[Teshi]

Originally Posted by scollins

Ok, I read a few reviews on dpreview.com. Here is an interesting quandry:

The Canon 70-200 f/2.8 rated extremely well on the full frame bodies (5D), but not quite as well on the APS-C bodies (40D/50D).



The Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 was the opposite, rating extremely well on the DX/APS-C format, but under-performing on the full frame bodies.



So it seems that Canon optimized their 70-200 for the full frame bodies (like Vudoo's) and Nikon optimized theirs for the DX series (D90/D300.)

Anyway, looking at a Canon 50D with the 18-200 IS is the same price as the D300 with the 18-200 VR, both with similar performance. So now I'm stuck with a "997TT vs. R8" scenario!! I guess it all really boils down to when I would actually pick up the 70-200 f/2.8.

<--- having a hard time deciding....

Question is, do you need or want full frame? If the answer is no....your choice should be easier. Personally that is a load of bull about the 70-200. The Canon is an EF mount so it is made to work with the 1D and 5D aswell as film SLR's. Its not designed for full frame, its designed for both bodies.

It has nothing to do with the crop that affects IQ or showing any flaws on lenses, its the pixel count. Higher pixel counts on a crop body WILL present more flaws as opposed to a FF body.

[scollins]

Originally Posted by Teshi

Question is, do you need or want full frame? If the answer is no....your choice should be easier. Personally that is a load of bull about the 70-200. The Canon is an EF mount so it is made to work with the 1D and 5D aswell as film SLR's. Its not designed for full frame, its designed for both bodies.

Real world budgets pretty much eliminate the full frame options for me, and at my current knowledge and skill level, I don't even really understand the features and benefits of the full frame over the crop frame bodies. I don't have any current film lenses, so I'm not tied to either brand from that perspective.

So the answer is indeed "no, I don't need full-frame." What is the easy answer then? Still seems like Chevy/Ford, 997/R8, RS4/M3 to me....

It has nothing to do with the crop that affects IQ or showing any flaws on lenses, its the pixel count. Higher pixel counts on a crop body WILL present more flaws as opposed to a FF body.

So is that a drawback to the Canon 50D? They squeezed 15MP on the same size sensor (roughly) as the 40D, D90 and D300 (10-12 MP). It almost seems like you reach a theoretical limit on MPs for a given sensor size, creating a "diminishing return". But consumers like their MPs, and more must be better, right?

[Teshi]

Originally Posted by scollins

Real world budgets pretty much eliminate the full frame options for me, and at my current knowledge and skill level, I don't even really understand the features and benefits of the full frame over the crop frame bodies. I don't have any current film lenses, so I'm not tied to either brand from that perspective.

So the answer is indeed "no, I don't need full-frame." What is the easy answer then? Still seems like Chevy/Ford, 997/R8, RS4/M3 to me....



So is that a drawback to the Canon 50D? They squeezed 15MP on the same size sensor (roughly) as the 40D, D90 and D300 (10-12 MP). It almost seems like you reach a theoretical limit on MPs for a given sensor size, creating a "diminishing return". But consumers like their MPs, and more must be better, right?

Thats right, the pixels have a higher density which means it will crave higher end glass as it will most likely tend to show up any issues with budget or low end lenses.

Which is why when the 5D (classic) came out, people raved that the 5D NEEDED "L" series lenses. Same thing, high pixel density made things like chromatic abberation a big issue.

[TWiTCHY]

Originally Posted by scollins

Thanks for the feedback. Bummer though, as I don't really want to spend $1,600 on a lens right now. Hmmmmmm......

Also, do you buy local or off the 'net? If you do buy local, where do you shop? I haven't been to Glazer's in at least 10 years, but it used to be a good shop.....

In particular, I bought the Tamron at Tall's, which wasn't a good idea also. They enforce a 15% restocking fee, period. I'd go with Kits who encourage you to buy the lens just to try it out, and if you don't like it you can return it for full price.

I've heard of Glazer's, and in fact I think I went there when I was only 12 years old to rent a light meter to use for a science project. I have no recollections of my experiences there, but I would definitely consider them for rentals.

[scollins]

Originally Posted by TWiTCHY

In particular, I bought the Tamron at Tall's, which wasn't a good idea also. They enforce a 15% restocking fee, period. I'd go with Kits who encourage you to buy the lens just to try it out, and if you don't like it you can return it for full price.

