Rental lens input needed from fellow photographers
Jan 7th, 2008, 12:13 PM
#22
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bag, one? Must be at least two bags 
Great kit you are taking but a lot more than I can handle!!! I don't lust after the D3 because that series, D2 D3, are just too big and bulky bodies. Also I like the 1.5 crop factor of the DX format. To me the ideal size and weight of a body is the D40(X) size, 1.2 lb. The D2/D3 at 2.8 lb is too much. At the most the D200/300 at 2.0 lbs is acceptable.
regards - tom
Great kit you are taking but a lot more than I can handle!!! I don't lust after the D3 because that series, D2 D3, are just too big and bulky bodies. Also I like the 1.5 crop factor of the DX format. To me the ideal size and weight of a body is the D40(X) size, 1.2 lb. The D2/D3 at 2.8 lb is too much. At the most the D200/300 at 2.0 lbs is acceptable.
regards - tom
Jan 7th, 2008, 12:39 PM
#23
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,922
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bag?.., what bag?! Hadn't even thought about that yet!
I'm now having second thoughts about the 300 vs. the 200-400.
Kinda thinkin' I should go for the 200-400 now.
It's not too late to change my mind as it won't ship out 'til tomorrow.
Am I having renter's remorse? Being wishy-washy?
What to do??
Tom-haven't had any problems with the D2X and it's weight. It's a great camera. Guess I really don't think about it. And the D3 is so far ahead technology-wise, it is going to be a must have for me.
I'm now having second thoughts about the 300 vs. the 200-400.
Kinda thinkin' I should go for the 200-400 now.
It's not too late to change my mind as it won't ship out 'til tomorrow.
Am I having renter's remorse? Being wishy-washy?
What to do??
Tom-haven't had any problems with the D2X and it's weight. It's a great camera. Guess I really don't think about it. And the D3 is so far ahead technology-wise, it is going to be a must have for me.
Jan 7th, 2008, 12:56 PM
#24
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,880
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<b>I'm now having second thoughts about the 300 vs. the 200-400.</b>
Since you also have the 80-400 for the second body you should be fine with the 300 f/2.8 as the main lens, right?
I would have picked the 200-400 but since you have the 80-400 the 300 makes sense too.
Bill
Since you also have the 80-400 for the second body you should be fine with the 300 f/2.8 as the main lens, right?
I would have picked the 200-400 but since you have the 80-400 the 300 makes sense too.
Bill
Jan 7th, 2008, 01:10 PM
#25
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am a HUGE fan of the 200-400mm, actually. I used a D2x and the 200-400mm exclusively a few months ago in Tanzania. Great setup. The 300mm f/2.8 is amazing, but I would give the nod to any lens that allows you to frame your shot without sacrificing too much quality. The 200-400mm does a great job with the 1.4x teleconverter, too. The 1.7x isn't quite as quick on the autofocusing, so I would recommend the 1.4x instead.
Jan 7th, 2008, 01:44 PM
#27
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tom and divewop,
I think the three most elusive safari elements are 1) leopard, 2) the ideal lens, 3) the right bag. Somehow I have ended up with a closet full of bags that all seem desigend for some other activity. Fortunately my wife has a sense of humor
Chuck
I think the three most elusive safari elements are 1) leopard, 2) the ideal lens, 3) the right bag. Somehow I have ended up with a closet full of bags that all seem desigend for some other activity. Fortunately my wife has a sense of humor
Chuck
Jan 7th, 2008, 01:55 PM
#28
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,922
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've just sent Roger an email telling him to hold off on sending me the lens 'til I make up my wishy-washy mind...
So I've got 'til tomorrow to get my decision worked out.
Chuck...LOL on the leopard! I, like you, have a closet full of bags. But what's one more, right?!
Andy,
Did you use the D2X, 200-400 combo hand-held while shooting?
My main concern is if I do use the 1.4 TC with it, will it be lightweight enough to hand hold? I've got so much gear that I don't want to bring a lens too heavy that I'm going to have to use a monopod or tripod most of the time.
Heck, I'll probably get kicked off my international flights already by trying to sneak too much in on the carry-on.
So I've got 'til tomorrow to get my decision worked out.
Chuck...LOL on the leopard! I, like you, have a closet full of bags. But what's one more, right?!
Andy,
Did you use the D2X, 200-400 combo hand-held while shooting?
My main concern is if I do use the 1.4 TC with it, will it be lightweight enough to hand hold? I've got so much gear that I don't want to bring a lens too heavy that I'm going to have to use a monopod or tripod most of the time.
Heck, I'll probably get kicked off my international flights already by trying to sneak too much in on the carry-on.
Jan 8th, 2008, 03:43 AM
#30
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just returned Sunday from Rwanda and Tanzania. I have a D200. I rented the 80-400mm/4.5-5.6, and also took my 18-200mm/3.5-5.6.
