Nikon D750 & D780

[stevewestern]

You'll struggle to get a constant f4 for that sort of range apart from a used Sigma 100-300 f4 which is awesome if you can find one.

Aside from that the 150-600 Tamron/Sigma would cover the range but is a slower lens.

Thanks Chris - While having a constant f4 would be nice it isn't an essential I guess - I have yet to look at the Tamron 150-600 but would assume it is just to physically big for my needs.

 

[AdamTudor]

Tamron 70-300 isn't bad for the price. Paid £150 for mine used

 

[Deleted member 66768]

Tamron 70-300 isn't bad for the price. Paid £150 for mine used

The VC version is superb for the money !

 

[chrism_scotland]

Forgot about the 70-300 I've just sold mine, epic lens for the money.

 

[AdamTudor]

Even new you can get it for <£250. Shame Nikon don't do a better version of theirs to compete with the 70-300L

 

[JohnN]

I went mega cheap for my 70-300 (link) its even cheaper than when I got it - £84!

I'll only post them small as I posted them before, but for easy here are a couple I got with it:


Down by the river by John Norton, on Flickr


Pidgeon - Testing AF by John Norton, on Flickr


Heron in flight by John Norton, on Flickr

 

[AdamTudor]

here's a couple of mine from the other night with @minnnt on Mam Tor, i didnt get there till 11.30pm so i dont have the variation in images as he does.

Mam Tor Milkyway (1 of 3)-1 by Adam Tudor, on Flickr

Mam Tor Milkyway (3 of 3)-3 by Adam Tudor, on Flickr

Mam Tor Milkyway (2 of 3)-2 by Adam Tudor, on Flickr

 

[minnnt]

They're good mate, like the last one the most.

 

[JohnN]

Nice star shots - I'm hoping to do some (just by the house, which I know is far from ideal!) with my daughter tomorrow if its clearer - I'll have to ferret out some guides as I tried this once and was rubbish and it would be nice if I got it right with her.

In other news the 150-600 arrived and my fist impression is that its heavy! Very heavy, the same weight as my old 50-500 OS - but that was no surprise, the second thing I noted was that its p'ing down... grr and as its only moisture resistant I guess I'll be waiting to play.

I did try a little in house AF testing, and its okay as long as you;re not focusing on a lack dog in the dark - oddly that didn't work

 

[AdamTudor]

Just remember to shoot raw or lower your WB mate, think mine were at 3500k although I shot them at 2900k and had to up it in pp as too blue. Then they were taken at ISO 3200 f4 for 15 sec but that was in a pretty dark place.

 

[stevewestern]

Forgot about the 70-300 I've just sold mine, epic lens for the money.

Why did you sell it Chris, and what did you replace it with..?

The VC version is superb for the money !

Even new you can get it for <£250. Shame Nikon don't do a better version of theirs to compete with the 70-300L

Anthony, Adam, and Chris - just how good is the Tamron at focus speed - my only experience of a 70-300 was a cheap Canon about 15 years ago which took days to focus unless the light was perfect..

What about the 28-300 Nikon - from what little I have read it sounds like a fairly good cheap-ish option for the longer stuff and from what a certain Mr Rockwell says it is a good alternative to the Nikon 70-300

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-300-vr.htm

 

[chrism_scotland]

Replaced it with the Tamron 150-600...... focus was fine although I didn't give it much of a go in poorer light (I was in Venice!)

 

[minnnt]

The Tammy 70-300 vc is excellent.

 

[snerkler]

@snerkler as Adam says, Mam Tor.

I don't think Kinder Scout would be any good (well, any better) as there was quite a lot of light pollution where we were and Kinder is only over the road.

There are a few dark sky points, take a look here :
http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/looking-after/projects-and-partnerships/darkskies

Surprise view is on my list fo' sho'!

Thanks for this. Been to surprise view for Sunsets, but not struck me as a good place for astro.

 

[minnnt]

I have no idea if it is or not tbh. There's a thread running in the night photography section with a pic from Surprise View.