I've heard of Glazer's, and in fact I think I went there when I was only 12 years old to rent a light meter to use for a science project. I have no recollections of my experiences there, but I would definitely consider them for rentals.

Camera's West skews towards the higher end stuff (D300's in stock) while Kit's has more of the entry to mid-level stuff. Both are owned by the same company (Ritz) though.

I stopped by Tall's at Southcenter and talked with them for a little bit. They said Nikon lens prices are going up in February, but they aren't sure by how much. Seemed like knowledgeable guys, but good to know about the return policy. I was the only customer in the store for the 15 minutes I was there, whereas I was one of five at the Camera's West (by Best Buy Tukwila.)

[TWiTCHY]

Are they increasing prices for MY 2009?

[scollins]

Update:

Bought the Nikon D300 with the 18-200 VR lens. I've got a few more accessories to buy (bag, filters, flash, strap, image editing software, etc.) but I'm set for now. You'd think a $1,600 body would come with a decent strap, but the POS in the box is an insult to the materials it was made from. Unbelievable....

The Canon's were a close second choice, but in the end the 50D's excessive MPs (in my opinion) for a crop sensor and lower overall performance on their 18-200 lens helped me make my decision. The D300 kit and the 50D kit were basically equally priced. I think the 50D really requires you step up in the glass department, or you'll be disappointed with the results. Now, if they offered the 50D's refinements and upgrades in a 10-12 MP sensor at the 40D's current price, I probably would have gone that route. Canon or Nikon, I don't think you can lose with either selection.

Now I have to learn to drive this thing! My thought is that with no "auto" setting, I'm forcing myself to not be lazy! If I want to be lazy and take pictures, I'll grab the Canon SD 1100 IS.

Thanks to everyone for their feedback, input and knowledge. I really appreciate it. A special thanks to Vudoo for the lengthy insights and PMs answering many of my questions.

[TWiTCHY]

Congrats

I'm still waiting on my D300 body to arrive from the other side of the country, and UPS missed a train in Hodgkins, IL, delaying my package. Nikon's straps get pretty uncomfortable after a while. They're hard and scratchy feeling. I'd opt for a Lowepro or hand strap.

[PPower]

Congratulations on the D300. Your original question was about Tamron for Nikon. I have a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 and really love it, although I think I'm going to see about trading or selling it to get the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. It seems like the main complaint of the Tamron is the speed of autofocus. IQ is top notch. The autofocus speed is not a problem for the 28-75 as a portrait lens, but it WOULD be a problem for the 70-200 f/2.8 where you need the big aperture for low light action. I am looking for a way to justify getting that lens and a 2x tele this year.

I also have the Tokina 11-16mm, and it is phenomenal. I also have the 18-200mm VR and think it's OK, but I'm not fully in love with it for some reason. It will NOT work for your indoor action shooting at the 200mm's f/5.6. Also, as Sniz shows with his 50mm (and gorgeous 335), you NEED one. Just get the 50mm f/1.8 for $115 over the 1/3 stop faster 1.4 for $300. It's supposedly even sharper than the 1.4 for 1/3 the price. It is my cheapest and favorite lens.

This looks like a killer bag:
D300
Nikon 18-200 VR
Tokina 11-16 f/2.8
Nikon 50mm f/1.8
Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR
1.4 or 2x tele

[scollins]

Thanks PPower. Always looking for more data points.

[dcstep]

I've got the Canon EF 70-200 f4L IS. This is an exceptional lens on my 5D MkII. Without software correction it blows away my EF 24-105 f4L IS. However, after correction with DxO Optics Pro v5.2.3 software they both have performance comparable to the very best prime lenses at all focal lengths and apertures. Whether you go Canon or Nikon, I recommend going to DxO's website to see if they offer their software for the body and lenses that your considering. The software sharpens RAW or jpg so effectively that you'll never long for a sharper lens AND it processes automatically in batches of several hundred images with very little interface required of the user.

Dave

[scollins]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Whether you go Canon or Nikon, I recommend going to DxO's website to see if they offer their software for the body and lenses that your considering. The software sharpens RAW or jpg so effectively that you'll never long for a sharper lens AND it processes automatically in batches of several hundred images with very little interface required of the user.

