Guest

Lenses

Wed Oct 24, 2001 3:09 am

What kind of lense will I be needing for the start of my spotting career? I have a good camera, and I would appreciate inputs on what kind of lense I will need  Smile

What prices am I looking at ? (new/used)


Thanks in advance,


Sincerely,

Morten Bruun
 
EGGD
Posts: 11880
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:01 am

RE: Lenses

Wed Oct 24, 2001 3:13 am

Depends what camera you own. If you have a Canon SLR i strongly suggest one of the IS series, ranging from as low as $429 upto about $2000+.

Otherwise, best look for a 300mm or there abouts, with an aperture no higher than f/6.3, although that is really pushing it..

regards

Dan
 
Sonic99
Posts: 625
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2001 8:39 am

RE: Lenses

Wed Oct 24, 2001 3:47 am

Choice of lens for airline photography depends on the airport spotting location and possibilities (access, perimeter) and your subjects.

For my purposes I have a Canon SLR using 50mm ƒ1.4, 28-105mm ƒ4.5-5.6, 200mm ƒ2.8, and a 1.4x teleconverter (to use with the 200mm). That's it.

You can see some examples by clicking here

Hope this helps,

Stephan
 
Lindy
Posts: 4722
Joined: Wed May 19, 1999 10:42 pm

RE: Lenses

Wed Oct 24, 2001 3:51 am

what is F2.8??? Can anybody explain this to me please?
BWIADCA - Nikon D100
 
Sonic99
Posts: 625
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2001 8:39 am

RE: Lenses

Wed Oct 24, 2001 4:04 am


The "F" (or "ƒ") refers to the aperture of a lens.

The smaller the "F" number, the larger the aperture, meaning more light can be captured by the lens in low-light situations. In some cases the "F" number on a lens has a range (such as 4.5-5.6). This applies to "zoom" lenses that offer a range of focal length (example: 28-105mm). In this exmple the largest F-stop at 28mm is F4.5, while at the long end (105mm) the F-stop can only be F5.6 ... Some "zoom" lenses (such as a 70-200mm) may have a fixed "F" number, meaning that the maximum aperture remains the same throughout the focal length (i.e, the aperture can be F2.8 at 70mm as well as 200mm). Fixed focal length lenses, such as 100mm, 200mm, 300mm all have a fixed aperture.

Larger aperture allows you to use slower films (example: 800 ISO=very fast film, 400 ISO=fast film, 100 ISO=slow film, 50 ISO=very slow film).

The advantage of having a large aperture lens means you can use slower film. A slower film will produce less grain and gives a sharper image.

Stephan
 
Guest

RE: Lenses

Wed Oct 24, 2001 4:06 am

Great replies.. Thanks alot  Smile

Now all I haveto do is buy the darn thingy  Smile


Thanks again..


Morten Bruun
 
Guest

RE: Lenses

Wed Oct 24, 2001 5:57 am

How are these lenses ?

Nikkor 70-300 mm F:4.0-5.6 ED

Tamron 100-300 mm F:5.0-6.3 (Nikon)


What's the difference, and which one should I buy ? Should I buy any of them at all ?



Appreciate it  Smile


Thanks in advance,


Morten Bruun
 
JayDavis
Posts: 1870
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 1:09 pm

Suggestions For Mbruun

Wed Oct 24, 2001 1:13 pm

First mistake you've made is buying a Nikon camera !! You should have bought a Canon camera.........far superior......

I'M KIDDING !!!!

Both systems are great, I just have a Canon system and both Nikon and Canon users have a running joke about which camera is better............Canon is the better brand of course !! ha ha !!

Anyway, my personal opinion is to buy ONLY Nikon lenses for your camera. Do NOT buy "after-market" lenses, especially a Tamron. I bought a Tamron 200-400mm lense and I hated it. Sold it one week later.........I only buy Canon lenses now. I know some people on this board, including some very good photographers and some very good friends of mine, have "after-market" lenses, such as Tokina and Sigma..........they get very good results out of them, I just don't think it is a good idea..........Nikon "knows" that camera body you are using, inside and out, while the other manufacturers "learn" the features of that camera...........