In Tanzania, I found myself switching back and forth between the lenses all the time, and I was really glad I had rented the longer lens. A faster one would have been nice, but not absolutely necessary. And I rarely found myself longing for a longer lens than 400.
In Rwanda, however, I really regretted not renting the 70-200/2.8. There were times the gorillas were in very dark forest, and my 18-200 lens wasn't fast enough. I carried the 80-400 with me on my first day of trekking, but never took it out of its case. We were just too close to the gorillas. Whenever the gorillas were far enough away for something longer than 200mm to be useful (very rarely), there was forest in the way. On my second day of trekking, I left the 80-400 in the lodge and was happy with the shorter lens, but I really wish it had been the 2.8.
The 70-200/2.8 is not all that expensive to rent comparatively, so really consider it. I tried it out in the camera store before I left and it is really sweet. I wish I had had it with me in Rwanda.
Van
In Tanzania, I found myself switching back and forth between the lenses all the time, and I was really glad I had rented the longer lens. A faster one would have been nice, but not absolutely necessary. And I rarely found myself longing for a longer lens than 400.
In Rwanda, however, I really regretted not renting the 70-200/2.8. There were times the gorillas were in very dark forest, and my 18-200 lens wasn't fast enough. I carried the 80-400 with me on my first day of trekking, but never took it out of its case. We were just too close to the gorillas. Whenever the gorillas were far enough away for something longer than 200mm to be useful (very rarely), there was forest in the way. On my second day of trekking, I left the 80-400 in the lodge and was happy with the shorter lens, but I really wish it had been the 2.8.
The 70-200/2.8 is not all that expensive to rent comparatively, so really consider it. I tried it out in the camera store before I left and it is really sweet. I wish I had had it with me in Rwanda.
Van
Jan 8th, 2008, 07:42 AM
#31
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm wondering that if for gorilla photography where you are close and it is dark if a couple of high speed "prime" lens would not be the best choice. For example a 50mm F1.4 AF Nikkor D. And a Nikkor 35mm f2. Both lens being one/two stops faster than say the 70-200 F2.8. As for losing zoom capability with the primes, remember, cropping in post processing is your friend. Both lens are around $300 new. Or less in excellent condition if from KEH.com. Both lenses total cost 1/3 of the 70-200, and about 1/4 the weight and size. But again even more importantly 2 stops and 1 stop faster. Leave the big slow zooms and take two bodies with those two lenses. That's the ticket, that's what I'd do.
regards - tom
regards - tom
Jan 8th, 2008, 11:28 AM
#32
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tom -- That sounds like a good suggestion. The faster the better in the forest, as you are not allowed to use a flash in the presence of the gorillas and in some places it is very dark.
However there are times when you would probably want a longer lens than 50mm. The gorillas are constantly in motion, moving all around you. Sometimes they are as close as 6 feet away, other times seconds later, they are 50-70 feet away (not as often). I do not have much experience with prime lenses (I'm not a pro), but it sounds like a good idea. However, because you are constantly moving through very thick brush, often in mud, over and under vines and across steep hillsides where you need both hands for just getting through the foliage, the idea of two camera bodies hanging around your neck might be cumbersome. Pros can probably handle it - I would break something.
However there are times when you would probably want a longer lens than 50mm. The gorillas are constantly in motion, moving all around you. Sometimes they are as close as 6 feet away, other times seconds later, they are 50-70 feet away (not as often). I do not have much experience with prime lenses (I'm not a pro), but it sounds like a good idea. However, because you are constantly moving through very thick brush, often in mud, over and under vines and across steep hillsides where you need both hands for just getting through the foliage, the idea of two camera bodies hanging around your neck might be cumbersome. Pros can probably handle it - I would break something.
Jan 8th, 2008, 11:38 AM
#33
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tom, What do you think about the high ISO capability of the newest SLR's from both Canon and Nikon. I have seem some pretty impressive stuff that makes me think it might pay to boost ISO way up and not worry so much about the fast lenses. Heck, 2.8 lenses already weigh a ton, Canon has a new 4/70-200 L IS lens That costs 1/3 less than the 2.8 lens and is much lighter. Might be just the ticket when paired with a low noise SLR. I have to force myself to shoot over ISO 200 but when I do I am always impressed at how low my noise is even up to ISO 800. Does anyone remember ISO/ASA of 24 or 64 for kodachrome? We have come a long way, perhaps it's time to look a big aperature lenses in a new light (little play on words) Just some idle thoughts.
Cheers-Chuck
Just some idle thoughts.Cheers-Chuck
Jan 8th, 2008, 11:43 AM
#34
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tom, In the spirit of complete disclosure I need to admit that I have just bought a new Canon 70-200mm 2.8 L IS lens. My old prejudice against high ISO won out and I went for the faster lens. Maybe I need both
Regards-Chuck
Regards-Chuck
Jan 8th, 2008, 02:44 PM
#35
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Several times in the dark forest I noticed that my "Auto ISO" warning that I had hit my pre-set limit of ISO 1600 was flashing. That's how dark it was.