Dave

I just checked the DxO website, and the D300 with 18-200 is supported in the "Standard" version. They offer a trial version, so I think I'll download it and try it out. Thanks for the tip!

[ANILE8]

I'm sure you will enjoy your D300 Scott.

Now you can work on increasing your lens collection.

I hear Nikon make some pretty nice glass...

[TurboFan]

Originally Posted by Vudoo4u2

I have to tell you something up front, I'm not knocking on nikon, they have some fantastic products in various ranges.

1) Ken Rockwell is a joke: generally speaking, on various photo forums, this is the name that gets used as a fake avatar and made fun of for being so incredible anti-canon and pro-nikon that its silly.

The man is a pro photographer that shoots in jpeg mode and doesnt think that photoshop is useful since he'd rather take the true output of the camera (plus, who has a computer that can run that program!)

*sarcasm*
...

As far as Ken Rockwell goes, you should read through all of his reviews. In many of them, he prefers the Canon to the Nikon, especially prior to the release of the D3/D300 platforms.

As far as photoshop goes, there are a whole lot of people in the anti-photoshop camp. I, as many people, am not interested in what you can do on the computer, but what you can do wit the camera. I'd much rather spend the money on filters than the software.

[ANILE8]

Sniz;4354607]yup I use my 18-200vr allllll the time. I am planning on picking up a 80-200 f2.8 as well.

I also want a D700....I want I want I want, but I dont need.

I'm not that keen on the D700

most of my shots that I post are taken w/ the 18-200vr or my beloved 50mm f1.4

The 18-200mm is ok for grandparents but Nikon make better.

keep in mind i'm shooting w a now antiquated d80.....I would love some high ISO quality.....D700 anyone?

If I was you, to improve my kit, I would be buying glass not bodies.

18-200vr

Nice shot.

[PPower]

Originally Posted by ANILE8

I'm not that keen on the D700



The 18-200mm is ok for grandparents but Nikon make better.



If I was you, to improve my kit, I would be buying glass not bodies.

Nice shot.

Well, at least you're not much of a gear-snob. Sniz's shot is a great example that you don't have to have the most technically perfect lens to make a great shot. I have the same lens, and for its relatively few IQ faults, I don't think anybody else makes as good a lens for its versatility. For a lens kit to get you through almost any situation, this and a 50mm f/1.8 take care of almost everything.

[TurboFan]

The 18-200 VR lens is one of the most respected 35mm format designs in the market today. As far as lenses go that are a variable aperature zoom, I'd say it's the best I've seen. If you must have a fixed aperature, you're looking at a whole different class of lenses, which are heavier and much larger than their variable aperature counterparts. The VR can make up for the smaller aperature in many cases, and not many people seem to know how to make use of the depth of field use of a larger aperature.

[ANILE8]

VR does nothing for letting your camera use a higher shutter speed.

VR has no effect on shutter speed or aperture.

VR only reduces vibration! Surprise.... Surprise...

Vibration can mainly be seen at low shutter speeds and for sports you need at least 1/500sec to stop the motion.

I can assure you in no uncertain terms that the laws of physics have not changed in the last few years and if you want to shoot sports and get professional results you need fast glass.

Not VR.

There is no substitute for a fast lens.

[scollins]

Originally Posted by ANILE8

I can assure you in no uncertain terms that the laws of physics have not changed in the last few years and if you want to shoot sports and get professional results you need fast glass.

Not VR.

There is no substitute for a fast lens.

But VR is an extra feature to have, yes? I can save a lot of money by getting the 80-200 f/2.8 instead of the 70-200 VR f/2.8. But I thought at the higher end of the zoom range, the VR would be handy to have. It won't help in action shots too much (the subject is moving, not necessarily the camera/lens combo.)

[TurboFan]

Originally Posted by ANILE8

VR does nothing for letting your camera use a higher shutter speed.

VR has no effect on shutter speed or aperture.

VR only reduces vibration! Surprise.... Surprise...

Vibration can mainly be seen at low shutter speeds and for sports you need at least 1/500sec to stop the motion.

I can assure you in no uncertain terms that the laws of physics have not changed in the last few years and if you want to shoot sports and get professional results you need fast glass.

