Nikon D750 & D780

Just been looking at D7000's for my mate, excellent condition used with 29k shutter count for £280, that's a lot of camera for the money :eek:
 
snerkler said:
Just been looking at D7000's for my mate, excellent condition used with 29k shutter count for £280, that's a lot of camera for the money :eek:
Click to expand...

There was lower count ones going in the classifieds here for £215, i have one and am going to hold onto it as it isn't worth selling.
 
This isn't GAS yet, but I'm wondering about something...

My longest lens is a cheap Nikon AF 70-210 D variable aperture plastic zoom. I use it maybe once a month at best. Rather oddly compared with some, it's simply not a focal length range I often find myself wanting the longer end of the range in... I have the lovely little 85mm 1.8G for the shorter bit anyway.

However, I have had a fair few occasions to be shooting my son or other things and definitely wanting longer reach as well as sharper images (or faster) at/beyond the long end. This cheapy lens does not crop down particularly well and is a touch soft at max aperture (5.6 I think) at max zoom. No great surprises there, really.

I've had a slightly crazy idea to buy a second hand AF-S 300mm f/4... it's a bit duffed up externally but I can get one for less than £350 and it'd give me pretty much exactly what I'm after to fix the above. I doubt I'd be using it more than 1-2 times a month but there will be times it comes in very handy. Best of all, it is in reality a 420mm f/5.6 with the 1.4x TC which barely touches the image quality. Ok, that ups the price a bit but it's a great future option to have. If I ever decided to get into shooting long stuff there's even the TC-20E III to take it to 600m f/8 although that's then not the sharpest or fastest lens.

I'm wondering if for £325 it's a bit of a no-brainer. Sure, the lens is in pretty bad nick but the optics are supposed to be good. Thoughts?
 
pjm1 said:
This isn't GAS yet, but I'm wondering about something...

My longest lens is a cheap Nikon AF 70-210 D variable aperture plastic zoom. I use it maybe once a month at best. Rather oddly compared with some, it's simply not a focal length range I often find myself wanting the longer end of the range in... I have the lovely little 85mm 1.8G for the shorter bit anyway.

However, I have had a fair few occasions to be shooting my son or other things and definitely wanting longer reach as well as sharper images (or faster) at/beyond the long end. This cheapy lens does not crop down particularly well and is a touch soft at max aperture (5.6 I think) at max zoom. No great surprises there, really.

I've had a slightly crazy idea to buy a second hand AF-S 300mm f/4... it's a bit duffed up externally but I can get one for less than £350 and it'd give me pretty much exactly what I'm after to fix the above. I doubt I'd be using it more than 1-2 times a month but there will be times it comes in very handy. Best of all, it is in reality a 420mm f/5.6 with the 1.4x TC which barely touches the image quality. Ok, that ups the price a bit but it's a great future option to have. If I ever decided to get into shooting long stuff there's even the TC-20E III to take it to 600m f/8 although that's then not the sharpest or fastest lens.

I'm wondering if for £325 it's a bit of a no-brainer. Sure, the lens is in pretty bad nick but the optics are supposed to be good. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

If the 300 F4 glass is all good, it is a no-brainer, but being a fixed focal length you will have limitations in tight spaces.

I can also recommend the Tamron 70-300 VC USD or the Nikon 70-300 VR, both will give you flexibility (when you need) and reach and the images are sharp with those lenses. I had the Tamron before and liked it a lot. It is no 2.8, but does a decent job. I do crop a lot and they all look fine. The Bokeh is also good between 200 and 300 mm with good background separation. The Nikon will work with the TC, not sure if the Tamron would.

Here are some shots taken with the Tamron with a D600 and a few more in my Flickr Album


Shard, London by Anirban Acharya, on Flickr


St Pauls, reflections on Millenium Bridge by Anirban Acharya, on Flickr


St Pauls by Anirban Acharya, on Flickr


DSC_8949 by Anirban Acharya, on Flickr


Portrait of wife by Anirban Acharya, on Flickr
 
snerkler said:
I'm sure we all go through it, but I'm having another spell of frustration with my photography and something that I've always struggled with having an eye for a shot. Yesterday was another example.

