£1500-£1800 to spend, what would you recommend?

nictry said:
I'm on the lookout for a decent tele lens so thought would be worth a look at the link you posted but TBH I can't see why anyone would pay their prices? They seem to be barely cheaper than buying new? Unless I am missing something e.g.

70-300mm f/4-5.6 AF-S IF-ED VR Zoom-Nikkor
with case and hood MINT- £285.00

http://www.camerabox.co.uk/productDA.asp?ProductID=2654&gclid=CKSP6u-IkJUCFRlPEAodUHYxgA £294 brand new with 2 yr warranty?

Many more examples where S/H price only £10-20 cheaper than new with all the bits?
Click to expand...

Grays = UK Nikon dealer, Nikon UK warranty
Camerabox= Grey market dealer, camerabox warranty

You pays your money.........;)
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Grays = UK Nikon dealer, Nikon UK warranty
Camerabox= Grey market dealer, camerabox warranty

You pays your money.........;)
Click to expand...

Totally irrelevant though as all the goods from Grays are S/H and therefore have no manufacturers warranty as I found out recently, once you are the second owner of any lens, Camera etc. you have no rights with the manufacturer only the store (in this case) so the warranty Grays give is their warranty and not Nikon etc.

Also I did wonder about Camerabox when looking to replace my 70-300VR and they confirmed that although they do source grey they also have UK models and in the case of this lens they did in fact have UK models so the first year is UK Nikon 2nd yr is their own (so still not worth a few quid less buying from grays) and I didn't quote other shops but even compared to Amazon (£291 for the above lens so a whole £6 more expensive than Grays S/H model) and other reputable UK suppliers Grays really don't seem that cheap for a second hand product with only their own warranty to call upon in case of a problem?
 
A new UK70-300 VR from Grays is only £330, or about a tenner more than Clifton Cameras. Personally if we're only talking twenty or thirty quid I'd rather buy from a proper Nikon dealer than go grey, although I suppose at that end of the market it doesn't really matter.

I know one guy I spoke to up here sang Grays' praises and when I mentioned that they were quite expensive he said that he had always managed to get them to throw in a filter or similar to make up the difference in price and if that's the case then buying grey doesn't really make any sense whatsoever....
 
Flash In The Pan said:
A new UK70-300 VR from Grays is only £330, or about a tenner more than Clifton Cameras. Personally if we're only talking twenty or thirty quid I'd rather buy from a proper Nikon dealer than go grey, although I suppose at that end of the market it doesn't really matter.

I know one guy I spoke to up here sang Grays' praises and when I mentioned that they were quite expensive he said that he had always managed to get them to throw in a filter or similar to make up the difference in price and if that's the case then buying grey doesn't really make any sense whatsoever....
Click to expand...

I think I am missing the point somewhere here? Amazon supply uk Nikon stock for £291, Camerabox confirmed their particular stock was UK for the same price, this is why I asked why Grays were recommended as they seem to be selling S/H for the price that a new UK model can be bought?

I guess a free filter is fine but I still don't quite see the benefit when using someone like Amazon still gives you the comfort of a UK product with warranty and knowing their aftersales service would probably be even easier than buying from a 'local' supplier like Grays?

Sorry have taken the thread off topic a bit but just wanted to see why a s/h recommendation seemed such a good deal when I couldn't see it myself :shrug:
 
You have to go to Greys to know why they're worth recommending.

They frequently have older gear, or cared for but well used in mint condition for peanuts, if you want the latest this and that in mint condition, you'll pay nearly the new price. If you want to comprimise, then they're a lot cheaper, (IE ommit VR as if you're shooting motorsport handheld you'll probably be at more than 1/300 s

I have a lot of stuff from Grey's, but some of it is older than I am. the 80-400 was a good deal, most of their camera bodies are too, If you must have the latest and greatest then maybe its not a good deal, but if you consider carefully what they have in stock and what you want to do with your gear you can get a very good deal.
 
viper_biker said:
I have recently came into some money and want to 'up my game' so to speak. Currently I have a Pentax K100D Super with the kit 18/55 lens and a Tamron 70/300. Most of my pitures are taken track-side at motorbike racing and I'm happy with the shots I'm taking. I know they are nowhere near as good as a lot of folk on here, but it keeps me happy and entertained.

