Tell me about the overlap: Lenses

[WeLoveNemo]

Hi,

I have the Nikon 18-105 (kit lens with new D90) and really like this. I also use an older Nikon 70-300mm that I got years ago with my D50. But, the longer shots are disappointing. I am considering now, the 55-200mm VR to replace this. Is this too much overlap to make it worth my while?

A couple of things of note: Call me crazy, but I do not mind changing lenses. And, while I love my children, they are eating up my camera equipment buying money so I'm on a budget.

Should I bother?

Thanks!

[MICKEY88]

Hi,

I have the Nikon 18-105 (kit lens with new D90) and really like this. I also use an older Nikon 70-300mm that I got years ago with my D50. But, the longer shots are disappointing. I am considering now, the 55-200mm VR to replace this. Is this too much overlap to make it worth my while?

A couple of things of note: Call me crazy, but I do not mind changing lenses. And, while I love my children, they are eating up my camera equipment buying money so I'm on a budget.

Should I bother?

Thanks!

what is disappointing about your shots with the 70-300, color, sharpness..???

[SrisonS]

How often do you find yourself out of reach for a good shot when using your 18-105??? And I mean to the point where the main subject is just a little too far; and the wider version just seems bad!?!?!?

It does seem like an odd range though. I know I'd want a little more than 105. I use a 18-135mm for my Canon. I thought that 135 wouldn't be long enough; but I like it. I've also started to really like the not-so-tight shots lately too. So maybe just see if you can make it work?????

[VVFF]

Hi,

I have the Nikon 18-105 (kit lens with new D90) and really like this. I also use an older Nikon 70-300mm that I got years ago with my D50. But, the longer shots are disappointing. I am considering now, the 55-200mm VR to replace this. Is this too much overlap to make it worth my while?

A couple of things of note: Call me crazy, but I do not mind changing lenses. And, while I love my children, they are eating up my camera equipment buying money so I'm on a budget.

Should I bother?

Thanks!

I don't know what focal length you mean by "longer" but you are losing a decent amount of telephoto going from 300mm to 200mm. Are you happy with 200mm on the 70-300? If so then what are you gaining?

As for overlap there really isn't such a thing as "too much". You can hurt your quality if there is too much of a focal length range in a single lens, but overlap isn't by itself bad.

[mom2rtk]

I think before you replace one zoom with another, you need to know what it was about the other one you didn't like. Did the old one focus too slowly? Was it too heavy? Were the shots always blurry?

[zackiedawg]

You might want to chart out what focal ranges you use with your camera, to help you see if you'd miss the range between 200-300mm. Check out a free program like this one:
http://download.cnet.com/ExposurePlot/3000-12511_4-10801402.html

There are others out there too - basically, you can tell it to search the EXIF of all the shots in a particular folder - if you put all your photos from your DSLR in the same folder, it will search all subfolders too. What you'll get is a chart showing you what focal range, aperture, shutter, and ISOs you use and with what frequency, in a bar graph. If you find a bulk of your photos are under 200mm, with just a few up to 300mm, then that might help you feel better about the replacement - but if you have a huge rise at the end of the chart between 200-300mm, then you may find yourself missing the extra telephoto.

To give an idea, here's one I did a while ago:
http://g4.img-dpreview.com/44BDAA94B1DC4B928E491FF254AAB9FA.jpg

The numbers in yellow boxes are the number of photos at each focal length. It's a useful tool for seeing where you use the most, and the least, and can help determine when upgrading to a faster lens or more range, which lens ranges you tend to fall back on the most and would benefit the most from better glass.

[My2Girls66]

I would wait and try and get the 70-300mm VR, if you like the 300 end. I am not sure its worth getting a new lense for only a 95mm difference. I had an old 75-300 lens and moved to the 70-300mmVR a few years ago. I love the new vr lens, though, I have an 18-135mm on my camera most of the time so it doesn't get a lot of use.
I know what you mean about kids and being on a budget for camera stuff. I have one in college that is going abroad for the year and another that just got her driver license:scared1::scared1:

[photo_chick]

You know what.... what I just said was wrong. Disregard it. Something in my brain just clicked.

[WeLoveNemo]

Thanks everyone. My current 70-300 is not that sharp. I find myself using it most when I want to catch my children playing without intruding. I love these photos and will treasure them, but do wish the quality was better.

I really love the 18-105 but it's reach is lacking sometimes. But it does takes really nice pictures. The wide shots are sharp throughout, the color excellent. It's real quick and I am pleased with the VR not having had this before.

I used this software at your suggestion - how fun is that!!!! Thanks for the tip. It winds up, I do indeed take a lot of shots between 200mm-300mm. More so than I thought. On that note, I agree with the idea of waiting for a new 70-300 VR. I tried it on a D90 body in a store recently it was a bit heavy but I would think worth the trouble.

All great advice and congrats on your college student- what a wonderful milestone to eat up your photography $$!:cheer2:

[MICKEY88]

Thanks everyone. My current 70-300 is not that sharp. I find myself using it most when I want to catch my children playing without intruding. I love these photos and will treasure them, but do wish the quality was better.

