Nikon's made a *bunch* of 50mm lenses, which one is yours? Do you have it set to the smallest aperture? What doesn't work?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The more I read, the more undecided...
- Thread starter Osprey
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nikon's made a *bunch* of 50mm lenses, which one is yours? Do you have it set to the smallest aperture? What doesn't work?
Thanks, but from what I can gather it isn't compatible. Mine is an old Nikkor 50mm F2 which I think was later replaced with the F1.8 and I get an err message. I'll do some more reading. Hey I told you that I did this 35mm photography many, many years ago. Sometimes I forget how really old I am. Which makes me wonder what I should do with all of this "ancient" equipment. It would be nice if someone could find some use for it instead of being packed away in a box in the closet.
No problem and as you said the 50mm f1.8 is pretty cheap. I also really do like the looks of the 70-200 f2.8 and have already put it on my wish list.
Now all everyone needs to do is keep their fingers crossed that as Doylem stated "an old dog can learn new tricks" and I won't be overwhelmed with the D300. FWIW, I have never used the pre-sets on the D70.
The D70 won't meter with old AI/AI-S lenses, but the D300 will when set to aperture priority or manual modes, so the lens should be fine on the D300.
You should really only add a TC when you *have* to, not every single time, since you lose image quality when you do so. Moving wildlife, especially raptors are already a challenge, and even large animals like Elk don't often let you approach. Longer is almost always better for wildlife, and always better for birds.
I shoot *lots* of wildlife, and *lots* of birds a good chunk of them *large* birds- I can tell you the number of times I've thought "Gee, I wish I had a nice 200mm lens!" or "Hey, 280mm would be great here!"- probably six times in the last ten years (most of those when a Bald Eagle was flying overhead and I couldn't get the monster off the tripod fast enough for a hand-held shot-- and really I was more thinking "Gee, the 200-400VR is a nice cheap, light lens, I bet I could get a great shot right now if I had one...")
In fact, I'd say the only general situation[1] where I thought the 400mm was too much lens with a non-dog animal in the viewfinder was at the Elephant compound at Washington D.C.'s National Zoo (and only the Elephant compound- for the rest of the zoo it worked really well- I just wish I could sell the images without encumbrance.)
I've owned the Nikkor 80-400VR and the Sigma 50-500VR as well as the 300/4 EDIF and 400/2.8. Going back through my thousands of wildlife images, the number of times I wasn't at 400mm or 500mm with the zooms is less than 1% of the time, and I can probably count the times I had to back away with either prime on one hand wearing mittens with my thumb tucked in.
Now, you may be one of those folks who thinks a 2x TC is an acceptable compromise, but I'm guessing that the "I'd think" in your above statement means you don't often shoot wildlife and probably don't own the 70-200 with a TC- in other words, it looks a lot like you're making a ~$2000 guess. I think that does the OP an injustice.
I think a 1.4x TC gives you good IQ when you absolutely need longer (that is, I'd prefer to shoot without it, but wildlife may not give you that luxury- and remember I'm shooting off a 400mm *prime* base platform, not a 200mm *zoom* one) and I think the 1.7x TC is marginal, but again sometimes you need that reach. Personally, I never shoot with a 2x TC, I find the loss in IQ unacceptable for my work in general (I've seen some great shots even with stacked converters, but find that even with a pristine prime, I'm not happy past 1.7x, and I'm grumpy when I have to go there)
With a 1.4x TC, the 70-200 gets to be 280mm at f/4- while the 300/4 gets to be a 420mm f/5.6 so you start out better (more length, same speed) and end up much better (the sort of length that's good for wildlife.) If you could routinely get good shots at 200/2.8, the 70-200 would be a good deal because you'd have longer to shoot at the beginning and end of each day when all the animals are out eating, but in my experience that's not a realistic expectation.
The 70-200 is a great lens, but it's not a great wildlife lens.
[1] Back when I shot film there was one juvenile Great Blue Heron who'd cause me to back up occasionally when shooting with a 210mm lens on a 645 body (around 130mm on a 35mm.)
Good to know! And because during the school year I have finally come to accept the realization that I simply don't have the time to get out and shoot my own personal photos, I will wait until spring break or May to get a 400mm lens, which hopefully will work for at least some of the birds that live here.
Funny that you should mention the elk. Our elk live here year round and they actually know that they were here first and the are very generous in allowing us to share their mountain. In the winter, they have absolutely no fear of us at all. We often play chicken with them trying to get up our icy mountain road in the evenings. Of course you must understand that we have actually on occasion been know to try to chase them off in our attempts to save them from hunters. They just look at us like we are crazy, and perhaps they are right. I never really appreciate how large elk are until they are standing right in front of me.
Thank you once again for steering in the right direction to make this transition easier.