It is a personal choice and I know the after-market lenses are less inexpensive, but you get what you pay for.......

This is my opinion...........


I have a Canon 70-200 f.28, a 28-70 2.8, along with a 2x converter. My next purchase will be a 1x converter. I just recently purchased a Canon EOS 1VHS and it rocks !! Very expensive, but worth every penny in my opinion.

Jay Davis
 
DSMav8r
Posts: 575
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2000 2:32 pm

RE: Suggestions For Mbruun

Wed Oct 24, 2001 1:32 pm

I disagree about the 3rd party lens issue... The majority of my lenses are Nikkor, but I also own a few 3rd party lenses made by Tokina and Sigma. One of my favorite lenses is the Tokina 28-70mm 2.6-2.8. This lens has produced better results than the Nikkor equivilent that I owned previously, at a much lower price. This lens is a killer ramp lens, almost as sharp as a 50mm 1.4.

I also previously owned a Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 before I got a Nikkor 80-200mm 2.8, the difference in quality between the two really wasn't worth the price difference. But, the faster AF on the Nikkor was enough for me to switch, but optically they are about equal.

As far as optical quality, I think the 3rd party guys have caught up with Nikon and Canon, for the most part. The big difference between them is usually build quality. A lot of 3rd party lenses have a more fragile build compared to Nikon and Canon, which keeps costs down. So, as long as you aren't taking your lenses into battle, a 3rd party lens is a good alternative for those who cannot afford a $1200 Nikkor 28-70 or a $1000 80-200 2.8.

Aric Thalman
Omaha, USA
To most people, the sky is the limit. To those who love aviation, the sky is home
 
AirNikon
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2000 11:31 am

RE: Lenses

Wed Oct 24, 2001 1:51 pm

One of the biggest mistakes I ever made was buying the Sigma 70-210 AF 2.8 (like $700 at the time). I was attracted to the speed, but unfortunately the lens and camera (N90s back then) didn't 'talk' to eachother well and I was frustrated by lock-ups and refusal to focus in the AF mode.

Later I did bite the bone and opted for the Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 and it is a champ.

That's all academic now, because the Nikkor 80-400VR is my primary long lens, albeit not a 100% replacement for the Nikkor 80-200 2.8.

What happened to the Sigma? I sold it to a dude at work, and he likes it! Oh well, all he shoots is sunsets and his kid's soccer games...
Don't get married, don't have kids, and you will have more money than you know what to do with...
 
DSMav8r
Posts: 575
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2000 2:32 pm

RE: Suggestions For Mbruun

Wed Oct 24, 2001 2:01 pm

AirNikon,

How is the 80-400mm holding up for you? I have used mine 5 or 6 times on shoots, so far the results have been amazing. It hasn't replaced my 80-200, but it is sure nice not having to haul around a monopod all of the time!  Smile

Aric Thalman
Omaha, USA
To most people, the sky is the limit. To those who love aviation, the sky is home
 
AirNikon
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2000 11:31 am

RE: Suggestions For Mbruun

Wed Oct 24, 2001 2:07 pm

Aric, it is one tuff lens and mine already has scars from shooting through barbed wire. You gotta deal with the diminished AF speed though, when panning. You have one, AND YOU GOTTA LOVE IT!!!
Don't get married, don't have kids, and you will have more money than you know what to do with...
 
chrisair
Posts: 1786
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2000 11:32 pm

RE: Suggestions For Mbruun

Wed Oct 24, 2001 2:10 pm

I got mine in June, and I've had it in the bag on the last two shoots. I haven't used "the intimidator" much in the last few weeks, but it'll see plenty of action when things return to normal. It will never replace my 80-200, but it sure is nice. The enlargments I've gotten back are just superb, especially up at the long end, they are just razor sharp.

I haven't had the AF decrease much...Just keep the limit near infinity...
 
Guest

Hmm.. Okay..