I don't post often on here, but tend more to read as I don't think I can offer much in the way of advice to anyone. I have a good friend who works in LCE and he has recommended a D300, Nikon 18-70mm AF-S ED and Sigma 135-400 APO. Is there any other camera worth looking at as well as this one, or is this the way forward? The bigger lens is a must as some areas of the tracks are that far away from the action that it'll be needed, and the convienience of the 18/70 will be good for family funtions and walking about the paddock.

All of my pictures are for personal use only, and I've no interest in getting any of them published, it's just for fun as I can no longer be on the track myself after a recent injury on the track. So I'd like to put it to you all and see what you can come up with for me. Up to £1800 to spend on a body and minimum of 2 lenses. Thank you all in advance and I'll let you all know what I go for in the end.
Click to expand...


Ohh this is simple ....send me the money and I will send you a camera (from Spain) in a brown paper envelope ...seriously if you are not willing to spend on good glass for your Pentax look for a decent D2X body and a decent 18-200f3.5vr lens
 
I can`t fathom why the 80-400 gets such a battering?

Granted i`m not a keen motorports photography buff, but I have used it at Brands and Oulton and it was fine, though,in fairness, both days were one of the few sunny ones this year.
 
fracster said:
I can`t fathom why the 80-400 gets such a battering?

Granted i`m not a keen motorports photography buff, but I have used it at Brands and Oulton and it was fine, though,in fairness, both days were one of the few sunny ones this year.
Click to expand...

Because people seem to want him to buy a £2800 lens or the cheap sigma version of it.

OK so the 80-400 is older, and has a slower maximum aperture, but it in the right hands and on the right body, it could still own the 300 all over, as in terms of optical quality at least its a superior product..
 
TheKrikkitWars said:
Because people seem to want him to buy a £2800 lens or the cheap sigma version of it.

OK so the 80-400 is older, and has a slower maximum aperture, but it in the right hands and on the right body, it could still own the 300 all over, as in terms of optical quality at least its a superior product..
Click to expand...

I can`t comment on that as I only have the 300 F4 and the 80-400, the 300 F4 is a very good lens, the 80-400 is a cracker. It is also quite compact for its zoom range.If I only take one lens with me, that is the one I would take.
 
I take it that it's the Quay Vipers? I can meet you somewhere handy and let you see/feel/try the D200 (similar to D300) and a Sigma 120 - 300. This is the setup (along with the 18 - 200 VR) I use for our road racing.

Let me know.........

David
CBR XX
 
fracster said:
I can`t comment on that as I only have the 300 F4 and the 80-400, the 300 F4 is a very good lens, the 80-400 is a cracker. It is also quite compact for its zoom range.If I only take one lens with me, that is the one I would take.
Click to expand...

I don't own either, I've just had a chance to use both briefly... (was looking at buying, then decided that maybe I might want some money hanging about when I start at uni.) But my impression was that the 300 was good but maybe not as good as the older all metal one, (certainly true of the zoom version), yet I didn't feel like that about the 80-400, I was just liking it too much.
 
Hi David, yes, I am a Quay Viper. That's very nice of you to offer to let me have a look/see at the D200. Just to explain where the money is coming from, I crashed my track-bike a few weeks ago and as such, rendered myself to crutches for a good while now, so the bike is getting broken for spares and the proceeds are paying for the camera and lens. Ergo, travel and transport is limited for me at the moment *** my leg is ****ed. If you are going to the Snakebite Rally however I'll be seated at the front desk, not hard to spot, I'll be the one with the crutches LOL
 
fracster said:
I can`t fathom why the 80-400 gets such a battering?
Click to expand...

Because its not a AF-S lens!! It uses the mechanical drive from the camera body.
 
Stick with your original choice of the D300 and 18-70 zoom. The D300 and its 51 autofocus points are very useful for any action photography especially when you are using continuous focus and need to get the composition right in-camera. The 18-70 is a fantastic lens, very sharp. As far as a telephoto, what focal length do you use the most?? The Nikon 300mm f4 is the sharpest lens I own....but does it put you too near the subject? it isn't always practicable to walk backwards at a sporting venue. Maybe get the 300mm f4 and in a year or so the 70-200 f2.8.
Regarding your final comment, my photos were for personal use only once upon a time, now I have a lot of photos I would like to market but the quality isn't up to it.
 
