Home Forums Gear Photography Camera and Lens Question

I have a Nikon D50 that I have had a lot of fun with. I have been thinking of getting a Nikon D90 and a new lens.

What advantage will the D90 give me over the D50?

Second, what lens would you suggest. I like to shoot wildlife and scenery. I have a good Wide Angle....I would love to have a 28-500 but I dont' guess that is possible.

I have a Quantery 70-300 lens that I bought back when I had a Nikon N60, my problem with the Quantery is that a lot of my shots are out of focus. I don't notice on the camera LCD but when I get back to my computer it is a useless picture.

Any help or suggestions will be appreciated.

I'm limited on time right now but a couple thoughts:

worry more over the glass than the body. bodies are disposable, lenses are forever.

-good lenses=good pics. and good lenses cost money, usually lots of it. Plan on $1,000-$1,500 per lens for top of the line. There are a few bargains in the $500 range, but not many.

-if you're getting a zoom, try to keep it at or under 3x zoom (24-70, 70-200, 100-300, etc. beyond that (20-500), only the middle half is usable.

-constant aperture rules (24-70 f2.8 is way better than 24-100 f3.5-5.6)

more later, if requested.

Yes, please elaborate when you have a chance. I would be particularly interested in your thoughts on a zoom with a top end in the 300-500 range. I do want great picture quality. Thanks for responding!

please clarify a budget, if you will.

Prefer less than 500...but what would you suggest? Will it take 1000 or 1500 to get a good quality lens. Cheap ones definitely are not getting it done. Are used lenses a viable option?

what is your "good wide angle" lens specifically?

if I'm reading this correctly, you're interesting more in wildlife than landscapes ?

Tokina 11-16

Tokina 11-16

more tomorrow.

I agree with Utah, spend the money on better lenses. The body doesnt matter really. If I were you I would sell off what you have and start fresh. To me a good wide angle lens was the Zeiss Distagon 21mm that I picked up. Very sharp and the colors are amazing. Primes will give you better shots but of course they are limited by the focal length.

You can keep buying cheaper lenses and not be happy with your shots or save up for abit longer and buy a higher end lens and be happy with what you get once and for all.

so the 21 is working out, eh?

After the ZA 85, I have my eye on the 24 f1.2 due out next week...

I think primes are beyond the scope of the current conversation but the idea it correct. it's my intention tomorrow to research a bit and opine on zoom options with his current body.

When I was looking for a longer lens and not spend $5G, I was considering the Sigma 150-500, Tamron 200-500, Nikon 80-400 and the Nikon 300 f/4. I went with the Nikon 300mm and later got a 1.4TC. Reports and tests were that the Nikon had great IQ, and still better than the Tamron and Sigma even with the TC. The Sigma has image stabilization, the Tamron and Nikon 300 do not (which would be a moot point if you use a tripod).

Don't think you will find much worthy for less than 500 bucks. For around 500 there is the Nikon 70-300 and Tamron 70-300. A zoom may suit your uses better than a prime since your other lens is short. I suspect that sharpness may fall off as you approach 300mm with the 70-300s.
You might gleen the reviews here for lens choices:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/index.php
http://www.photozone.de/reviews
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php

Matt will probably come up with a good option for you.

more thoughts:

-do spend some time at photozone.de reading lens reviews

-are you wedded to the Nikon platform at this point? you're not financially into your current set-up much at all at this point, but will be after buying 1-2 expensive lenses. Do you like the Nikon bodies well enough to upgrade? do you like their lens selection well enough that you'll still be happy with the platform 7 years from now?

-does the Tokina 11-16 autofocus on the D50 ?

-while you can definitely improve upon the D50 body, you need a medium-term lens plan before you buy a new body. >>>>


>>>> I'd be looking at (say)*:

-the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (at $400-ish, this is a super lens on an APS-C body)
-the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR ($1500-ish)
-the Nikon 300 f4 + TC ($1500-ish)

*substitute Canon or Sony equivalents above if you jump ship on the Nikon.

that kit would cover you nicely and fit in a backpack with the body of your choice. later, you could upgrade bodies and add some specialized primes.