I really love the 18-105 but it's reach is lacking sometimes. But it does takes really nice pictures. The wide shots are sharp throughout, the color excellent. It's real quick and I am pleased with the VR not having had this before.

I used this software at your suggestion - how fun is that!!!! Thanks for the tip. It winds up, I do indeed take a lot of shots between 200mm-300mm. More so than I thought. On that note, I agree with the idea of waiting for a new 70-300 VR. I tried it on a D90 body in a store recently it was a bit heavy but I would think worth the trouble.

All great advice and congrats on your college student- what a wonderful milestone to eat up your photography $$!:cheer2:

if your 70-300 shots are not sharp at the longer end, it might just be camera movement, it shows up on that end do to the magnification, have you bumped your iso to get a higher shutter speed which would help eliminate the movement and make your pics sharper..

[mom2rtk]

if your 70-300 shots are not sharp at the longer end, it might just be camera movement, it shows up on that end do to the magnification, have you bumped your iso to get a higher shutter speed which would help eliminate the movement and make your pics sharper..

I was wondering the same thing. Before I started hanging out here, I never understood why I couldn't take a sharp telephoto picture. I always blamed my unsteady hands (which still IS part of the reason). But I didn't understand that at the greatest zoom, the maximum aperture available to me was much smaller than at the wide end, requiring a slower shutter speed to expose the photo. Of course a higher ISO would compensate too!

[MICKEY88]

I was wondering the same thing. Before I started hanging out here, I never understood why I couldn't take a sharp telephoto picture. I always blamed my unsteady hands (which still IS part of the reason). But I didn't understand that at the greatest zoom, the maximum aperture available to me was much smaller than at the wide end, requiring a slower shutter speed to expose the photo. Of course a higher ISO would compensate too!


that is definitely part of the equation, but even if you had a 2.8 300mm lens, the magnification would show the slightest camera movement,

so although a 1/200 shutter speed might be good with a 200MM lens... 1/300 or higher would be better with the 300MM lens..

goes back to the old equation, shutter speed inverse of focal length or faster

200mm=1/200
300mm=1/300
600mm-= 1/600

[mom2rtk]

that is definitely part of the equation, but even if you had a 2.8 300mm lens, the magnification would show the slightest camera movement,

so although a 1/200 shutter speed might be good with a 200MM lens... 1/300 or higher would be better with the 300MM lens..

goes back to the old equation, shutter speed inverse of focal length or faster

200mm=1/200
300mm=1/300
600mm-= 1/600

So my next lens should be a long 2.8 with IS??? No problem. I'll start saving my pennies...... LOTS of them! :lmao:

[MICKEY88]

So my next lens should be a long 2.8 with IS??? No problem. I'll start saving my pennies...... LOTS of them! :lmao:

or get a body with good quality at high iso

that's the beauty of Sony anti shake built into the body...

[mom2rtk]

or get a body with good quality at high iso

that's the beauty of Sony anti shake built into the body...

Someone should have suggested that to me in 04 when I bought my first Canon!

My scheme is to keep my Xsi under warranty, have it wear out (like all the previous models I had) then upgrade to the T1i or T2i at that time.

[MICKEY88]

Someone should have suggested that to me in 04 when I bought my first Canon!

My scheme is to keep my Xsi under warranty, have it wear out (like all the previous models I had) then upgrade to the T1i or T2i at that time.

should have suggested which part,

for part 1 6 years ago only higher end cameras had really good high iso image quality

part 2 sony dslrs didn't exist in 2004, sony didn't buy Minolta until 2006...

[mom2rtk]

should have suggested which part,

for part 1 6 years ago only higher end cameras had really good high iso image quality

part 2 sony dslrs didn't exist in 2004, sony didn't buy Minolta until 2006...

I was only kidding. I actually knew both pieces of that. And "higher end" in 2004 was REALLY higher end! :scared1:

Had I known Sony would buy Minolta, I might own a Sony right now. I had Minolta Maxxum and several lenses I gave to a friend when I knew I wasn't going back to film.

[MICKEY88]

I was only kidding. I actually knew both pieces of that. And "higher end" in 2004 was REALLY higher end! :scared1:

Had I known Sony would buy Minolta, I might own a Sony right now. I had Minolta Maxxum and several lenses I gave to a friend when I knew I wasn't going back to film.


lucky friend...
why didn't you just get a minolta 7D..

[mom2rtk]

lucky friend...
why didn't you just get a minolta 7D..

Cuz I was clueless???? :rotfl2: Wasn't the first time, won't be the last. But I'm learning along the way. :goodvibes

[MICKEY88]

Cuz I was clueless???? :rotfl2: Wasn't the first time, won't be the last. But I'm learning along the way. :goodvibes

I have a minolta 7D sitting on a shelf, if you want to correct your mistake..LOL :thumbsup2:thumbsup2

[mom2rtk]

I have a minolta 7D sitting on a shelf, if you want to correct your mistake..LOL :thumbsup2:thumbsup2

Nah, I'm good. Besides, I'm too heavily invested in Canon lenses now. You won't catch me giving those away. Not even to a good friend. :thumbsup2