Need buying advice: Nikon D7200/d5500 for moving horses / animals outside and lightbox macro work?

[iLLucionist]

Spending money on lenses can be from small money to remortgage the house money. Most say it's better to put the money on lenses over the camera body, personally I think its a bit of both.

The tamron 70-300mm usd vc is a fine lens. If you intend on shooting in good light it probably is a better option than a 70-200 f2.8 for the fact that it has a better range and is lighter and of course cheaper. When light levels drop the 70-200 f2.8 come into their own because they let more light in and will have more confident focus.

You asked also about macro. I suggest you look at the sigma 105mm f2.8 OS or the tamron 90mm f2.8 vc. Both are fine macros, with a focal length that means you are not on top of your subject when you are shooting, making it better for scared little bugs and for not casting a shadow on your subject. I am not sure how relevant this is for you using a lightbox, but there probably isn't any relevant reason to spend double on a nikon brand here.

lightroom is great, but even in jpeg, your camera will have settings that allow the high saturation look straight out of camera

I read that the tamron 70-300mm usd vc is not that good for moving sport photography? Do I have other options? It needs to be water proof / resistant btw. I hope you don't mind asking.. this is really new territory for me.

Macro sounds good, I'll check out those lenses.

I wasn't aware that these cameras have so many options to tweak photos. I'm already curious to try one out.

 

[robbins.photo]

Spending money on lenses can be from small money to remortgage the house money. Most say it's better to put the money on lenses over the camera body, personally I think its a bit of both.

The tamron 70-300mm usd vc is a fine lens. If you intend on shooting in good light it probably is a better option than a 70-200 f2.8 for the fact that it has a better range and is lighter and of course cheaper. When light levels drop the 70-200 f2.8 come into their own because they let more light in and will have more confident focus.

You asked also about macro. I suggest you look at the sigma 105mm f2.8 OS or the tamron 90mm f2.8 vc. Both are fine macros, with a focal length that means you are not on top of your subject when you are shooting, making it better for scared little bugs and for not casting a shadow on your subject. I am not sure how relevant this is for you using a lightbox, but there probably isn't any relevant reason to spend double on a nikon brand here.

lightroom is great, but even in jpeg, your camera will have settings that allow the high saturation look straight out of camera

I read that the tamron 70-300mm usd vc is not that good for moving sport photography? Do I have other options? It needs to be water proof / resistant btw. I hope you don't mind asking.. this is really new territory for me.

Macro sounds good, I'll check out those lenses.

I wasn't aware that these cameras have so many options to tweak photos. I'm already curious to try one out.

Not sure where you read that, works great for action/sports photography. AF speed is just as fast as the nikkor or at least close enough that you'd never be able to tell any difference

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

 

[jaomul]

Spending money on lenses can be from small money to remortgage the house money. Most say it's better to put the money on lenses over the camera body, personally I think its a bit of both.

The tamron 70-300mm usd vc is a fine lens. If you intend on shooting in good light it probably is a better option than a 70-200 f2.8 for the fact that it has a better range and is lighter and of course cheaper. When light levels drop the 70-200 f2.8 come into their own because they let more light in and will have more confident focus.

You asked also about macro. I suggest you look at the sigma 105mm f2.8 OS or the tamron 90mm f2.8 vc. Both are fine macros, with a focal length that means you are not on top of your subject when you are shooting, making it better for scared little bugs and for not casting a shadow on your subject. I am not sure how relevant this is for you using a lightbox, but there probably isn't any relevant reason to spend double on a nikon brand here.

lightroom is great, but even in jpeg, your camera will have settings that allow the high saturation look straight out of camera

I read that the tamron 70-300mm usd vc is not that good for moving sport photography? Do I have other options? It needs to be water proof / resistant btw. I hope you don't mind asking.. this is really new territory for me.

Macro sounds good, I'll check out those lenses.

I wasn't aware that these cameras have so many options to tweak photos. I'm already curious to try one out.

The tamron isn't weather resistant, but is quite able to focus fast and do well in good light. Obviously pro spec lenses are in a different league build wise etc

 

[Overread16 4]

OPtech rain-sleeves - all the waterproofing most people will need day to day. Cheap and simple to use and will generally fit any lens. There are more durable covers on the market of course, but with a much higher price so depends a little on the environment you're in.

If its wildlife you could also consider something simple like a throw-over poncho that is waterproof for yourself and the camera at the same time.

 

[iLLucionist]

Spending money on lenses can be from small money to remortgage the house money. Most say it's better to put the money on lenses over the camera body, personally I think its a bit of both.

The tamron 70-300mm usd vc is a fine lens. If you intend on shooting in good light it probably is a better option than a 70-200 f2.8 for the fact that it has a better range and is lighter and of course cheaper. When light levels drop the 70-200 f2.8 come into their own because they let more light in and will have more confident focus.

You asked also about macro. I suggest you look at the sigma 105mm f2.8 OS or the tamron 90mm f2.8 vc. Both are fine macros, with a focal length that means you are not on top of your subject when you are shooting, making it better for scared little bugs and for not casting a shadow on your subject. I am not sure how relevant this is for you using a lightbox, but there probably isn't any relevant reason to spend double on a nikon brand here.

lightroom is great, but even in jpeg, your camera will have settings that allow the high saturation look straight out of camera

I read that the tamron 70-300mm usd vc is not that good for moving sport photography? Do I have other options? It needs to be water proof / resistant btw. I hope you don't mind asking.. this is really new territory for me.

Macro sounds good, I'll check out those lenses.

I wasn't aware that these cameras have so many options to tweak photos. I'm already curious to try one out.

The tamron isn't weather resistant, but is quite able to focus fast and do well in good light. Obviously pro spec lenses are in a different league build wise etc

Is there a comparable lens that IS weather resistant? Comparable as in performance and price-wise?

 

[iLLucionist]

OPtech rain-sleeves - all the waterproofing most people will need day to day. Cheap and simple to use and will generally fit any lens. There are more durable covers on the market of course, but with a much higher price so depends a little on the environment you're in.

If its wildlife you could also consider something simple like a throw-over poncho that is waterproof for yourself and the camera at the same time.

Thanks! Didn't knew that that existed even.

 

[goodguy]

Image quality is very important for me. That's the whole point: crisp and sharp picture of the horse with or without the horseback rider, perhaps with the rest fading to the background. Question: Do I need a fast lens? For this kind of photography?

Well a fast lens will help you blur the background nicely, this is something that a 70-300mm cant do.
70-200mm 2.8 will also let you bring more light on the sensor and that's important in case you shoot in less then ideal lighting condition, you probably will need to shoot 1/500 or faster shutter speed to freeze the horse so fast lens will help with that because you will not have to bump up ISO.

The most important thing to get sharp and crisp shots is skills and experience, all the equipment in the world will not help you if you don't know what you are doing so do your research, learn, shot, learn more and shoot more, in time your pictures will get better and better.
Nikon D7200 is a superb piece of equipment so you can expect with right glass to get amazing results.

 

[iLLucionist]

Thanks for all the input! I can't wait, I'm taking the plunge. I'll try a kit first and then buy additional lenses. I want to check some reviews some more.

What kit is better for me? The one with the 18-140 or the 18-105 AF-S ED VR?

 

[iLLucionist]

Oh, and any tips on carrying bags?

 

[iLLucionist]

So I was thinking:

for what is it more important to buy a separate lens?
70-200mm for moving horses photography, stick with 18-105 for macro / object photography in my lightbox, buy decent macro lens later?

Or 18-140 for moving horse photography, buy proper macro lens straight away?

 

[jaomul]

In your position I'd buy the camera with either the 18-105 or 18-140 and use for a while. Once you have an appreciation for what that camera/lens combo can do, you'll be able to make a more informed decision on what you need. Possibly that kit might be enough.

It's easy to spend lots of money in gear you don't need. Buy a basic setup, add later

Look into electrical macro tubes also, they might be ideal for the macro you need,enabling whatever lens you buy to focus much closer, and they are cheap

 

[goooner]

I agree with Jaomul. I've got the D7200 and with the 18-140 and will be using it for the next 6 or 7 months. The 18-140 has better build quality as well.

 

[iLLucionist]

I agree with Jaomul. I've got the D7200 and with the 18-140 and will be using it for the next 6 or 7 months. The 18-140 has better build quality as well.

Thanks for all the info! Better build quality? Can you give some details?

Is the 18-140 also suitable for some lightbox keyboard photography. I want details in term of keycaps and for instance the nib of a fountain pen. But I do not need to see the plastic fabric.

I read this: Test results: Nikon 18-140mm vs 18-105mm: Nikon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

But if I understand correctly... photographing a keyboard is not REALLY macro photography as in photographing an ant am i right?

 

[goooner]

Well for me (shooting birds), the 140 is better. It has a metal bezel (part that connects to camera), where the 105 is plastic. I think taking photos of keyboards and Fountain pen tips should be ok with the 140, but will much more depend on your lighting. You might need a biggish light box and or umbrellas and a few speed lights. I don't do product photography but I do recommend the Lighting Bible

 

[Overread16 4]

Honestly for what you want your normal lens plus a set of extension tubes is all you will need. Your macro demands are not too extreme so whilst a dedicated macro might be the tool of choice; a regular lens will do much of what you want and extension tubes will cover the rest. A good set of tubes like the Kenko brand are affordable and have the metal contacts that you need to communicate from lens to camera; cheap brand options are out there for a very small amount but they lack the contact pins thus you can't control the lens (eg you've no aperture control).



For the equine photography I would go for the 70-200mm. Ideally what you need is the f2.8 and the longer focal lengths for two reasons:
1) Indoors and with action you will find light lacking. f2.8 is enough to shoot well and still cover horse and rider; any wider (smaller f number) and you make things a lot harder. I've often have my camera at its max ISO and its aperture at f2.8 and still needed more light.

As a tip 1/640sec is the slowest speed for a showjumping horse for sharp results; 1/500 and you'll get hoof/mane/tail blurring but still pleasing on the main body if shot right. Any slower and its too blurry - faster is always ideal if the light allows.

2) Horses are big subjects and if you take photos too close to them you get perspective distortion. This is where parts closer to the lens are enlarged over those further away - those classic "big nose in the camera face" photos are an extreme example. Thus for portraits or full body around 100mm or longer is recommended. Of course if you're doing a shot much further away - like a landscape - then a wider focal length (shorter) can work just as well since you're not close.