FWIW, with the exception of the Tamron 17-50 (I've owned 4 of them, on 3 different bodies) I've had zero, zip, zilch, nada luck with Sigma / Tamron / Tokina zooms. I've also had exactly one good prime from this trio (a Sigma 300 f2.8 +TC)

Now Zeiss lenses, that's a whole 'nother matter....


Finally, if you make the quantum leap to a Full Frame body, you're going to have to up the game on the lenses considerably, especially the zooms, as the FF sensor will reveal flaws in the glass that were previously invisible to the APS-C sensor.

Love'in the 21 alot.

I agree primes are not the answer for him given his type of shooting. Just saying they are generally better than the zooms. I have one zoom in my bag and love it too, the newer 70-200 F2.8 IS.

All I can say it look carefully and read reviews on the lens before buying...save you alot of money in the long run. Spend extra money on a lens far before a new body.

I like the Nikon platform as much as I have used it I guess. I have had Nikon's for about 10 years now and I know the layout on them. I can't really say that I know how to USE them as I have always used them in the Auto Focus mode and pretty much let the camera do its thing.

The Nikon does autofocus with the Tokina.
I did have a 28-300 Tamron at one point in the last year and it was horrible.....would not focus at the 300 point.

What is your thought on going with older manual focus lenses? I was reading Ken Rockwell's page and he suggests a bunch of different high quality older manual focus lenses.

Would you suggest jumping ship from Nikon? What would the advantage be?

I really do appreciate your help and advice.

---there are a number of awesome older MF lenses out there, mostly under 150mm. The old Minolta Rokkor lenses are readily adaptable and much sought after. Ditto the old Contax N (Ziess), Zeiss ZM, and the odd Leica.
You'll need to get a different focusing screen installed and learn how to use it. These lenses can be great for landscapes and stills but are of limited use for street life shots and nearly useless for wildlife.

--in terms of bodies (again) the caveat is to choose the lens group first: different brands have their pluses and minuses.

Sony (and Pentax) have in-body image stabilization so all lenses are defacto IS, whereas with Canon and Nikon you have to buy each lens in IS separately (adds about $150-200/lens, IIRC)

-Sony also has the largest FF sensor resolution (24MP) and (many believe) the best color rendition --they're popular with landscapers and art reproduction photogs. There is no free lunch though, and that big sensor has a lot of noise at higher ISO (not great for action or low light shots)

-Canon has by far the largest lens selection and especially shines in specialty short lenses (tilts, etc) as well as pretty much owning the market on ultra telephoto primes (400mm up to 1200mm). their upper end cameras are very good in low light / high ISO and dominate sports and long range wildlife markets. my experience with their consumer cameras (I currently own a 40D) is ho-hum and their color rendition leaves something to be desired (people who have to replicate colors exactly, like museum and art gallery catalogers tend to favor Sony or Leica).

-Nikon probably has the best auto focus / focus tracking out there for someone who knows how to use it. Sony used to make all their sensors (though this is changing now) and they have models that are good at high resolution and high ISO (but not both). They've made some inroads into Canon's mid range market share, mostly with wildlife guys but they don't have the lens selection of the Canon line yet - and likely won't.


I find the Sony body the most ergonomic and intuitive followed by Nikon then Canon.

You really should invest a full day and spent it at a good camera shop handling a number of bodies of differing brands and price points to get a feel for what's out there.

I don't have any camera shops anywhere close to me. I would have to travel about 3 hours to get to one.

I am a Real Estate Broker by trade. I have the wide angle Tokina for real estate mainly. I guess I have used my camera more over the last couple of years for that but I want to take more shots of wildlife and landscapes, waterfalls, rock formations and such.

If you were going to pick a body for the above uses, which would you pick? If you don't think the Nikon is a good choice, I can always sell the Tokina on ebay. It is my only "expensive" lens.

I do want a body that is sturdy and feels sturdy. I would not be happy with a camera that did not feel sturdy, if that makes any sense.

Light sensitivity is important to me also. I get pretty upset when I have a nice shot of a deer in the woods and my camera cannot get the shot because my cheaper zooms want more light.

1) a six-hour round trip is well worth the effort & expense to handle a bunch of cameras in person (!)

