Next lens selection

playtothebeat

I walk away for a few hours and all of a sudden a war has broken out haha
I appreciate all the advice thus far. Truly very helpful. Yes I'm somewhat of a novice (have been shooting for about 2 years, but not nearly as much as I'd like to).
I wish I had a more "defined" style like many people do. But truthfully, I like to take photos of my son and some landscaping. I'm hoping that once/if my son starts playing sports, I'll be able to capture it in quality. That's what prompted the question to begin with.
I've done enough research and have used FX enough to know the main differences. I do wish I had an FX for low light situations. But it's not a must at this point.

I mounted the 55-300 on the camera again today to see how I'll like it this time around, or at least to see what my truly necessary zoom range really is

avrflr

WestEndFoto, thanks for the welcome. Playtothebeat, I think you have a condition I am familiar with: non-specific gear acquisition syndrome. I think you have time to take photos with what you've got before junior is ready to score the game-winning touchdown. He may prefer the theater...

spraynpray

Just make sure you have tried equivalent FX and DX cameras (D750 and D7200) for your shots, and compare the difference in IQ and price before becoming an FX fanboy. You will be surprised how close they are now and how much difference there is in price, size and weight. Those last three things all get old pretty quickly.

When you are photographing your kid, if you aren't careful you can easily miss moments due to the wrong lens being on the camera hence my recommendation of a super zoom. For when you have low light, a fast prime or two maybe, but these days the Hi ISO is so good you can just turn on auto ISO and carry on. You may be over thinking this and we are notorious for spreading gear acquisition syndrome on this forum.

sevencrossing

I've done enough research and have used FX enough to know the main differences. I do wish I had an FX for low light situations. But it's not a must at this point.

My advice buy
buy Dx zooms for Dx cameras
If at some future date you move to FX sell you Dx zooms and get the best FX glass you can afford
With primes, this is less of a conundrum, as most primes are FX in any case
only you know what range of zoom you need. We all have different styles

tcole1983

Terrible advice in this thread so far:
1. OP says he shoots landscapes and his toddler, everyone says "you need a 300mm superzoom with horrible iq so you can shoot sports". OP says he already has one and only used it once. Everyone agrees "you need more reach!".
2. Somebody actually said you don't gain anything for landscapes by going to fx. OMFG, I can't even.
3. Everyone agrees fx is pointless, and make sure you look at the pictures of plants in broad daylight because that proves it.
Thanks for the laughs. If the op ever buys a d750 he will soon figure out for himself what it can do.

Wow...nice first post.

First what lens at 300 mm would you suggest does better? Or to shoot sports? Of course if money is no option why not just grab the 300 F2.8? Might as well try with what he already has before he dumps money into some other lens and none that are affordable will offer more reach than what he owns.

DX can shoot landscape just fine...again use what he has or there are options to get some higher quality glass which we suggested.

He has the tools and could probably do with learning what he has and upgrading once the OP really decides what they need and what his current equipment is lacking. Just saying the kit lenses stink and buying random expensive gear only wastes money...especially if he has two lenses already sitting around collecting dust. There are of course lots of options and one size doesn't fit all.

NSXTypeR

The lenses you were interested in covers the ranges of the lenses you own now. Unless you're intending on covering more overlap to avoid swapping lenses too frequently, what was the purpose of your lens purchase?

I would personally buy other lenses instead, say maybe a macro or a super wide, depending on your interests. Maybe a wide prime, say a Sigma 18-35mm 1.8.

I guess I don't feel like the 18-55 or 55-300 produce too great of a result. Maybe it's because I've become spoiled with the quality of the 50/1.8, but should give the other two a shot again..

I think moving from one kit lens to a slightly higher spec kit zoom lens isn't going to help you too much in terms of image quality.

I know you said you were taking photos of your kids running around, but what sorts of conditions were you shooting in? Was it particularly dark, or perhaps was it inside a gym?

It's possible that you were using the lenses in conditions that weren't quite suited for their use.

retread

I am not in too much a different situation. I shoot with a D5100. I plan to upgrade to FX but will also shoot DX along side of it.

I shoot grandkids sports, wildlife, high school events and family mostly.

I just acquired the Tokina 11-20 and am very pleased with it. My standard carry lens kit has become the 11-20, 24-70, and 70-200 all f2.8. The gap between 20mm DX and the 24mm FX (35mm DX equivalent) can be covered by the 18-55 kit lens if I find I can not cover it by zooming with my feet.