Wed Oct 24, 2001 2:36 pm

... check out this link, and then tell me which lense to buy..

http://www.japanphoto.no/asp/Main.asp?node=13

The thing to think about is, the more zeroes on the price (pris), the more expensive it is.. I have two kids and a wife and haven't too much money to spend on the lense. Even tho I would like to buy the most expensive lense, I just can't afford it.

So... of the two I picked out earlier, which one should I pick ?

(Nikkor 70-300 mm F:4.0-5.6 ED

Tamron 100-300 mm F:5.0-6.3 (Nikon) )

What are the benefits of each of them, and would they be good enough for me, who's a real amateur, and just _starting_ my spotting career... I can always buy a more expensive lense when I get ahold of more spendolas, but I'm anxious to start my "career" ASAP  Smile

Btw, nice to see many replies to my query... thank you very much  Smile


Regards,

Morten Bruun
 
Guest

RE: Lenses

Wed Oct 24, 2001 2:39 pm

Another thing... That I forgot to mention.. I'm absolutely new with cameras, lenses and photogear.. I wouldn't understand the difference between this and that lense, and I wouldn't like to be $crewed by the photoshop guy who's selling me a lense..


Thanks  Smile


-Morten-
 
da Fwog
Posts: 845
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 1999 5:25 am

RE: Jay & Morten

Wed Oct 24, 2001 8:12 pm

Man, I gotta get myself one of those 1x converters! You see - that's the problem with buying 3rd party. My otherwise excellent Sigma gear (70-200 F2.8EX HSM) doesn't support a 1x converter.  Nuts

Some of what you say about 3rd party lenses is reasonable, and some isn't. Your problem comes from the fact that the Tamron 200-400 you bought is a real STINKER of a lens for quality. While I would agree that in general Nikon & Canon make better lenses for their cameras than Sigma, Tamron or Tokina, for those of us living in the real world, price differences play a big part in decision-making. Like the fact that my Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX HSM is ALMOST as good as Canon's 70-200 F2.8 L USM, still offers silent focusing, but cost me UK£500 instead of UK£1200. For the marginal difference in quality, I couldn't possibly justify spending more than double! The trick is to do your homework on the quality of lenses before you part with your money. There are now plenty of reviews of photographic gear online, as well as discussion forums where you can find other people who already own the kit you are considering.

Morten,

there is little to choose in image quality between the two lenses you are considering - the Tamron is better at the short end, while the Nikon is slightly better at the long end. It's really marginal though - if I was buying I would probably go with the Nikon, purely because of the extra 30mm you have to play with at the short end of the lens.
 
Guest

RE: Jay & Morten

Wed Oct 24, 2001 8:53 pm

Really appreciate it, Da fwog.. Thanks a bunch  Smile



Morten
 
Thom@s
Posts: 11674
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2000 2:03 am

RE: Lenses

Wed Oct 24, 2001 8:57 pm

I have a 25mm, 50mm and a 100mm lense. I could do with a 200-500mm lense I think.  Smile

Thom@s
"If guns don't kill people, people kill people - does that mean toasters don't toast toast, toast toast toast?"
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Lenses

Wed Oct 24, 2001 10:15 pm

3rd party lenses CAN be as good as Nikkors (and certainly better than Canon  Innocent ), but don't expect a $100 Tamron to hold up for long against a $1000 Nikkor.
In general, the best lens of a brand like Tamron or Cosina will be about as good as the 2nd line lenses of Nikkor (and will cost quite a bit less).
I'm getting nice results with my Cosina 100-400, but would love something better. Problem is that that something better will cost me $1000+ and I don't have that kind of money. It is better to have a somewhat lesser lens than no lens at all...
I wish I were flying
 
Bernieh
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 6:30 pm

RE: Lenses

Wed Oct 24, 2001 10:24 pm

I have a 50mm/1.4D, an 28-80mm/3.5-5.6D and a 80-200mm/2.8 lens. And I'd like to have a 2x converter and a 300mm/2.8D lens.