I'd disagree about the use of a prime for motorsport... unless you are just wanting to stand where you happen to be and randomly snap off shots, you are always placing yourself at the point you need to get the shot. Its no more difficult to achieve this with a prime than it is with a zoom.

I guess thats the difference between going to a race meeting to shoot photos and going to the meeting to watch and point your camera when you feel like it...
 
fracster said:
And that makes it a bad lens?
Click to expand...

It makes it one that auto focuses slower than one with a motor, which puts it at a disadvantage for fast sports, as does it's f/5.6 maximum aperture at 400mm and the tripod mount is, by all accounts rubbish.

That's what makes it a "bad" lens....
 
And your experience of this lens is ?
 
fracster said:
And that makes it a bad lens?
Click to expand...

As FITP says it puts you at a serious disadvantage with motorsport. I said earlier in this thread that any camera with any glass will capture an image of any subject, its just that for fast moving things you want to track as they change in distance (even if they are passing in front of you) then you need fast gear to get a consistently high hit rate.

The D300 is definitely capable of AF'ing quickly and accurately, but if its slowed by the speed of the lens motor (or body motor in this case) you are back down the scale again.

If you are happy with a low hit rate or a big pile of soft shots, then fine...

I'm sure that in a less taxing use, the lens is fine. I've read nothing critical about its optical performance, only its AF performance which many cite as "the slowest focusing lens Nikon make"
 
As stated earlier, my knowledge of motorsport photography is limited, so I shall have to accept that it is not ideal for that purpose. Saying that, I have some pretty decent wildlife shots with it, wether that is less taxing or not I really couldn`t say.

Whilst we would all,probably, like a 400 F2.8........:D.........realistically, we can`t all afford one, but I hope that the boffins at Nikon will do a 400 F4 at some time and at a reasonable price, I shan`t hold my breath though.
 
fracster said:
And your experience of this lens is ?
Click to expand...

I borrowed one to try when I was looking for something to replace me 70-300 VR, however in the end I bought the 80-200,any more questions, or was that just because you're in the cream puff with me?:lol:
 
No i`m not in a cream puff (whatever that means) with you, I simply dislike your attitude.

I`m sure the feeling is mutual, so it is probably best if we agree to differ for the sake of harmony.
 
Fracster: i wouldnt bother arguing, i was in a similar "discussion" last week on this same thread.

It would appear that unless a lens has the FITP endorsement its just not worth buying, and f5.6 is a swear word to him.
 
fracster said:
No i`m not in a cream puff (whatever that means) with you, I simply dislike your attitude.

I`m sure the feeling is mutual, so it is probably best if we agree to differ for the sake of harmony.
Click to expand...

Cream puff= huff :shrug:

Well, you're right,but personally I have nothing against you,(apart from the obvious), I'm sure other than that you're a decent, wonderful, fluffy human being, who is kind to him mum and gives to charity.

For the record though, anyone with a basic knowledge of photography should realise that a lens without it's own af motor auto focuses slower than one with a motor and this would be a disadvantage for fast sports.

Even if your, quote "knowledge of motorsport photography is limited" I would have thought you would realise that this, coupled with an f/5.6 maximum aperture at 400mm wouldn't make it the ideal lens for such an activity.

I stand corrected.
 
Monkey said:
Fracster: i wouldnt bother arguing, i was in a similar "discussion" last week on this same thread.

It would appear that unless a lens has the FITP endorsement its just not worth buying, and f5.6 is a swear word to him.
Click to expand...

Guess my new Siggy 300-800 is a pile of crap in that case............:lol:
 
Monkey said:
Fracster: i wouldnt bother arguing, i was in a similar "discussion" last week on this same thread.

It would appear that unless a lens has the FITP endorsement its just not worth buying, and f5.6 is a swear word to him.
Click to expand...