Add to that the black hair and black skin of the gorillas, and you get the picture (or don't get it, if you pardon the pun).
Add to that the black hair and black skin of the gorillas, and you get the picture (or don't get it, if you pardon the pun).
Jan 8th, 2008, 02:57 PM
#36
Guest
Posts: n/a
safarichuck,
I think something a lot of people tend to overlook when they talk about fast lens vs hig ISO is the effect you want the lens to have.
Ofcourse, the 2.8 is the faster lens, but my personal reason for having it is for when i want to achieve a shallow DOF.
just a thought
PS i would bag the 200-400 and 500mm combo
I think something a lot of people tend to overlook when they talk about fast lens vs hig ISO is the effect you want the lens to have.
Ofcourse, the 2.8 is the faster lens, but my personal reason for having it is for when i want to achieve a shallow DOF.
just a thought
PS i would bag the 200-400 and 500mm combo
Jan 8th, 2008, 03:19 PM
#37
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sevendown, that sure is dark. Was it an overcast day or just the forest canopy that blocked so much light?
lbj, I certainly agree with you, the shallow depth of field is often just what I want to isolate the subject. If Canon ever updates the 100-400 4/5.6 lens to a larger or constant aperature lens, a lot of people would switch for that reason.
Cheers-Chuck
lbj, I certainly agree with you, the shallow depth of field is often just what I want to isolate the subject. If Canon ever updates the 100-400 4/5.6 lens to a larger or constant aperature lens, a lot of people would switch for that reason.
Cheers-Chuck
Jan 8th, 2008, 03:33 PM
#38
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah with the higher ISO capabilities it could make the f4.5 lens like a f2.8, given the same shutter speed. Which of course greatly lowers the lens cost and weight. On the other hand there is also DOF like lbj says.
But I was thinking just as much about the viewfinder and focusing. It will of course always be "brighter" with the faster lens.
As for gorillas jumping/swinging about, hmmm, if you say so . That's why if using a fixed focal length lens you would need two bodies, two lenses. And two nice little bodies like the D40 with a small prime lens on each would not be that much more difficult to carry than a big D2x with a 70-200 f2.8, would it?
But wait, you can indeed zoom when using a prime lens. Just zoom zoom away on your PC with that image in post processing. Cropping is your new best friend . A cropped image in pp will give you exactly the same image composition as if you had zoomed in using the camera. True my little banana breath primates. Try it, take your zoom lens, take a photo at 18mm, take same photo at 200mm * standing at the same place *. On a PC take the 18mm image and zoom in so that it fills the same area as the 200mm shot. You will see the same picture composition - except for DOF and pixel compression.
Yes, I remember ASA 24 and 64 Kodachrome/Ektachrome? And I remember trying to duplicate slides to make minor color corrections and minor cropping. A nightmare. And Cibachrome printing slides. No thanks, give me what we have today. And my Minolta SRT101 that had only a built in light meter. The light meter told you about the exposure it "saw" and YOU had to set f stop and shutter and focus. And no zoom lenses either. And also we had to . . . oh well, never mind
regards - tom
But I was thinking just as much about the viewfinder and focusing. It will of course always be "brighter" with the faster lens.
As for gorillas jumping/swinging about, hmmm, if you say so
. That's why if using a fixed focal length lens you would need two bodies, two lenses. And two nice little bodies like the D40 with a small prime lens on each would not be that much more difficult to carry than a big D2x with a 70-200 f2.8, would it?But wait, you can indeed zoom when using a prime lens. Just zoom zoom away on your PC with that image in post processing. Cropping is your new best friend
. A cropped image in pp will give you exactly the same image composition as if you had zoomed in using the camera. True my little banana breath primates. Try it, take your zoom lens, take a photo at 18mm, take same photo at 200mm * standing at the same place *. On a PC take the 18mm image and zoom in so that it fills the same area as the 200mm shot. You will see the same picture composition - except for DOF and pixel compression.Yes, I remember ASA 24 and 64 Kodachrome/Ektachrome? And I remember trying to duplicate slides to make minor color corrections and minor cropping. A nightmare. And Cibachrome printing slides. No thanks, give me what we have today. And my Minolta SRT101 that had only a built in light meter. The light meter told you about the exposure it "saw" and YOU had to set f stop and shutter and focus. And no zoom lenses either. And also we had to . . . oh well, never mind
regards - tom
Jan 8th, 2008, 03:52 PM
#39
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was a sunny day with no clouds. In fact, while the gorillas were originally in the dark under the canopy, and I was shooting at 800-1600 ISO, they moved to a less dark area and I was shooting at 400, then they came out into a field with no trees and I kept the ISO at 200 for the rest of my shots.