2) I always have to laugh when someone (inevitably) says they want to shoot "wildlife and landscapes" with the same camera (grin). Below the $4,000 for body-only price range, this is akin to saying "I want a truck with a 12,000# towing capacity that gets 50+ MPG"
As a rule of thumb, a full-frame, high resolution (20-25MP) + wide lens is going to shine for landscapes and an APS-C crop (12-15 MP) + long lens is going to shine for wildlife.

to be sure, some cameras can do a good job at both with the right lens but most are better at one or the other.


I'm assuming you're not looking at top-of-the line Canon 1DIII ($7,000), Nikon D3 & D3X ($4,000 each) ?

Are you in the market of the $2,000-$2,500 Sony A900, Nikonn D700 / D7000 , or Canon 5D II ?

If not, I'd be comparing the APS-C, $800-$1000 Canon 40D / 50D , Nikon D90, or Sony A700.

I think we need to pick one of those three price tiers before we go any further....

I would love to one day be in the top tier but for the forseeable future I am in the lower tier.

there actually is a lower tier than what I listed, but there's really not much point in going there....


the Nikon D90 (12MP), Canon 40D (10MP), Canon 50D (15MP), and Sony A700 (12MP) are all in that $800-$1,200 range new. (I own the 40D and A700 as back-ups and have used the D90)

-the A700 will have in-body image stabilization
-the 40D gets you into Canon's lens lineup
-the Nikon probably has the best focus tracking of the four
-the Sony & Nikon have (pretty much exactly) the same Sony sensor
-the 50D's 15MP is approaching the limit noise-wise, of how many MP can be crammed onto an APS-C sensor.

I'd go to this store of yours and handle the A700, D90, and 40D.

I'd also keep my eye out for a used Canon 5D I -- there are still a few that haven't been snapped up. Ditto used 40Ds and D90s as people move "up" to the 5DII,50D and D7000.

The D50 body is more than adequate for you. I have a D40 and a D80 and usually carry the 40 due to its ergonomics. The 40 and 50 have fewer pixels on the sensor, but the larger pixels on the same chip provide better low light performance. www.kenrockwell.com is an excellent source for you to review and I would also call Joel at Cameraland for advice. My largert lens is the Nikon 18-200 an it performs very well. Pair it with the excellent 35mm 1.4 and they can handle most everyday chores. I would save for a while and get a better long lens if you find that the 200 will not work for you.

I think the lens that might work best for your situation would be the Canon 100-400L for about $1600. This would require a change to Canon, but you could get an EOS XSi (12MP crop sensor, similar to Nikon D90) and 18-55 kit lens for less than 700. You could sell the Nikon stuff to help cover costs.

Is $2300 beyond the budget?

must've scared him away, eh Doug ?

Not even Halloween yet

I was reading this "Why so many megapixels?" http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/947962/0
Guess my D90 will only be good for postcards...
...until I get this new Canon Sensor
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1008/10083101canonlargestsensor.asp

you're just jealous you're not dealing with 1.0 terabite 25MP TIFF files !


meanwhile, back in the real world: +MP = +noise. ever tried to de-noisify a MFDB file?

I'll believe 30+ MP DLSR files when I see it.....

I am still here. I was actually in DC yesterday to drop my Girlfriend off at the airport. I tried to find a camera store in that town and it drove me crazy! It appears that Ritz closed a ton of stores as the ones I was going to were out of business.

I never did get to handle any cameras.

UtahLefty, from the sounds of your posts, you are partial to the canon but you currently own Nikon also? If you had to choose, which would you choose? I do like auto focus just for the simplicity and speed.

This topic could go on for days... but I'll chip in with telling you to ignore any bastid who tells you to switch to Cannon. Sacrilege!

I had a D90 for years as my main camera. I've since way upgraded and son has the D90. It's still kicking right along.

Correct me if I'm wrong (in a hurry) but it sounds like you're happy with the wide angle lens and are looking for a good long lens for wildlife.

Unfortunately %500 is a bit cheap for any decent long lens unless you find a smokin' used deal.