Lol...like I said to you previously, if these f/5.6 lenses are so good, how come no one (apart from yourself, obviously) uses them for motorsports? I can't recall seing any of the press 'togs at any of the races I've been to using such lenses, but obviously, they must be wrong too.

Pro glass= waste of money
Cheap consumer glass = the way to go

Once again I stand corrected
 
FYI - AF can focus faster than AF-S but the AF lenses are designed to focus at a certain speed which varies massively from lens to lens.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
:thinking: Buy it for motorsport use did you?
Click to expand...

I use a f/4-5.6 75-300mm for WW kayaking, which requires rather higher shutter speeds than motorsport, and generally in less than idea lighting conditions. It actually works quite well, provided you're happy at around ISO 1000 and are willing to think your way to the shot, before your subject is even in the frame... Ok so its a faff, but its far cheaper than gaining two stops more light at a cost of £1500 compared to £95.
 
TheKrikkitWars said:
I use a f/4-5.6 75-300mm for WW kayaking, which requires even higher shutter speeds than motorsport, and generally in less than idea lighting conditions. It actually works quite well, provided you're happy at around ISO 1000 and are willing to think your way to the shot, before your subject is even in the frame... Ok so its a faff, but its far cheaper than gaining two stops more light at a cost of £1500 compared to £95.
Click to expand...


In reality you could use any lens for any type of photography, but the op said he wanted to "up his game" (already having a 70-300 Tamron, which, I think is f/5.6 at the long end) and had a generous budget to buy a suitable lens, but the general concensus would appear to indicate that the lens that he has should be more than satisfactory, in which case he'd be as well having a nice holiday and keeping the kit he already has :shrug:
 
TheKrikkitWars said:
I use a f/4-5.6 75-300mm for WW kayaking, which requires even higher shutter speeds than motorsport.
Click to expand...

HIGH SHUTTER SPEEDS?!!!

They'd string you up from the nearest lamppost over on the motorsport section for such a crime :thumbs:

Not anything to do with shutter speed, its all to do with AF speed.

I've just been on a quest to up my motorsport game and can tell you for a fact that the D300 with the right glass is about as good as you will find anywhere. Stupidly good in fact. But I also tested it with the wrong glass and then it sucked as much as anything. I'll not mention the sucky glass because it will start another round of whining...

It is the combo that is magic, not one element
 
Out of interest, if you are photographing cars going through a certain corner/section, why do you need super fast auto focus?

Not an argumentative post, but I would like to see the answers, for my own benefit.........:)
 
fracster said:
Out of interest, if you are photographing cars going through a certain corner/section, why do you need super fast auto focus?

Not an argumentative post, but I would like to see the answers, for my own benefit.........:)
Click to expand...

You don't need it, it was done with MF lenses once upon a time, it just makes it far, far easier.
 
TheKrikkitWars said:
You don't need it, it was done with MF lenses once upon a time, it just makes it far, far easier.
Click to expand...

From some of the comments on here anyone would think it would have been impossible to shoot motorsports 20 years ago.

In another 20 years there will be someone telling us that f2.8 is slow, anything less than 50mp is poor resolution and the only way to autofocus is AF-S Turbo RR-R :lol:
 
Monkey said:
From some of the comments on here anyone would think it would have been impossible to shoot motorsports 20 years ago.

In another 20 years there will be someone telling us that f2.8 is slow, anything less than 50mp is poor resolution and the only way to autofocus is AF-S Turbo RR-R :lol:
Click to expand...


or that f/22 is fast enough :lol:
 
Monkey said:
From some of the comments on here anyone would think it would have been impossible to shoot motorsports 20 years ago.

In another 20 years there will be someone telling us that f2.8 is slow, anything less than 50mp is poor resolution and the only way to autofocus is AF-S Turbo RR-R :lol:
Click to expand...

I'm very much on the side of not relying on technology to do it for me, I bet there are people here who've never even used Manual Focus, never mind, set it up and pre-frame for a moving subject in their mind's eye.
 
Monkey said:
in 20 years when we can shoot at ISO 409600 with no noise then it would be.. but i do understand you will still lust after your 300mm f1.0
Click to expand...

but there probably won't be any motorsport by then as either health and safety will have banned it,there'll be no fuel left or some nutter will have blown up the planet :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top