£1500-£1800 to spend, what would you recommend?

Fast lens or slow lens, you can still take good shots. Yes, it is nice to be able to use continual focus and get a high hit rate, but a lot of people will 'zone focus' on a spot where the action is likely to happen....the first bend in motorsport for instance. With a slow focussing lens, that is probably the way to go.
 
:thinking: Buy it for motorsport use did you?
Sarcasm is shown by intellect and wit, your avatar suggests you have those attributes, the practicalities are that you are sadly lacking in both.
 
Fast lens or slow lens, you can still take good shots. Yes, it is nice to be able to use continual focus and get a high hit rate, but a lot of people will 'zone focus' on a spot where the action is likely to happen....the first bend in motorsport for instance. With a slow focussing lens, that is probably the way to go.

I'd tend to disagree here as a lot of motorsport shots I take involve panning and not static shooting.

Even though the post has gone slightly off tangent, I am learning more here than any magazine has taught me.

Just to give a bit of how I used to play out in the playground. I'd set-up the shot for where I think the best action is and set the camera to 'Auto' (I know, shoot me, but this was how I learned) I then looked at the pic and the info the camera gave on the AV and ISO setting and I adjusted accordingly. When the racing started I then had what I thought was the best shot for that time. Now this is how the day would progress and I'd alter the setting with the movement of the sun, clouds or if I moved spot at the track. I think I have came away with some OK shots (well, they are OK for me, see below)

17fdaba8.jpg


As said above, the Tamron 70-300mm lens I have is f5.6 at the fat end and the AF is in the body and not the lens. As much as I'd love a Nikon 70-200mm lens (or similar) that's good for f2.8 I can't afford one (not at over £1,000 as I want a shorter lens and possibly a x1.4 or x1.7 TC, then will add a 50mm at a later date etc)

So what about the,D300, Nikon 18-70mm AF-S ED and that'll then leave me with about £600 or so for the best glass I can get for the money.

Next question then, what's the best I can get for around that budget???

EDIT - Edited to add datails on the above shot. ISO200, 180mm, f4.5, 1/250 sec. The image has not been edited in any way other than shrunk and added to Photobucket for hosting.
 
VB,

Not being rude, but I'd politely suggest that your shot above illustrates my point about anything can take photos of anything, its just the resulting quality that varies.

If that is where you are at and you want to improve on it, I have a suggestion that might help. Get the combo you mentioned above and then pick up the Nikon 70-300 VR. Its a cheap(ish) lens (around the 400 quid mark from HK) that providing its not pitch black when you are shooting will give you waaaay better results than your shot above. I have the Canon equivalent of that lens (the two compare almost identically), use it regularly still and its not dreadful.

Try that, you will be super happy with the improvement and then if you want to push the envelope a bit more, add some more glass later.

I can't think of anything else that fits with your budget that would give better results - and I know plenty of people who have tried lots (and lots!) of the medium price kit for motorsport.

Oh and btw, I'm not sure if the Nikon TC family will fit on that lens, even if it does, I'm not sure you'd want to...
 
You have a pm VB

Davy, I'll be in touch. Myself, I have a wedding this weekend but I'll give you a shout. Gonna take a trip to Jessops today and have a look/feel at the D300 and melt some heads LOL

desantnik - here's a thread I posted from the NW200 this year. That pic above isn't the best example the K100D has came up with, it is quite noisey and not too sharp, but the ones linked below are better (at least I think so anyway)

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=62116
 
Sarcasm is shown by intellect and wit, your avatar suggests you have those attributes, the practicalities are that you are sadly lacking in both.

Well, the op asked about a lens for motorsport, you, who admits to having limited knowledge of the subject, has butted in and suggested he buys unsuitable lenses and then, in an attempt at "humour" brought up the 300-800 Sigma that you own.

Whether this was just an attempt to say "hey, look at me, I'm really witty" which is sadly not true, or "look, I can afford an expensive lens" I'm not really sure.