Frankly, my best advice would be to save your sheckels and invest in something like a D300 body. I love mine. All my professional shooting (for my magazine stories) is done with this body. I also highly recommend, as an "affordable" big lens, the Sigma AF APO DG HSM 150-500 mm (225-750 effective, with D300 crop factor) F 5-6.3 OS (Optically Stabilized). Fantastic lens! You wouldn't believe what I'm able to shoot handheld with it. Simply amazing from lenses just a few years ago.

Benelli,

Actually my primary camera is a 25MP Sony A900 and by backup is a 12MP Sony A700. I was attempting to avoid being a brand slut and give you the pros and cons of the brands I've used as I see them.

I like the in-body IS of the Sony, the user interface is stellar, and the FF A900 fits my shooting style well. I do indeed have a Canon 40D, but mostly it's the one my kids drag around (grin)

I'm partial to Zeiss lenses - I have a ZA 85 1.4 , ZA 24-70 2.8, Sony G 70-200 2.8, and Sigma 300 2.8. They're releasing a ZA 24 2.0 next month I've got my eye on - unfortunately all these lenses run $1500 to $3500 each, so getting 1-2 a year is a stretch.

BenelliHunter,
You might checkout what the birders think of the Sigma
http://www.birdforum.net/reviews/showproduct.php/product/271/cat/14/limit/recent/date/1067115672
http://www.birdforum.net/forumdisplay.php?f=454
http://www.michaelfurtman.com/sigma150_500.htm
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=358

Not going to be much help here but thought I would chime in. My wife is running a Canon right now that we are very happy with. It was a quantum step up for us. I've been a film guy with Nikon since the 60's. One issue we discovered with my wife's unit is that filter quality can really bite one with a big lens. I spent a fair number of $$$ buying some filters for her Canon 100-400 mm. We hit the field for the weekend, thought we had some world class wildlife shots, and the crisp images we had come to expect were gone. We cleaned everything, tried again, and totally wasted another weekend.

Finally in frustration, I went out with the tripod, took some shots of distant signs (with and without filters) that were really a stretch for the lens, and by zooming in on the downloaded images, realized that those filters were costing us the fine edges and minute detail.

Right now, she's running with no filters, which has me quaking in my boots, but the images are crisp again. We will get some filters, but are going to hold off until we can get to a real city and do some instore trials before buying.

I guess this is a long thesis to just say... If one is not happy with a lens, do some comparison shots with and without your filters. One may find his lens is better than he thinks, and the fault is in that last layer of glass up front.

Good luck in your quest,

sweat it not, my friend. minor scratches will never show up in an image and if you hit it hard enough to crack the front element, it's gonna get cracked whether there's a filter on it or not.

this picture:



was taken with this lens:




and these pictures:





were taken with this lens:





multiple examples in this article

and more here

Those are significant scratches. Wouldn't want to point that toward the sun at all.

I was in a aerial photo outfit in the Navy using cameras that had rolls of film 12 inches wide. One batch of shots had to be redone because each had a slightly yellow hue. Turns out there was a yellow 3 x 5 note card on the belly window of the plane. It was about 6 inches from the lens, and other than the yellow haze, it still did a fair job of resolving the images.

Scratches on the lens can be mitigated by using a lens hood to block stray light and avoiding shooting directly into the sun; in fact, I would take a small scratch on one of my Nikkors over shooting through a budget filter any day of the week.

Lot's of good advice on this thread. My only thought would be: cameras come and go, lenses are forever. I run 1960 vintage Nikkors on my Nikon D1x made in 2003. Also, if you are buying lenses buy the fastest lens (biggest aperture) you can afford. Depth of field control is the key to truly fine photography.

I have a D50,and I think it will do all you could possibly want it to. Of course, if you are having a wet dream about the D90, Then go right ahead and buy one. Like guns, you can never have too many cameras!

A sweet young redheaded thing said to me recently at the zoo; "Yours is what my camera wants to be, when it grows up." I told her I keep telling mine if it eats its veggies, it will grow up to be a D 90.

A couple of Rules of Thumb from the stone ages: Shutter speed at least equal to the maximum focal length of your lens, handheld. That means 1/50 sec. or more for a 50 mm, 1/350 sec. or faster for 300mm. Be aware of the "crop" factor. With a film or full-size sensor lens, the smaller sensor of the D50 and D90 give you an effective 50% enlargenment. 450mm equivalent from a 300 mm lens. I call that a goodness! The smaller sensor uses the center of the lens' coverage circle, which is the sharpest and most highly corrected part of the lens. But, camrea movement is magnified, too.