 

[AdamTudor]

It's classed as a dark sky site though so it must be doing something right

 

[minnnt]

So which idiot decided to go to Mam Tor then??

A quick test shot with my new addition... 50mm f1.8D.


Charlie Boy! by David Raynham, on Flickr

 

[Swanseajack]

So what about suggestions for something longer, more in the 100-300 range ?
Again, f4 should be wide enough for me, but the usual 70-200 just isn't long enough ..

If you want longer F4 lenses you will need to look at the 200-400mm f4 zoom along with the primes, 500mm f4 & 600mm f4, or you go for the 400mm f2.8 prime.........these get expensive. You may know, there's a Nikon 200-500 constant f5.6 coming out in Spetember, but I think it's going to have to be very good to beat the Tamron and Sigma 150-600mm zooms mentioned lately in the thread.

 

[Swanseajack]

@minnnt and Adam, some nice photos of the night scenes you have posted.

Just a question, when looking at the EXIF for Davids, you have been shooting at f3.2, f4 etc....... I have no knowledge of this type of shooting, but it's something I would like to learn, isn't it best to use the fastest aperture you can, so should they be taken at f2.8???

 

[minnnt]

Yep.

I was just playing with various settings including focus. It was a pig tbh. A lot harder than i thought it would be.

It would have been better at f2.8, iso 3200/6400 and 20 seconds.

Having said that, I'm quite happy with them for a first try.

Someone mention 14mm???

 

[rob-nikon]

So what about suggestions for something longer, more in the 100-300 range ?
Again, f4 should be wide enough for me, but the usual 70-200 just isn't long enough ..

What about the 70-200 f2.8 with 1.4 TC? I've found it to be quite a good compromise up to 280mm f4.

 

[AdamTudor]

@minnnt and Adam, some nice photos of the night scenes you have posted.

Just a question, when looking at the EXIF for Davids, you have been shooting at f3.2, f4 etc....... I have no knowledge of this type of shooting, but it's something I would like to learn, isn't it best to use the fastest aperture you can, so should they be taken at f2.8???

Until I get a 14mm the widest lens I have is the 24-120 so I was pretty limited, I think f4 worked ok tbh as the d750 can handle the higher ISO easily enough. Ideal world would be as fast as possible though.

 

[AdamSi]

Do you need need the zoom range if not either the older or if weights an issue the new 300 f4 PF is a cracker

 

[BacktotheFuji]

So which idiot decided to go to Mam Tor then??

A quick test shot with my new addition... 50mm f1.8D.


Charlie Boy! by David Raynham, on Flickr

He's mega cute mate, but are you feeding him extra carrots or something?

 

[JohnN]

Time to pop another pic in I think: again from my hols a bit back.


St Davids Catherdral by John Norton, on Flickr

 

[snerkler]

I have no idea if it is or not tbh. There's a thread running in the night photography section with a pic from Surprise View.

Cool, will check it out.

 

[minnnt]

He's mega cute mate, but are you feeding him extra carrots or something?

It's them Nikon colours, @manualfocus-g

 

[minnnt]

Last shot from me tonight


Taking in the view by David Raynham, on Flickr

 

[minnnt]

Going back to talking about this camera rather than flooding the place with pics i'm quite surprised how well the 50mm f1.8D focuses in low light. The in camera focus motor all be it noisy seems a little more determined than the AFS units to focus. Shame they couldn't make it quieter though.

 

[decigallen]

One month on and I still ain't got my D750 back from NPS and they ain't replying to my emails... should I panic? Anyway, at least the temp camera is doing the job:

Full blogpost here

 

[Swanseajack]

Going back to talking about this camera rather than flooding the place with pics i'm quite surprised how well the 50mm f1.8D focuses in low light. The in camera focus motor all be it noisy seems a little more determined than the AFS units to focus. Shame they couldn't make it quieter though.