For birds I use a 2X extender. Yes they say it degrades the image but when I can see the veins in a birds feathers what more do I need?

I can also use some old film prime lenses from film days but haven't used them much since I got the newer lenses. They served me well but just slowed me down as they do not auto focus and the exposure is by looking at the screen and changing accordingly. I enjoy that challenge but missed shots when light changed rapidly.

heartyfisher

Terrible advice in this thread so far:
1. OP says he shoots landscapes and his toddler, everyone says "you need a 300mm superzoom with horrible iq so you can shoot sports". OP says he already has one and only used it once. Everyone agrees "you need more reach!".
2. Somebody actually said you don't gain anything for landscapes by going to fx. OMFG, I can't even.
3. Everyone agrees fx is pointless, and make sure you look at the pictures of plants in broad daylight because that proves it.
Thanks for the laughs. If the op ever buys a d750 he will soon figure out for himself what it can do.

Wow...nice first post.

LOL! actually I think its a "terrible" first post .. out of the first dozen or so posts the first few advices to get the 16-80, 1 advises the 18-300, then several advises the 18-140 .. followed by a bunch of discussion to clarify that the 18-300 is not an FX lense .. (in stereo!) .. ( I then stopped rereading the posts .. ).. I dont think "everyone" was saying anything like what you assert that "everyone" was saying .. but I am sure OP sees that, he seems a sensible fellow though he does give the forum "gurus" a "terrible" dilemma.. I think we still don't have a solution for Mr OP :-)

BTW welcome to NR forum :-)

BVS

Terrible advice in this thread so far:

So, what would you recommend then? Remember, OP's budget is around $1,000.

WestEndFoto

Terrible advice in this thread so far:

So, what would you recommend then? Remember, OP's budget is around $1,000.

This is one of the best questions in this thread. Anybody that has a complaint should be prepared to offer a solution. If you cannot offer a solution, you probably do not have a valid complaint. Or, you are really just complaining about the weather.

heartyfisher

I have been thinking on this one .. the things I considered is as follows
1) OP Loves the 50mm 1.8 on DX
2) OP doesnt like his 18-55 at all ...
3) OP has a 55-300 and doesn't like it

So it seem like the the OP priority is good IQ and maybe large aperture (can you tell me if it is the Large aperture you like?)

So we are looking for something that complements his 50mm F1.8 Prime with High IQ and more reach on DX bodies...

The options as I see it are as follows
1) a long prime with fast AF at about 200mm - well that doesnt exits :-) I guess it does but its $6000 :-)
2) the 70-200 F4 VR this seems to be perfect for your requirements and if you wait for refurbished It could be within your budget.
3) the 70-200 F2.8 VC Tamron - This also seems like it would suit your needs well. Also a slight stretch in budget but I think its worth it for IQ.
4) the 150-600 F4.5-6.3 Tamron - Huge range and size .. again a small stretch in budget but fairly good IQ.
5) save up for the 300 F4 PF
6) Save up for the 80-400 F4.5-5.6

7) change brands to Pentax .. they have a 50-135 F2.8 that goes well with a Pro body K3-m2 a perfect lense for you and if you add a Tele-converter gets you the reach you need. darn sharp too .. :-) OR go FX and get the Tamron 70-200 F2.8.
\:D/ Actually if you can find a Sigma 50-150 F2.8 OS that would be perfect for you !! its no longer in production but its probably the best DX zoom ! or if you dont mind not having vibration reduction the older 50-150 F2.8 sigma is nice and small...

BVS

Potentially relevant quote from Bob Vishneski over at Photography Life in the Summary of this article:

https://photographylife.com/the-mirrorless-hype

"If I were starting over today, I would be very tempted to buy a D7200, leave the new 16-80mm 2.8-4.0 lens attached to it 90% of the time, rely on a 70-200mm f/4 as my next go-to lens, and opt for a few 1.8G primes, a Tokina 11-20mm, and a new 300mm f/4. I might add a 1.4 T/C for wildlife, a Tamron 90mm for macro, and a Nikon 10.5 fisheye for fun."

One thing still unknown is how long it'll be before OP's son starts playing sports. If it's going to be a few years it may be prudent to just keep saving and see what new lenses are available a few years from now.

playtothebeat

Thanks again for keeping the dialogue going. Really appreciate all the input here.

This isn't a decision I have to make today by any means. I'm quite patient and don't need to execute on this today or tomorrow. I put my camera down for a few months (flood in the house sort of threw our life upside down..), and I think getting back into it a couple of weeks ago made me anxious and eager to get some new gear. One of the reasons I stopped shooting for a couple of months is that my SB700 speedlight broke, and since prior to that point most of my photography was inside our house, I didn't take out the camera a whole lot until I replaced it. Shooting inside may actually be one of the reasons why I wasn't overly fond of the 18-55 kit lens, and why I loved the 50 1.8 so much.

I shot a good amount with the 55-300 this weekend to see how I like the reach. It worked ok for what I was doing (sunny day at the beach). It was great to have the zoom reach to be able to take photos of my son and nieces without being in their face while they were playing in and near the water, running around, etc. I definitely want the reach just for that, sports or not, although I don't need to go all the way to 300 by any means. The pictures turned out ok by my standards, but can be much better although that might have to do with my rustiness of not using the camera for a few months and not having the correct settings.

I like the suggestion of a 70-200 f4 lens. I spent a lot of time reading about it today, and perhaps i'll rent it and try it out for a weekend in the near future. Seems like it might work really well for my needs. Even though I do love the bokeh I get with a larger aperture, the 2.8 is out of my price range, at least for the near term (although as I mentioned, I don't have to execute right away).

Perhaps that's the best thing to do - pair that lens with my 50 1.8, and then get a wide angle as well to have most of the focal range covered. I'm not overly decisive, am I..?

tcole1983

Lenses all have unique bokeh. My 300 f4 has the best out of any of my lenses. It does sound like you have a plan though. One thought is if you are shooting your kids sports does bokeh matter? It doesn't have to be artsy fartsy for family memory shots. However I think the 70-200 f4 would muster good bokeh just fine....You might be surprised.

heartyfisher

Looks like we are narrowing it down a bit more ! lets revise the options

The options as I see it are as follows
1) a long prime with fast AF at about 200mm - well that doesnt exits I guess it does but its $6000
2) the 70-200 F4 VR this seems to be perfect for your requirements and if you wait for refurbished It could be within your budget.
3) the 70-200 F2.8 VC Tamron - This also seems like it would suit your needs well. Also a slight stretch in budget but I think its worth it for IQ.
4) the 150-600 F4.5-6.3 Tamron - Huge range and size .. again a small stretch in budget but fairly good IQ.
5) save up for the 300 F4 PF
6) Save up for the 80-400 F4.5-5.6


7) change brands to Pentax .. they have a 50-135 F2.8 that goes well with a Pro body K3-m2 a perfect lense for you and if you add a Tele-converter gets you the reach you need. darn sharp too .. OR go FX and get the Tamron 70-200 F2.8.
Actually if you can find a Sigma 50-150 F2.8 OS that would be perfect for you !! its no longer in production but its probably the best DX zoom ! or if you dont mind not having vibration reduction the older 50-150 F2.8 sigma is nice and small... -

Note : There is the Tokina 50-135 F2.8 and the sigma 50-150 F2.8 which you can use instead of your 50mm
There is also a Tokina 70-200 F4 that looks reasonable.

http://www.wexphotographic.com/?/dlovegrove/reviews/pentax-50-135mm-lens-review.html
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/277-tokina-af-50-135mm-f28-at-x-pro-dx-test-report--review
http://www.photozone.de/reviews/322-sigma-af-50-150mm-f28-ex-hsm-dc-nikon-mount-review--test-report
http://www.lenstip.com/414.1-Lens_review-Tokina_AT-X_PRO_FX_SD_70-200_f_4_VCM-S_Introduction.html

manhattanboy

OP:
The 50 1.8 that you shoot with is a good lens and I used to use it a lot when I first started out too. I gave away my 55-300 and my 70-300 sits gathering dust, so I get where you are coming from with crappy zoom IQ.

While you are right that you want to buy good glass, it is unfortunately really expensive. My suggestion to you is to buy a refurb 7100 and save some more (for things like a 85 1.8). Why? Because you never use your 55-300 zoom as you claim its too big; well nearly every good lens is going to be a hell of a lot bigger and heavier than the 55-300!!!!!

Your 5100 is old, with a poor AF and lower MP count. The 7100 is cheap right now (~$700 if you look closely) and with the 1.3x crop mode turns your 50mm (really 75mm on DX) into a ~100mm 1.8 lens on DX. You can do the same for an 85mm prime and turn it into a ~170mm on DX in crop mode or go wider with the 35 1.8 if you really need indoor abilities. The improved AF and shooting speed of the 7100 will get you ready for sports, and after you are ready to sell your kidneys, you can start buying real telephotos to get even better pics.

That's my 2 cents. Take it for what its worth.

The 300 PF is a nice lens and I use it frequently although I still feel the old one is better in IQ and focus consistency...its just a 100 times larger than the PF so I never use it anymore. The 70-200f4 is a really nice and I am shooting it on the 810 currently. You can't go wrong with any of those lenses, but it may be more than you need for casual photos.

sevencrossing

Perhaps that's the best thing to do - pair that lens with my 50 1.8, and then get a wide angle as well to have most of the focal range covered. I'm not overly decisive, am I..?

The only Nikon DX wideangle prime is the AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G if you switch to FX later on just part exchange it for FX wide angle. The 70 -200 4 gets very reviews. If at a later date, you feel you need f 2.8 just part exchange it . Buy what you need today not what you think you might need tomorrow
Nikon glass holds its value better than cameras

tcole1983

Lol you share a little more info each time. Buy another flash, use what you have for lenses and get a d7100 might be a good option. For $1000 you can get new flash + body. You can gain either way with lenses or body. Body would give better ISO, dynamic range and focus speed/accuracy. Lenses would get better iq, focus speed. I am not super familiar with the long lens you have but the 18-55 vr is decent. I kept mine...I say give that one a whirl.

playtothebeat

Manhattanboy: maybe I misunderstood you, but I thought the 50 is equivalent to ~75 on a DX (your post implies it's 100).

Tcole: replaced my SB700 a month or so ago already . I've used the 7100 and its 7000 predecessor a lot actually (borrowed from friends and family members) and definitely like it a lot. That might very well be a good way for me to go!

BVS

I've used the 7100 and its 7000 predecessor a lot actually (borrowed from friends and family members) and definitely like it a lot. That might very well be a good way for me to go!

If you're going to upgrade you body I think it might be better to just spend $300 more and get a refurb D7200. It's got the AF system from the D750 and triple the buffer of the D7100, which will be important for sports/action shots. It also has an even better sensor and WiFi/NFC.

Unless you only shoot JPEG, the buffer on the D7100 may prove to be too limiting. At best, shooting 12 bit Raw only, with all the auto-corrections turned off, you'll get about 7 continuous shots before the buffer fills. Switch to 14 bit, or Raw + JPG, or turn corrections on and it'll be even less.

manhattanboy

Manhattanboy: maybe I misunderstood you, but I thought the 50 is equivalent to ~75 on a DX (your post implies it's 100).

Tcole: replaced my SB700 a month or so ago already . I've used the 7100 and its 7000 predecessor a lot actually (borrowed from friends and family members) and definitely like it a lot. That might very well be a good way for me to go!

The 7100 is the first Nikon DX camera to have a built in 1.3x crop mode effectively leading to a double the focal length multiplier for any given lens. Its the reason why I leave the 300 PF on that camera as I can switch the mode to 1.3x for ~600mm equivalent shooting when needed. The fancier FX bodies like the 800/810 can do the same thing (giving the true lens focal length and a 1.5x DX focal length), but the 7100 and the 7200 are the only DX bodies of Nikon that have an additional crop mode. An additional benefit of the crop mode is also a slight increase in the fps shooting rate (which helps).

Regarding the 7200 over the 7100, read the review of the 7200 here:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/cameras/current-nikon-dslr-reviews/nikon-d7200-camera-review.html
Its no doubt a better camera than the 7100, but then the 810 is better than both of them
The point is, you must decide how much money to spend for what you get in return. I think it would help a lot to try to shoot some sports at least once with your current camera and lens (or with a borrowed 7100 to decide if it is good enough), as that will help you decide what is limiting in your style of shooting. As you primarily don't shoot sports, the extra buffer increase and minor ISO improvements of the 7200 may be of little benefit to you to justify the added expense, but that is ultimately for you to decide.

BVS

As you primarily don't shoot sports, the extra buffer increase and minor ISO improvements of the 7200 may be of little benefit to you to justify the added expense, but that is ultimately for you to decide.

I think shooting a toddler running around may be even tougher than shooting sports!