Brace yourself,camera and lens. Steady on, there!

You will notice I didn't mention megapixels or video. Our little 6mp D50s are capable of 11 X 14 enlargements and 'waaaay beyond in jpeg. Good technique and quality (not necessarily expen$ive) glass will do marvelously. Case in point: the grand little 18-55 mm "kit" lens Nikon supplies with some of its cameras. One heckuva capable lens, IMO! Another one is the Nikon 50 mm f/1.8...75mm equivalent,gives the fabled 85mm f/1.4 a run for its money, inexpen$ive, light, sharp and FAST!

I didn't mention camera brands, either. Canon has about 70% of the market, Nikon ~30, and the others are scrambling for the remaining 10%! They ALL make good machinery! It's all about what their ad departments can talk you into believing.

Myself: I have the 17-55 mm lens, a 10 year old 28-105, and the "Iron Duke", my 25+ year old 70-210 (105-315mm equivalent) D series lens, that is heavy, "slow" and sharp as a tack. Great all-around lens! I recently acquired a 70-300 VR,(Happy birthday to me!) which is becoming my sports, wildlife, air show and race track lens. Perfectly adequate for my needs. Would I like the 80-200mm f/2.8? O heck yes! But; fixed income being what it is, in my dreams! Do I feel underprivilegd, with my "old" lenses? Nope!

But, my shooting buddy just bought him the smaller Sigma 18-200 lens for a "walking around" lens, and it has nearly replaced his 100-400 Siggy "big gun" at the racetrack. It is light, has a great range, decent quality, and best yet, doesn't require the selling of your left reproductive attribute to finance. Hmmmm...that looks like a good travel lens, and I can't borrow his'n. He are a Canon shooter. Hee Hee!

HOLY COW Lefty, that's purely amazing!

When I was in the Air Force, the old camera repair Sergeants told us that when our Graflex lenses got bad chips in them, they filled them with black paint to cut the reflections, and returned them to service.

I talked to a Nikon rep once, and he told me they had mounted a camera with the 50mm f/1.8 on an Indy car during the Memorial Day 500. After the race, the front element was well and truly sandblasted and oily, but still produced respectable images. I couldn't see how that was possible and still don't, but the proof is staring us in the face. Much food for thought.

I guess the arguments re: sharpness with/without filters ir uncleaned lens elements can be relegated to very minor concerns.
No matter what kind of filter/goobers you have on your lens, it will not degrade the image nearly as much as the damage to that lens did.

Thanx.

Subpar filters absolutely can/will/do crush IQ...............

Stick; Absolutely, no doubt about it... but the big question is; "How Much?" as shown in the abused lens post, acceptable sharpness can be achieved under severe circumstances.

I did it on purpose...taking graduation pixes of my granddughter with a Tiffen black softnet filter hung on me lens. I enlarged them to 11 X 14, for entry into our County fair. The photo was a bit "soft" at larger sizes, meaning not "tack sharp", but excellent. (others' opinions, not mine) The main portrait thing was present...EYES sharply focused! She and her parents love the photos.

We agonize over the "correct" lens to produce the sharpest photos, not realizing that NOBODY ever set out to make a "bad" lens. Unless a lens has been truly brutalized, it WILL take sharp photos, if our technique is up to it. For ultimate sharp, go to medium format, or the old-timey giant killer, 4X5.

But, since we are talking real world, and what most of us mere mortals can afford, less obsession with "My lens/camera/etc. is sharper'n yourn, and I got the figgers to prove it!", then believing that throwing money at the problem will solve it, when in actuality, more learning the capabilities of the glass we have and even more important, like in football,"going back to the fundamentals" will provide a lot more satisfaction with our photgraphy, and development of our "eye", which is the main ingredient of good photography. Equipment is only a minor part of this wonderful, magical process called photography.

Don't worry about lens resolution, or megapixels, or gigaframmises,and shoot pictures. The more we shoot, the better we get!