenses like 18-200's is they suffer from softness or distortion at the extreme ends of the range. Either way, most any lens now will take good pictures

Those two lenses may in itself have (a little) better quality but if you change lenses on the road a lot, you will get dust on your chip.
With the 18-200 on my D70s, I don't take my other lenses with me on a trip but only use the 18-200 and keep the body closed and the chip clean.
At home or in another clean environment I don't mind to change lenses but "on the road" I stick to my 18-200.

[CrazyCarl]

Originally Posted by jkrijt

Those two lenses may in itself have (a little) better quality but if you change lenses on the road a lot, you will get dust on your chip.
With the 18-200 on my D70s, I don't take my other lenses with me on a trip but only use the 18-200 and keep the body closed and the chip clean.
At home or in another clean environment I don't mind to change lenses but "on the road" I stick to my 18-200.

That's a very good point but I think some dust is bound to get on your sensor anyway. One place dust can get directly into the body is through the eye piece and the nice long action (suction) from a muti-barreled 18-200(300) lens can contribute to that as well...not to mention very very few lenses are dust sealed with a rubber o-ring at the mounting plate.

I guess it's a trade off. On one hand you can have less sensor cleaning and post-processing work. On the other, you can have sharper images and a larger aperture which can use more available light and provide for a more narrow DOF handy for isolating subjects. Is the dust on the sensor extra work in the field and behind the computer? Sure is, but I've never seen a zoom that could produce the contrast, flat image and razor sharpness as my 105/2.8 macro (although some 70-200's come very close).

To me (and maybe to me only, who knows) it's worth changing the lens to get shots I am happier with if it only costs me 5 minutes of headlamp and blower bulb work before I go to sleep that night. I tried as hard as I could to keep a tiny kit but in the end couldn't do it. I ended up with four lenses and I now wouldn't have it any other way. YMMV of course and it ultimately comes down to personal preference. The most important thing is you're happy with your kit and use it to capture your experiences.

CC

[MarkLG]

Extenders: a word of caution regarding extenders on slower lenses like the 18-200's which have been mention here. If you start with an f5.6 lens then you'll lose 1 or 2 more f-stops when you add the extender depending on the magnification. You could end up with a lens combination which does let enough light through for the AF to function on some cameras, as well as reducing the usable shutter speed where you need it the most - at the telephoto end.
They're popular with pro's using highend lenses, which are usually f2.8 or f4 and can handle the loss of an f-stop or two.

I used the Nikon AF-S 18-70 on my D50 for my last trip, and was very satisfied with the results, but there were occasions where a longer lens would have been useful. I've been looking at the Sigma 18-200's as an alternative, but I'll need to give one a thorough test before the trip to check the quality thoroughly.

[CrazyCarl]

Originally Posted by MarkLG

Extenders: a word of caution regarding extenders on slower lenses like the 18-200's ... You could end up with a lens combination which does let enough light through for the AF to function on some cameras, as well as reducing the usable shutter speed where you need it the most - at the telephoto end.

Very true, and don't be surprised is they screw your VR/IS/OS image stabilization.

Originally Posted by MarkLG

I used the Nikon AF-S 18-70 on my D50 for my last trip, and was very satisfied with the results, but there were occasions where a longer lens would have been useful.

The kit 18-70 is a great lens for the money with it's warm tones and high contrast after f6 or so - AFS is silky smooth. I used one for almost a year before moving to the 18-50/2.8. I can add a 1.4tele to make it about 24-70/4 with very little loss of image quality, won't close down at zoom and is sharp wide open (probably the biggest benefit of most 2.8 glass). Since being able to shoot with confidence wide open, and in lower light conditions, I found it reduced the need for a tripod (or VR for that matter) and I took more pictures than with the 18-70. I figured that can't be a bad thing and never looked back.

Now you mentioned you wanted something for the longer end. How much reach did you want? What kind of subjects do you tend to shoot?

CC

[teflon]

I didn't read all the thread, so I may be out of sync, but I think you already have a good set up - unless of course, you're looking to spend money.

The Nikon 18-200 is highly thought of, but it's fragile and the zoom had a tendency to 'creep' out unawares - just waiting to smash against something while you're carrying it. And what's the point of turning an slr into a point and shoot? I actually took mine back. And here's a thought - if you bust a do-it-all lens, you're screwed. If you bust one of a pair, you're still in business.

Tele-converters? They sound good, but are a complete pain in the butt - taking a lens off the body, attaching it to a t/c and then fixing it back to the body. That's THREE actions, plus a balancing act, as opposed to the two you already have. Sounds like punishment. Anyway, they are geared up for long telephotos, not zooms, and your 300mm lens is equal to 450mm on a 35mm film camera - already a VERY long lens for someone who takes "typical moto tourist photos". You really don't need much - camera and lenses, a small tripod - and a flashgun to take advantage of the D70's brilliant sync speed. Don't let others spend your money! Good luck.

My personal view. Hope it helps.