To clarify, nowhere did I say a lens with an f/5.6 aperture was crap, what I did say was that it wasn't ideal for motorsport. I'm sure your Sigma is a wonderful lens, and so it should be, given the large amount of money it must have cost you, however, from what I gather it was designed for use in the field of wildlife photography,which has completely different requirements to motorsport.

I realise you feel the need to try and score points against me at every given opportunity, but I fail to see how your adding in any way whatsoever to this discussion
 
VB,

Not being rude, but I'd politely suggest that your shot above illustrates my point about anything can take photos of anything, its just the resulting quality that varies.

If that is where you are at and you want to improve on it, I have a suggestion that might help. Get the combo you mentioned above and then pick up the Nikon 70-300 VR. Its a cheap(ish) lens (around the 400 quid mark from HK) that providing its not pitch black when you are shooting will give you waaaay better results than your shot above. I have the Canon equivalent of that lens (the two compare almost identically), use it regularly still and its not dreadful.

Try that, you will be super happy with the improvement and then if you want to push the envelope a bit more, add some more glass later.

I can't think of anything else that fits with your budget that would give better results - and I know plenty of people who have tried lots (and lots!) of the medium price kit for motorsport.

Oh and btw, I'm not sure if the Nikon TC family will fit on that lens, even if it does, I'm not sure you'd want to...

The 70-300 VR can be had for around £300 from a Nikon dealer in the UK (the HK price is about the same), I found with mine (on a D80 body) that I had to use 1600 iso to get acceptable fast action shots, even in the gloom that passes for summer up here.

The D300 body can handle such a high iso better than the D80 could, so that might be a viable option, although personally I'd still be tempted to spend a bit more for an 80-200 f/2.8, but as desantnik says, you could always start with the 70-300 and upgrade later should you want to go further with your motorsport photography.
 
Didn't the AF-S version of the 80-200 go in the bin when the AF-S 70-200 VR came out?

The version of the 80-200 I have seen for sale is only AF...
 
Didn't the AF-S version of the 80-200 go in the bin when the AF-S 70-200 VR came out?

The version of the 80-200 I have seen for sale is only AF...

Yes, it did. The AF-D is the only version still on sale new. It still does the job for motorsport due to the powerful motor in the D300, but there is no denying that the 70-200 VR with AF-S is quicker. I haven't used the AF-S 80-200 so I can't offer a comparison, but I'll try and get a shot of one just out of interest.
 
Can anyone join the battle as I have just bought a brilliant body and it has a massive super zoom attached for getting every shot from 1000ft to 5miles with pin point accuracy ..... its made by a lesser known company called Cheiftan bit heavy to wear on a strap ***
 
Can anyone join the battle as I have just bought a brilliant body and it has a massive super zoom attached for getting every shot from 1000ft to 5miles with pin point accuracy ..... its made by a lesser known company called Cheiftan bit heavy to wear on a strap ***

Can I borrow it for a wee while :naughty:
 
Was in Jessops today and had my mits on the D300. Initial impression - I like it. Stuck the 70/300mm VR Nikon lens on it and it did feel heavy, but I'd imagine a grip would sort that right out. This is what they offered me,

D300 - £949
Nikkor 70/300 VR - £319.99
Nikkor 18/70 - £249.99
50mm f1.8 - £79.99
4GB Extreme III - £35

Quick math says that's £1635, plus he tried selling me insurance to cover the lot for £103. Any thoughts then on the above? And is the insurance worth the extra or should I source it elsewhere?
 
VB,

It probably will seem heavy to you, but don't worry, you get used to it! The grip will make handling easier, but if you stick two batteries in it plus the weight of the grip itself, you are almost up to Canon 1D weight - a camera everyone says is "big and heavy". Of course, you can drop the grip off if you want to go out walking about (when you get better that is!!)

If you have cash/credit card to pay for it, I'd suggest getting the body from the UK and the glass from One Stop Digital in HK...