Bernd
 
Guest

RE: Lenses

Thu Oct 25, 2001 9:47 pm

Okay... I bought the Nikkor 70-300mm G lense. I know I should have bought the ED lense, but they were sold out, and this one was $250 cheaper. (I still have 3 weeks of full return rights).. I actually think I'm going to exchange the G for the ED lense..

What do you guys think ??


Thanks,


Morten
 
Guest

Btw

Thu Oct 25, 2001 9:55 pm

Took my first pictures today in HEAVY fog at Gardermoen (OSL(Oslo)) Some Braathens machines, SAS, An AirFrance and a KLM.. MD-80's and 737's.. I'll get them scanned and post them somewhere for you to give me HUGE amounts of tips.. I reckon I'll need it bigtime...  Smile



Morten
 
ckw
Posts: 4586
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 12:26 am

RE: Btw

Thu Oct 25, 2001 10:19 pm

I think if you can, get rid of the G lens - the build and optical quality are comparatively poor. I'm sure Nikon has built ( or has had someone else build) these G lenses to a price point, so they can be offered in special package deals. Though I'm a Canon man myself, I've recently been shopping for Nikons for a friend and was astonished at the variation in quality.

Cheers,

Colin
Colin K. Work, Pixstel
 
Guest

RE: Btw

Thu Oct 25, 2001 10:22 pm

I payed about $170 for the G-lens, and as I said, I have full return rights for the lens for three weeks. So, basically, I could ask them to take in the ED-lens and exchange it for that instead.. Only thing.. It has a pricetag of $420 ...

Should I still change it ? Is it worth it ?


Morten
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Lenses

Thu Oct 25, 2001 11:37 pm

Only you can decide. If you are content with the quality (and/or limitations) of the lens spending more is pointless (right now).
Until you run into the limitations of your lens (rather than your own) having a better lens won't make a lot of difference in the quality of your pictures. I do not know how far along towards that point you are.
Also, if you cannot afford the extra money, it is better to have this lens than none at all. If you then do get the money later on, you can always keep it as a spare.
I wish I were flying
 
Thom@s
Posts: 11674
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2000 2:03 am

RE: Lenses

Fri Oct 26, 2001 2:39 am

"Took my first pictures today in HEAVY fog at Gardermoen."

Fog at Gardermoen? I never thought I'd live to see the day. Big grin

Thom@s
"If guns don't kill people, people kill people - does that mean toasters don't toast toast, toast toast toast?"
 
Guest

RE: Lenses

Fri Oct 26, 2001 2:46 am

"Fog at Gardermoen? I never thought I'd live to see the day Big grin "

One thing for you: :P

Anyways.. I have my contacts in the control tower @ Gardermoen (OSL).. Too bad I don't own a 600mm lense.. heh..  Smile

-Morten-
 
Thom@s
Posts: 11674
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2000 2:03 am

RE: Lenses

Fri Oct 26, 2001 3:04 am

Hehe, det var ikke vondt ment.  Smile

Gardermoen is nice actually.  Big thumbs up

Thom@s
"If guns don't kill people, people kill people - does that mean toasters don't toast toast, toast toast toast?"
 
Guest

RE: Lenses

Fri Oct 26, 2001 3:20 am

Skjønte det  Smile

Yeah, Gardermoen is allright, once you hit it on a sunny day... Any ideas of nice spots there, Thom@s ?



Morten
 
Thom@s
Posts: 11674
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2000 2:03 am

RE: Lenses

Sat Oct 27, 2001 11:59 pm

Hmmm, depends. Through the windows as you walk along to the flight you are on makes a good view of the parked aircrafts outside.

But normally I get a "backstage pass" by travelling on jumpseat with some friends in Golden Air. When I arrive at OSL I walk around getting close ups of all the planes that passes me. Eat your heart out. Big grin

Seriously though, I'm not too familliar with the airport itself. If you ever get in touch with guy here with the username "The Ticketor", you could ask him. He works there and could possibly give you some hints or simillar.

Good luck  Smile

Thom@s
"If guns don't kill people, people kill people - does that mean toasters don't toast toast, toast toast toast?"
 
ericp
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2001 9:02 pm

RE: Lenses

Mon Oct 29, 2001 12:04 pm

Getting back on-thread ...