It's a good little lens, optically theres not much difference to the "G" if any. Been going through some of my old photos for a tidy up, looking back on some of them, the 50d and Tamron 28-75 f2.8 performed well, on my then D7000.

These any good.

 

[Swanseajack]

Yep.

I was just playing with various settings including focus. It was a pig tbh. A lot harder than i thought it would be.

It would have been better at f2.8, iso 3200/6400 and 20 seconds.

Having said that, I'm quite happy with them for a first try.

Someone mention 14mm???

Thanks, it seems you dont need the f1.4 lenses to take these type of photos then, as I pressumed. It's a good way to feel the water before splashing out on new kit, although it is nice to have new kit.

 

[minnnt]

Well F1.4 would mean a lower iso although 6400 is still very good. The 14mm f2.8 would be ideal tbh. I need to hone my focusing in the dark skills though.

 

[snerkler]

One month on and I still ain't got my D750 back from NPS and they ain't replying to my emails... should I panic? Anyway, at least the temp camera is doing the job:

Full blogpost here

Nice shots, and nice blog. What is the 'back up' camera?

 

[G.K.Jnr.]

It's them Nikon colours, @manualfocus-g

Ever thought of trying Fuji then.

George.

 

[stevewestern]

Thanks for all the help everyone - Having come via Canon then Olympus I am totally new to Nikon so know nothing about what there is out there, and have also never bought anything other than matching brand lenses (ie Canon lenses for my Canon bodies, Olympus lenses for my Olympus) so the world of Tamron and Sigma etc is also alien to me, but I am slowly learning..
One of the main reasons for selling my Canon gear was the weight, and the Olympus is brilliant in that respect, but its failings are bothering me more and more - low light and focus speed mainly, which is why the D750 appeals. I need zoom lenses and don't think I need f2.8 - f4 is wide enough, plus the weight of an f2.8 would be an issue.

If you want longer F4 lenses you will need to look at the 200-400mm f4 zoom along with the primes, 500mm f4 & 600mm f4, or you go for the 400mm f2.8 prime.........these get expensive. You may know, there's a Nikon 200-500 constant f5.6 coming out in Spetember, but I think it's going to have to be very good to beat the Tamron and Sigma 150-600mm zooms mentioned lately in the thread.

The massive zooms are likely to be physically too big for me as a lot of my pictures are taken in a classroom filled with 5-10yr olds, and currently my Oly 40-150 (ie 80-300 FF) is brilliant as it allows me to get a headshot from across the room. Seems the Tamron 70-300 has to be worth a look and I am so hoping it can focus quickly...

What about the 70-200 f2.8 with 1.4 TC? I've found it to be quite a good compromise up to 280mm f4.

As mentioned above, the weight issue is against it..

Do you need need the zoom range if not either the older or if weights an issue the new 300 f4 PF is a cracker

A zoom is essential for me as I am often stuck in a corner of a room but need to grab shots from all over the place.

It has occurred to me that a 2nd (crop sensor) body might be an alternative - anyone know what Nikon do that might be up to the job ??

 

[minnnt]

Ever thought of trying Fuji then.

George.

Yeah, i had one once, but I'm less hip now.

TBH this was a Portra 400 preset iirc.

@stevewestern i would look at the D7200 if you're considering a second body.

 

[Paulie-W]

Holiday snap from Madeira ...
with 24-120 f4 (great holiday lens)

[URL='https://flic.kr/p/xo7KR6']A walk on the Beach by Paulie-W, on Flickr[/URL]

 

[decigallen]

Nice shots, and nice blog. What is the 'back up' camera?

I have a loaner D750 from Nikon. I'd prefer to have my own camera back, obviously. Nikon aren't going to be happy when they see the shutter count on their camera - peak wedding season for me. Put around 10k on it in the past week alone.

 

[psenior1]

Spent lots of time out in the rain yesterday shooting with both D750's, they held up really well, first outing with my shiny new 58mm too. Not have chance to take a look at the pics yet but was loving the focal length, combined well with the 35 and 85.