I went to a car show yesterday with a mate who's just getting into photography and knows nothing about tge technical side of things, yet thanks to his 'eye' and composition some of his shots (such as parts of an engine) looked really good whilst mine just looked like a snap shot you'd take with your smartphone. The 'only' difference was the framing and angle of shot which you'd think would be pretty simple to learn and master but it still eludes me. It's something I've been frustrated with from day one, that ability to change a shot from something that looks like a smartphone snapshot to something that looks really effective, almost artistic if you like.

Is it something that you can learn, and if so how? Or is it just a case that some people have it and some don't?
Click to expand...

I've ranted about this before.. It's often said that composition can't be taught, that you need an eye for it. It's just not true. My composition is still not amazing but has improved enormously since I started trying to learn.

Most photography books on the subject are rubbish. Most just bang on about the rule of thirds, leading lines and finding natural frames.

Michael Freeman's 'The photographers eye' is the one exception I've seen.

I'm a big fan of the dynamic symmetry way of thinking - but there's no need to sign up to the whole dogma.
Henry Rankin Poore's book is good non-photography introduction to the subject.

I haven't yet found a phootgraphy book with a good discussion of the use of colour and contrast to create a sensation of depth; techniques often used by painters.

Do you ever do any work with artificial light or flash? I've found that thinking about what I'm lighting has really made me aware of shapes and lines. Then when I'm not using flash the same skills are still present, and I'm much more aware of how natural light impacts a scene than I would be otherwise.
 
juggler said:
I've ranted about this before.. It's often said that composition can't be taught, that you need an eye for it. It's just not true. My composition is still not amazing but has improved enormously since I started trying to learn.

Most photography books on the subject are rubbish. Most just bang on about the rule of thirds, leading lines and finding natural frames.

Michael Freeman's 'The photographers eye' is the one exception I've seen.

I'm a big fan of the dynamic symmetry way of thinking - but there's no need to sign up to the whole dogma.
Henry Rankin Poore's book is good non-photography introduction to the subject.

I haven't yet found a phootgraphy book with a good discussion of the use of colour and contrast to create a sensation of depth; techniques often used by painters.

Do you ever do any work with artificial light or flash? I've found that thinking about what I'm lighting has really made me aware of shapes and lines. Then when I'm not using flash the same skills are still present, and I'm much more aware of how natural light impacts a scene than I would be otherwise.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I actually have that book and whilst there is some good info in there I still find that I'm missing opportunities/not seeing the best shot. I do work with flash yes, and have done some product photography so understand what you are saying about shapes and lines.

I do agree that composition and framing can be taught to an extent, and I know that my composition has vastly improved from when I started. However, if you don't see the shot in the first place it is then very difficult to work on the composition and angles ;)
 
juggler said:
I've ranted about this before.. It's often said that composition can't be taught, that you need an eye for it. It's just not true. My composition is still not amazing but has improved enormously since I started trying to learn.

Most photography books on the subject are rubbish. Most just bang on about the rule of thirds, leading lines and finding natural frames.

Michael Freeman's 'The photographers eye' is the one exception I've seen.

I'm a big fan of the dynamic symmetry way of thinking - but there's no need to sign up to the whole dogma.
Henry Rankin Poore's book is good non-photography introduction to the subject.

I haven't yet found a phootgraphy book with a good discussion of the use of colour and contrast to create a sensation of depth; techniques often used by painters.

Do you ever do any work with artificial light or flash? I've found that thinking about what I'm lighting has really made me aware of shapes and lines. Then when I'm not using flash the same skills are still present, and I'm much more aware of how natural light impacts a scene than I would be otherwise.
Click to expand...

Agree with this. The photographers eye is a great book and I bought it fairly early on.
 
pjm1 said:
This isn't GAS yet, but I'm wondering about something...

My longest lens is a cheap Nikon AF 70-210 D variable aperture plastic zoom. I use it maybe once a month at best. Rather oddly compared with some, it's simply not a focal length range I often find myself wanting the longer end of the range in... I have the lovely little 85mm 1.8G for the shorter bit anyway.