Morten, don't suffer buyer's remorse. You bought the lens at the price point that you're comfortable with, and you should learn its limitations and work around them. All lenses, no matter how expensive, do have limitations.

For the 70-300mm, if you shoot at the long end (300mm) at max aperture (f/5.6), the images will not be that sharp. Therefore if you need to shoot in low light at extreme range, go to aperture priority, shoot at f/8 or something like that, and lean against something solid.

I have the ED lens, and I think it's great for its price and versatility. The 62mm front element goes through fence holes very easily.

Mine is in storage right now, my main lens is the 80-200mm f/2.8, but occasionally the 70-300mm will still make an appearance, especially if I have to travel light.

HTH,
Eric
 
Guest

RE: Lenses

Tue Oct 30, 2001 8:38 am

Thanks for great replies, guys  Smile

Thom@s .. my mother-in-law has a cousin that works at airport security on OSL .. I'm going to check things out, and see if I can get myself a "VIP" card.. Being escorted around on OSL on the tarmac.. would be great, but I won't get my hopes up too high..  Smile

EricP .. I've got the G lens now, changing it for the ED this wednesday.. I can afford it, but the thing was that I was so eager to start shooting pics the same day as I got the lense, and the fact that they didn't have the ED in at that moment made me take the G right there just to start shooting  Smile


Morten
 
Thom@s
Posts: 11674
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2000 2:03 am

RE: Lenses

Wed Oct 31, 2001 7:52 pm

Good luck Morten, hope you get some pics if you get a chance.  Big thumbs up

Thom@s
"If guns don't kill people, people kill people - does that mean toasters don't toast toast, toast toast toast?"
 
Guest

RE: Lenses

Thu Nov 01, 2001 7:32 am

Just haveto tell you guys... Got my Nikkor 70-300mm F:4.0-5.6 ED lens today, and allthough I haven't gotten to test it yet, just having it in the palm of my hands feels good Big grin



Morten
 
vaman
Posts: 316
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2000 12:27 pm

RE: Lenses

Thu Nov 01, 2001 10:42 am

I'm glad you did not stick with the G. You will be soooo happy with the ED. I have it and it is a wonderful lens for the price and offers a grea amount of versatilty becuase of light weight yet the ED makes for super brilliant contrast and colors.
VAMAN
 
ericp
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2001 9:02 pm

RE: Lenses

Thu Nov 01, 2001 10:48 am

Good for you, Morten ! It's a very nice lens, and the first thing you should do is to try it out in different conditions with your favorite film, so that when the photo opportunities come, you know how to use the lens at its best.

Personally, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference in a shot taken with an ED or non-ED lens ...  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Regards,
Eric
 
Guest

RE: Lenses

Thu Nov 01, 2001 10:50 am

Okay.. So, what type of film *should* I use for best quality on my pictures ?



Morten
 
Staffan
Posts: 3879
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:21 am

RE: Lenses

Thu Nov 01, 2001 11:02 am

Sensia 100 seems to be the most popular one, K64 is the favourite if you ask some. I usually use the Sensia 100.

Staffan
 
Guest

RE: Lenses

Thu Nov 01, 2001 11:47 am

Okay.. how's that compared to the Fujitsu Superia ?
Errm.. Should I use the Fujitsu Superia at all ?

I don't know $h*t about films either.. hehe  Smile I'm THE newbie when it comes to photography... What are the prices on the Sensia 100 ?



Morten
 
Staffan
Posts: 3879
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:21 am

RE: Lenses

Thu Nov 01, 2001 12:01 pm

I think you mean Fuji Superia. That's a print film, but I prefer slides, and Sensia is the cheaper fuji slide film. I pay about 5$ for it and about the same to have it developed.

If you decide to shoot slides, I highly recommend the Sensia.

Regards,

Staffan
 
Guest

RE: Lenses

Thu Nov 01, 2001 12:03 pm

Great staffan.. Thanks  Smile


Morten

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests