Nikon D80

[joellyn23]

Right now, I simply use Sports mode. I hope to learn how to really utilize the D80, but I've been happy with my results, for the most part.

What about the Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR lens? Or the Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VR lens? Any opinion on those?

Thanks!

 

[klmall]

bumping

 

[Steve's Girl]

Right now, I simply use Sports mode. I hope to learn how to really utilize the D80, but I've been happy with my results, for the most part.

What about the Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR lens? Or the Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VR lens? Any opinion on those?

Thanks!

These lenses aren't fast enough for what you are looking for. As Kyle stated, you'll want something in the f2.8 range.

 

[fitzperry]

What about the Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR lens? Or the Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VR lens? Any opinion on those?

Thanks!

Those aren't going to add much value over the lenses already in your bag. The VR won't help you with subject movement, which is why you need the faster (i.e., larger aperture) lenses.

 

[ducklite]

Go for the Nikon 80-200 AF-S ED f/2.8 lens. Great for low level light, list is $1200 or so, you can find them in the $900 range. It's my workhorse lens, I use it for 90% of my work.

 

[MICKEY88]

the least expensive and most overlooked solution is to buy one of these, simply mount it to the bottom of your camera and once you get it lined up properly, low light will never be an issue...

 

[ducklite]

the least expensive and most overlooked solution is to buy one of these, simply mount it to the bottom of your camera and once you get it lined up properly, low light will never be an issue...

Mickey88 just invented the po' folk speedlight.

 

[handicap18]

Right now, I simply use Sports mode. I hope to learn how to really utilize the D80, but I've been happy with my results, for the most part.

What about the Nikon 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR lens? Or the Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VR lens? Any opinion on those?

Thanks!

Before you go out and spend upwards of $500-1000 on a new lens I would start learning how to get out of the pre programed icon modes. The Sports icon might not give you the settings you really need. The camera will decide what settings to use including ISO. It might only go up as high as ISO800 when you might need to use ISO1600.

The pre-programed icon modes do a very good job and can get you some great results, but it is the camera that is deciding everything. I would work on the other options like Aperture Priority where you set your own ISO and f/stop and the camera will choose the shutter speed or Shutter priority where you choose the ISO and shutter speed and the camera will choose the f/stop. Then learn the metering. Center weight or spot metering might get you better results than Matrix metering in some cases.

 

[MICKEY88]

Mickey88 just invented the po' folk speedlight.

hmmmm let's go into business together we can sell them on ebay, they're under 20 at a sporting goods store, we can sell them for 50

 

[joellyn23]

Uh oh....my husband is in trouble. This is becoming an obsession to me!

So I'm seriously considering buying either the Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 or Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8. The prices are pretty close so I'm wondering which would focus faster (sports photos) and which would work better if I add a teleconverter.

If I add the 1.4x teleconverter, it becomes a f/4. What if I use a 2x teleconverter? Are there certain brands to use with the D80 and the two lenses above?

I ordered the book Understanding Exposure and will start to spend more time trying to learn how to use the manual settings too.

Right now, I'm generally happy with my Tamron 70-300mm lens image quality. Will I see a big difference with the two lenses mentioned above? Or, is it really only going to help improve quality if I'm in less than perfect lighting conditions?

TIA!

 

[MarkBarbieri]

hmmmm let's go into business together we can sell them on ebay, they're under 20 at a sporting goods store, we can sell them for 50

You've just scratched the surface. Paint them white with a red ring around the end and you can sell 'em for $100 easy to the Canon people. Heck, add a few springs and you can sell a "stabilized" version for $200.

If I add the 1.4x teleconverter, it becomes a f/4. What if I use a 2x teleconverter? Are there certain brands to use with the D80 and the two lenses above?

A 2x teleconverter will make an f/2.8 an f/5.6. You lose one stop with a 1.4x and two stops with a 2x. That translates to shutter speeds that are twice and four times as long, respectively.

I agree with the posters above that VR won't help. You need to squeeze more performance from your camera by learning how to work it better. Following that, you need lenses with wider apertures.

 

[gruZ]

I've used the Sigma version (Canon mount, but shouldn't be much of a difference) for about 1.5 years. It is a great lens with fast focus and outstanding IQ.

When I purchased it I also purchased a Sigma 2x TC, but have since sold it. The 2x degraded the IQ too much for my taste, and I also didn't like losing 2 stops - which made the lens far less usable in lower light. I've heard better things about the 1.4x IQ (and only 1 stop loss), but haven't used it myself.

 

[oliviansmom17]

Let me preface this by declaring myself an amateur, so bear with me...
I took this today and I feel like it's not a sharp as it should be. I took it on a tripod with a 60mm f/2.8 Nikkor lens on Aperture Priority at 1/60-F/5. ISO 800. I have a D80 and I couldn't get the aperture lower than 3.3-right?
Ugh, my brain hurts....

 

[Gdad]

What do you not like about it? I think it looks very nice.

My comments would be if you took the trouble to set up a tripod I would leave the ISO as low as possible- 100 or 200 on the D80- I don't remember exactly. The 60mm Micro opens to f2.8 IIRC- Aperature priority is good but If you are looking to get a wider depth of field you need to stop it down to more than f5- experiment between f11 and f16. Also- not sure if you did anything to the image after- adjusting the levels and a little unsharp mask would make the image pop.

 

[Gdad]

Correction- if it behaves like the 105mm/2.8 Micro it will not achieve the f2.8 at the extreme close focus range. Not really a problem- again- since that typically creates such a narrow depth of field with the lens wide open anyway.

 

[oliviansmom17]

Thanks for the reply gDad! And the compliment. I bought the lens recently and I'm just tryin' to figure it out. I feel like there's such a small area that is sharp..I'll get it one of these days!
I didn't do anything post-production, but I'll try it. I have PaintShop Pro so I'll experiment some. I'll also work on stopping down/up...now I'm revealing my true newbie status...

 

[jann1033]

Thanks for the reply gDad! And the compliment. I bought the lens recently and I'm just tryin' to figure it out. I feel like there's such a small area that is sharp..I'll get it one of these days!
I didn't do anything post-production, but I'll try it. I have PaintShop Pro so I'll experiment some. I'll also work on stopping down/up...now I'm revealing my true newbie status...

that is cause of the dof...if you have enough light try a slower shutter speed and something like f8..that ought to help make things sharper. if you have a timer or remote use that as well on your tripod but it doesn't look like motion blur, just the aperture that's the cause of the softness...which i think is kind of pretty anyway
not sure if when you said lower than 3.3 if you want to go to 2.8..that would just increase the softness since it decreases the depth of field/focus and less will be in focus..

 

[TinksDH]

I feel like there's such a small area that is sharp..I'll get it one of these days!

This can sometimes be counter-intuitive. If you want MORE of the object in focus (higher depth of field), you need to stop "down", or close the aperture which means a HIGHER f stop. This will of course require a LONGER shutter speed, probably something like 1/15th of a second if you go with something like f/9 or f/11. If you take your ISO down to 200, you are now looking at a shutter speed of around 1/4 of a second. All of this is fine if you are on a good tripod with no wind.

You are quickly bumping of against the limitations of macro photography, available light shooting and hand-holding!

Might I suggest a great book for new photographers? Bryan Peterson has a book called "Understanding Exposure", which is a great primer for learning the ins and outs of photography. You can get it on Amazon.com, or probably any Borders. I bought it 2 years ago right after I got my D50, and I still refer to it when I am in the doldrums.

Personally I think you picked the right exposure for that subject; any more depth of field and the leaves behind the rose will start to become distracting, taking away from the rose itself. Very nice shot BTW...

 

[oliviansmom17]

that is cause of the dof...if you have enough light try a slower shutter speed and something like f8..that ought to help make things sharper. if you have a timer or remote use that as well on your tripod but it doesn't look like motion blur, just the aperture that's the cause of the softness...which i think is kind of pretty anyway
not sure if when you said lower than 3.3 if you want to go to 2.8..that would just increase the softness since it decreases the depth of field/focus and less will be in focus..

Thank you so much...I'm at my desk with a notepad...and thank you for the compliment, too.
I did mean 2.8 and thanks to your explanation, I'll know better when I use that lens...

 

[oliviansmom17]

This can sometimes be counter-intuitive. If you want MORE of the object in focus (higher depth of field), you need to stop "down", or close the aperture which means a HIGHER f stop. This will of course require a LONGER shutter speed, probably something like 1/15th of a second if you go with something like f/9 or f/11. If you take your ISO down to 200, you are now looking at a shutter speed of around 1/4 of a second. All of this is fine if you are on a good tripod with no wind.

You are quickly bumping of against the limitations of macro photography, available light shooting and hand-holding!

Might I suggest a great book for new photographers? Bryan Peterson has a book called "Understanding Exposure", which is a great primer for learning the ins and outs of photography. You can get it on Amazon.com, or probably any Borders. I bought it 2 years ago right after I got my D50, and I still refer to it when I am in the doldrums.

Personally I think you picked the right exposure for that subject; any more depth of field and the leaves behind the rose will start to become distracting, taking away from the rose itself. Very nice shot BTW...

Thanks! The funny thing is that I sat on the floor at Barnes & Noble looking at photography books yesterday and that was one I considered. I opted for the covers-it-all book, which (while extremely helpful) contributed to my brain-pain. I'll make another trip and pick up the book you suggested. Can't have too many books, right? I ended up with The Photography Bible by Daniel Lezano- I mean, how can you go wrong with a book that declares itself a BIBLE?! And another book that was more for p&s cameras. The numbness must have started to kick in at that point! Oh well, Mom just bought a Canon p&s- Merry Christmas, Mom!!