However, I have had a fair few occasions to be shooting my son or other things and definitely wanting longer reach as well as sharper images (or faster) at/beyond the long end. This cheapy lens does not crop down particularly well and is a touch soft at max aperture (5.6 I think) at max zoom. No great surprises there, really.

I've had a slightly crazy idea to buy a second hand AF-S 300mm f/4... it's a bit duffed up externally but I can get one for less than £350 and it'd give me pretty much exactly what I'm after to fix the above. I doubt I'd be using it more than 1-2 times a month but there will be times it comes in very handy. Best of all, it is in reality a 420mm f/5.6 with the 1.4x TC which barely touches the image quality. Ok, that ups the price a bit but it's a great future option to have. If I ever decided to get into shooting long stuff there's even the TC-20E III to take it to 600m f/8 although that's then not the sharpest or fastest lens.

I'm wondering if for £325 it's a bit of a no-brainer. Sure, the lens is in pretty bad nick but the optics are supposed to be good. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
The 300 f4 af-s is a great lens, very good with the 1.4tc mk2 (doesn't work with the 1.4 mk3). I really wouldn't bother using it with a 2x tc. As long as there is no whining to the focus motor it's a good purchase if you feel it's not too battered. The condition really depends on if we are talking about surface scuffs or knocks if it's been dropped.

If you know the distance of subject is fairly static then a long prime is not a bad choice, I'm not sure it would be a lens I would be buying for getting photos of children.

It's s hard choice as it really depends on your use. If you want a wider view from a fixed location it means changing lenses as you have lost the zoom. A second hand 70-200 f2.8 vr1 is more expensive but more versatile especially with a 1.4tc. They can be had around the £600 mark second so it is more but it would be a very good improvement over what you have now.
 
I've decided to swap the Sigma 35 for the 24 but pick up a used Nikon 35mm 1.8G (fx) for street/travel.
 
anibap said:
If the 300 F4 glass is all good, it is a no-brainer, but being a fixed focal length you will have limitations in tight spaces.

I can also recommend the Tamron 70-300 VC USD or the Nikon 70-300 VR, both will give you flexibility (when you need) and reach and the images are sharp with those lenses. I had the Tamron before and liked it a lot. It is no 2.8, but does a decent job. I do crop a lot and they all look fine. The Bokeh is also good between 200 and 300 mm with good background separation. The Nikon will work with the TC, not sure if the Tamron would.

Here are some shots taken with the Tamron with a D600 and a few more in my Flickr Album
Click to expand...

rob-nikon said:
The 300 f4 af-s is a great lens, very good with the 1.4tc mk2 (doesn't work with the 1.4 mk3). I really wouldn't bother using it with a 2x tc. As long as there is no whining to the focus motor it's a good purchase if you feel it's not too battered. The condition really depends on if we are talking about surface scuffs or knocks if it's been dropped.

If you know the distance of subject is fairly static then a long prime is not a bad choice, I'm not sure it would be a lens I would be buying for getting photos of children.

It's s hard choice as it really depends on your use. If you want a wider view from a fixed location it means changing lenses as you have lost the zoom. A second hand 70-200 f2.8 vr1 is more expensive but more versatile especially with a 1.4tc. They can be had around the £600 mark second so it is more but it would be a very good improvement over what you have now.
Click to expand...

Thanks guys - that's helpful advice. The thing which has put me off getting a zoom is (1) the cost and (2) the prospect of it being weaker/softer/slower at full zoom. Most of my photography is with primes (I have a 24-70 f/2.8 walkaround and I can't honestly remember the last time it was attached to the camera!) so I'm very used to framing with my feet. The main use of any long tele would be my kids at sports day (when I wanted it recently) and potentially up on the mountains for wildlife (but depending on what other non-photography kit I'm taking)... it's really just an occasional lens. So any more than £350 as a starting point is going to be hard to justify, whereas starting with a lower cost 300mm and then adding a TC if I start to want more zoom is kinda attractive, even if the end price will nudge up towards £500 for the whole combo.

My only concern is I'm going about this a bit $rs£ backwards - I don't desperately need a lens except in rare circumstances, so I'll go for a potentially restrictive prime which will be less "useful" than a zoom. But I also don't really want to buy twice and I'd rather get good quality optics first time around.

Ummm... not really any further forward!!
 
pjm1 said:
Thanks guys - that's helpful advice. The thing which has put me off getting a zoom is (1) the cost and (2) the prospect of it being weaker/softer/slower at full zoom. Most of my photography is with primes (I have a 24-70 f/2.8 walkaround and I can't honestly remember the last time it was attached to the camera!) so I'm very used to framing with my feet. The main use of any long tele would be my kids at sports day (when I wanted it recently) and potentially up on the mountains for wildlife (but depending on what other non-photography kit I'm taking)... it's really just an occasional lens. So any more than £350 as a starting point is going to be hard to justify, whereas starting with a lower cost 300mm and then adding a TC if I start to want more zoom is kinda attractive, even if the end price will nudge up towards £500 for the whole combo.

My only concern is I'm going about this a bit $rs£ backwards - I don't desperately need a lens except in rare circumstances, so I'll go for a potentially restrictive prime which will be less "useful" than a zoom. But I also don't really want to buy twice and I'd rather get good quality optics first time around.

Ummm... not really any further forward!!
Click to expand...

For the price I think it's a no brainer, providing it's the AFS one and not the AFD. I have owned three of these lenses and the AFS one has a close focus distance of something like 1.5meters, which maybe handy for you. IQ wise it's hard to beat and as mentioned by Rob and with the 1.4TC attached, there's little, if any degrading of IQ and AFS speed.

I found it a great combo on the D750 including with the Mk2 TC, I just sold it as it was a little heavy for me and I needed the wonga to buy a D810.
 
Swanseajack said:
For the price I think it's a no brainer, providing it's the AFS one and not the AFD. I have owned three of these lenses and the AFS one has a close focus distance of something like 1.5meters, which maybe handy for you. IQ wise it's hard to beat and as mentioned by Rob and with the 1.4TC attached, there's little, if any degrading of IQ and AFS speed.

I found it a great combo on the D750 including with the Mk2 TC, I just sold it as it was a little heavy for me and I needed the wonga to buy a D810.
Click to expand...

Thanks Simon - just as well your advice was positive as it's arriving tomorrow via DPD :)

No TC yet - I'll see how it pans out as is first. My youngest has a dancing display tomorrow evening so I'll give it a whirl there (although that might require me owning up to having a new lens to Mrs) and then a shoot in the evening at a midnight marathon... nothing like testing out its low light capability early on, eh?!

Edited to add, yes it's the AF-S but not the new PF / VR version. Still, a bloody good price I reckon.
 
Well folks I could be selling off my Nikon stuff. As fed up lugging it about. This going be the final time

What should I get for

D750 with 24-85 kit lens
Nikon 50mm 1.8g
Nikon 70-200 VRii 2.8

All mint and box. I would of preferred have them collected as Post Office is a trek now local close down.

I've had a offer from a few online places sometime this can be easier to save on postage I suppose
 
rookies said:
Well folks I could be selling off my Nikon stuff. As fed up lugging it about. This going be the final time

What should I get for

D750 with 24-85 kit lens
Nikon 50mm 1.8g
Nikon 70-200 VRii 2.8

All mint and box. I would of preferred have them collected as Post Office is a trek now local close down.

I've had a offer from a few online places sometime this can be easier to save on postage I suppose
Click to expand...
Sorry to hear, costly way to decide you don't like lugging a DSLR around :( Are you getting something else or giving it up altogether?
 
Well going mirror less for now to see how it goes.

Did though about giving up and just getting a small compact
 
rookies said:
Well going mirror less for now to see how it goes.

Did though about giving up and just getting a small compact
Click to expand...
But you did that and weren't happy so why try it again?
 
Sony A7r2 is a totally different camera I believe. Just got learn clean sensor lol.
 
rookies said:
Sony A7r2 is a totally different camera I believe. Just got learn clean sensor lol.
Click to expand...
Can't help but think you're going around in circles but your choice and your money ;)
 
snerkler said:
Can't help but think you're going around in circles but your choice and your money ;)
Click to expand...

You thinking I'll regret it and come back again [emoji3]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top