Not VR.

There is no substitute for a fast lens.

I don't think you understand VR / IS. VR can allow you to use a slower shutter speed. Who said anything about a higher shutter speed?

The point of VR is to allow the user to handhold a slower shutter speed and not have vibration in the image. So, using the rule of thumb of 1/focal length to determine if you can hand hold for that shutter speed, you can go 2-3 stops slower on the aperature, or the shutter, and still have a clean image. It in effect allows the lens to function in a wider range of lighting conditions without a tripod.

Of course it does not replace a wider aperature. No one has yet to imply that VR can change the laws of physics.

[TurboFan]

Originally Posted by scollins

But VR is an extra feature to have, yes? I can save a lot of money by getting the 80-200 f/2.8 instead of the 70-200 VR f/2.8. But I thought at the higher end of the zoom range, the VR would be handy to have. It won't help in action shots too much (the subject is moving, not necessarily the camera/lens combo.)

It can be handy if you are shooting in low light, fully zoomed, aperture wide open, and you have to set the shutter slower than 1/200.

The following determine exposure for an image:
1. ISO
2. Shutter speed (usually expressed as 1/x, where x is expressed in seconds)
3. Aperture, or f-stop. Usually expressed as f/y, where y is the aperture number. So, f/2.8 would be the fastest setting this lens could obtain.

For a given ISO (usually 50-6400 on newer dSLR's), you will select a combination of shutter speed and aperture. Say you are using ISO 100, 1/100 f/2.8. If you choose a higher ISO number, you can speed up the shutter or close down the aperture. So lets say you select ISO 200, your camera might meter correctly at 1/250 and f/4. Or whatever, it depends on the lighting.

Now lets say you are shooting with the lens zoomed all the way to 200mm. The rule of thumb says 1/focal length is your minimum shutter speed to not show camera shake for a hand-held shot. If you have VR in the lens, it allows you to hand hold down to a slower shutter speed without showing shake, assuming good technique.

There are other ways to make up for not having VR. The newer DSLR's are able to shoot at amazingly high ISO values with no evident noise. If you can shoot indoors at ISO 1600 on the D300 or D700, you may not ever need VR on an f/2.8 lens.

You can also do what we've all done for years, and just get a tripod.

[scollins]

Originally Posted by TurboFan

Now lets say you are shooting with the lens zoomed all the way to 200mm. The rule of thumb says 1/focal length is your minimum shutter speed to not show camera shake for a hand-held shot. If you have VR in the lens, it allows you to hand hold down to a slower shutter speed without showing shake, assuming good technique.

There are other ways to make up for not having VR. The newer DSLR's are able to shoot at amazingly high ISO values with no evident noise. If you can shoot indoors at ISO 1600 on the D300 or D700, you may not ever need VR on an f/2.8 lens.

You can also do what we've all done for years, and just get a tripod.

Here is a shot that I took of my daughter playing basketball indoors. Lighting was very difficult, and combined with slow glass, meant I had to run at ISO 3200.

Body: Nikon D300
Lens: Nikon 18-200 VR
ISO: 3200
Shutter: 1/100
Aperture: f/5.0
Focal: 52mm




Full size image here: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3111/...b84759d2_o.jpg

I'm not showing this as an example of a great picture (it isn't), but to highlight the tough lighting conditions. Even at ISO 3200, I was barely able to get 1/100th shutter speeds due to the slow glass. That isn't fast enough to freeze action, thus things are blurry like my daughter's fingers.

With glass able to run f/2.8, I could have bumped up the shutter speed to 1/250 at ISO 3200, or dialed the ISO back down to 1600 and shoot at 1/160.

When I was closer to the action (this shot was taken from a walkway above the court), I might have been able to use a flash to improve lighting conditions. But I didn't want to use flash (distracting), and right now I've only got the weak built in flash and not something like an SB-600 or SB-900.

For the next game, I think I'm going to rent the 70-200 VR f/2.8 and also play with the autofocus settings. I was shooting in single point AF mode, which may not have been the right choice.

You can also do what we've all done for years, and just get a tripod.

I've got one (Bogen 3021), but I'd really like to get a Gitzo CF to get the weight down. I find that I don't bring the tripod along because it is relatively heavy....