What to Do- to upgrade or not to upgrade

[austriker]

I stopped by your Flickr pages and looked at four pages of images; you actually have some talent and your aesthetics are pretty solid for a young shooter. I see that you have used your dad's 70-300 or whatever without AF on the D40, so you know what that is like. Your situation is tricky,and I am not exactly sure what,specifically, your priorities are. I know you like sports--I saw baseball,youth soccer, and Minnesota Twins photos, and I also saw some pretty decent small-scale landscapes and genre photography.

You need to temper Noyze's advice with somebody else's; he always,always suggests that people get a D90. Every time.:lmao: One thing about the D90 is it offers 80 percent of a pro camera's features,and works with all Nikkor AF lenses, and has an excellent 12MP APS-C sensor. It also hs a pretty good AF system, using either center AF point only, or 11- area or 7-area Wide AF for unpredictable action. But you know, on a budget, the LENS really is a critical aspect for sports shooting, and the Sigma 70-200/2.8 is really the only choice that has a fast enough internal focusing system and the focal length range and f/stop that will make night baseball possible to shoot well. I would totally skip on the 70-300 unless the price is super-low.

With an AF-S Nikkor lens on the D40, the center bracket AF is quite fast. WIth the 300 f/4 AF-S or 70-200 VR, the D40's center AF bracket AF speed is
really quite fast. With any of the "pro" superteles like 200/2 and 300/2.8, the D40's center AF focusing is fast enough for sports shooting if you use it within its limitations. Ideally, you have both fast-focusing lenses with wide apertures, like f/2.8, AND a good body like a D90 or D300 or D3.

WHAT exactly do you mean by sports? Daylight sports in good light could be handled by a used D2x for $900, even using a consumer zoom lens. The $1000 and up Nikon lenses on the D40 will shoot pretty well. Indoor and night sports place a lot of demands on your gear. If you want lenses for sports, I always suggest looking at used lenses from a store/web outlet that has a good return policy. I like to buy used lenses whenever possible.

thanks derrel for the information.. very very very informative! a lot of that info was news to me,so thanks! i really appreciate your comment about having some good athestics and talent for a younger shooter!!

honestly i am still trying to work out my style and what i like the most to shoot...

the 70-300 price is quite low. i found one on craigslist for $85!!

 

[PhotoXopher]

Small world!

I started off with a D40 and loved it as well and when I upgraded I probably should have went right for the D90 to begin with, instead I went D40 - D80 - D200 - D90.

So I do have some experience with other bodies, including the D60 that I also had for a short time.

 

[Derrel]

One thing about "sports lenses"--a large percentage of sports arenas today have a limit on what they describe as "professional photography equipment"; I have read of many,many people all across the USA being denied entry with larger lenses like 80-400 and 70-200/2.8 lenses. NBA arenas seem to be the absolute worst at denying admission to people with equipment that looks professional,and some arenas have a four inch lens length limit,etc. Just something to think about. Perhaps the folks who run the security detail in Minneapolis are cool about amateur photographers; in my book, the common,smallish 70-300 lenses would be let in.

I have shot the D40 a reasonable amount. With good lenses, it performs very well. If you are okay with manual exposure and manual focusing, the D40 can accept almost any Nikon lens ever made,so something to think about. The older 300mm f/4.5 Ai-S is an ED~IF lens with feather-light manual focusing,and is probably the single best lightweight,small, manual focusing lens for sports/action. The focusing system on that lens is very special,and the lens can be had for $300-$350 used,and even in rough condition, the lens is usually very solid optically and mechanically. It was a very expensive lens in the 1980's and 1990's,and is widely available--it focuses very FAST and smoothly on a good,well-maintained sample. It might be a good lens to look for on the used market. It also makes a fabulous macro and field tele--John Shaw used it extensively. It is a special lens.

 

[Agoraphobic]

<-- (Sneaks in quick and whispers; "I honestly wouldn't trade my D90 for a D300 or D700", then shuts the door and runs.)

Maybe not the D300 but certainly for the D700.

I really do love my D90 though, excellent low light capabilities, the AF is good (Shares a similar system with the D80). Also, with a higher MP camera, you could still get HQ crops if maybe you didnt have the reach.

That being said, I'm going to a Football game tonight and bringing along my D90 and a 70-200 f/2.8. I'm kinda curious as to the results I get.

It'll also be the second lens I've rented from lensrentals.com

 

[PhotoXopher]

Looking forward to that thread... Always wondered what that lens would do on a D90.

I'd trade for the D300s, I just love having video ability on demand.

 

[austriker]

Looking forward to that thread... Always wondered what that lens would do on a D90.

I'd trade for the D300s, I just love having video ability on demand.

me too! i suppose i could rent like a sigma 50-150 f/2.8 or nikon 70-200 f/2.8 and see how much i like it on my d40... thats an option i havent looked at. partially because i dont like the idea of paying some money for it and then giving it back lol..

and honestly one of the CONS of hte d90 for me is the video and live-feed screen. it just does not feel like authentic photography (irony there, for its already digital...) for me. also i wish they sold a d90 without the video so it would be cheaper. (like the canon 5d mark ii vs mark i)..

 

[madfresh002]

I agree that lenses are a better investment than an upgraded body. As long as your camera is up to the task for most of what you do, it should be OK until you can truly afford the body that you want/need.

 

[austriker]

so what is better the sigma or tamron?? i am now kind of changing my mind and thinking of maybe getting a 70-200 f/2.8. however i may buy a d80 too if i can find one for under $500... heres the too 'kits' i am looking to upgrade to, which ones do you guys like the best??

option 1: Buy a D90 and a [older] 70-300 f/4-5.6. Costs: $700+$80=About $800 total

option 2: Buy a D80 and a sigma or tamron 70-200mm f/2.8. Costs: $500+800=$1300

option 3: Keep using my d40 and buy a sigma/tamron 70-200 f/2.8. Costs: $800

basically i think option number 2 is out of the questions b/c i want to spend less than $1000. i have college loans to worry about

 

[Derrel]

The Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, the very-latest, newest version (there have been four or five versions, dating back to 1999, according to dPreview) is said to have significantly faster autofocusing than the Tamron 70-200/2.8.

My money is on option #3...buy the Sigma 70-200/2.8 and make sure exactly which model you are getting, and buy it from a discount retailer that has low prices but which can actually deliver--and against my normal policy, I am going to suggest two specific stores, Tri-State Camera or Sigma4Less.

I just think a 70-300 that drops to about f/5 at 200mm,and drops to f/5.6 above 200mm all the way to 300mm is too slow,aperture wise, UNLESS you have a Nikon D700 or D3, where ISO 3,200 and 6,400 are totally viable ISO values. The advantages of the f/2.8 lens are many. f/5.6 is a real style-crimper.

 

[fiveoboy01]

You're very limited on glass. The 70-300 you are looking at(older, non-VR version) frankly will not be very good for sports action. Not so much the slow aperture but the lack of VR, slower focus and lesser IQ will give you disappointing results.

D40/Sigma 70-200 2.8 will *****-slap the D90 with that crummy 70-300 lens that you want. The best body in the world won't get you great pictures with a crappy lens.

So I say option 3, or save a little longer and get a used Nikkor 70-200.

 

[den9]

id go for a used 80-200mm 2.8

 

[austriker]

so like one of these right:

Tamron 70 - 200mm f/2.8 DI LD (IF) Macro, Fast AF Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon AF Mount - USA Warranty

http://www.adorama.com/TM70200DNKAF.html

Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 DG Macro HSM II Auto Focus Telephoto Zoom Lens for Nikon AF-D

http://www.adorama.com/SG70200DNKAF.html

 

[austriker]

id go for a used 80-200mm 2.8

is that one made by nikon for like $1500??

 

[PhotoXopher]

Made by Nikon but more like $700-$800, the 70-200 f/2.8 is the $1800 one.

 

[den9]

yes, u can find one for a good price, its a solid fast and sharp lens.