Warranties on the body are usually the problem, glass will usually be honoured...

Insurance is insurance on what? Find out if its an extended warranty or actually loss/damage insurance. If its the latter, check your household insurance policy - you might already be covered (but you might have to tell them about any single expensive item... like this camera setup)
 
doesn't sound too bad, the 18-70 and Card are on the expensive side.

Cant comment on the insurance, as i dont know what it covers.

But i added all my gear to my home insurance, inc damage whilst out and about, for £4 a month.
 
I find the 70-300 feels better balanced on my D70 than on the D200 - but that's MY opinion! Adding a grip to the D300 will make it feel even heavier - IMO, the main advantage of the VR lens is the ability to use the combination hand-held - add that grip and it'll be hard work.

D300 - £949...................Price seems OK
Nikkor 70/300 VR - £319.99..-----"-------
Nikkor 18/70 - £249.99.........Price is well over the odds - maybe they'll do it as a kit with the D300?
50mm f1.8 - £79.99.............Price is OK
4GB Extreme III - £35.......... http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=777_6&products_id=101183
 
Was in Jessops today and had my mits on the D300. Initial impression - I like it. Stuck the 70/300mm VR Nikon lens on it and it did feel heavy,

Do you need 300mm or was that the only lens thay had for you to try?

The 55-200 VR is much lighter, and just as good IQ.

I use the both the 18-55 VR and 55-200 VR on My D300 and both produce excellent results
 
Do you need 300mm or was that the only lens thay had for you to try?

The 55-200 VR is much lighter, and just as good IQ.

I use the both the 18-55 VR and 55-200 VR on My D300 and both produce excellent results

I'd like a 300 as that's what I've been using on my K100D and it seems 'right' for everywhere around the track. A mate uses a 200 and it's just that little bit short I find. I could obviously go with a 200 and TC but that's just extra things to carry about.

The K100D I have isn't too light itself loaded with a 300 and 4 x AA batteries, the only forgiving bit of it is that the body does the focusing for the lens so that will save on the weight factor.

What am I complaining for though, I'm currently having to haul my 13 stone ass about on crutches so my arms are going to be more than strong enough to carry a D300 and whatever lens is on it LOL
 
the TC wont work on the 55-200 as its f4-5.6

the tc does work on the 70-200 f2.8 VR, but that combo will set you back about £1200.

Only reason i asked is the 18-55 + the 55-200 comes out at £300ish for both.
 
doesn't sound too bad, the 18-70 and Card are on the expensive side.

Cant comment on the insurance, as i dont know what it covers.

But i added all my gear to my home insurance, inc damage whilst out and about, for £4 a month.

:agree:

The card is about £20 dearer than elsewhere and the 18-70 price is a joke

Do a search on TP for details of PC World's price match, it works out at under £15 for the same card.

I'd forget the 18-70 and the 50mm and get a Tamromn 17-50mm f/2.8. You'll save yourself £100-150 (enough for a flashgun or another lens) and you'll not miss the 20mm gap between it and the 70-300 vr. The 50mm f/1.8 is a lens that everyone raves about and tell others to buy, but to be honest it's of limited use, so I'd wait and see if you really need it first. Mine just sits there and never gets used.

As Monkey says, try your home insurance or Photoguard before going for the Jessops "insurance" it looks very expensive and is more of an extended warranty than an insurance policy anyway.

A Kenko Pro 300 1.4tc will work on the 70-300 VR but it renders the af unusable and the viewfinder so dark at 300mm that it's almost impossible to see through fine if you get glorious sunshine over your part of the world all the time, but crap if you get the dull,overcast nonsense that passes for a summer round here....
 
get a Tamrom 17-50mm f/2.8

is that Like a Tamron, but cheaper :LOL:

Sorry couldnt resist..

^^ as he said you wont notice the 20mm gap, and the 17-50 f2.8 is a really nice lens, sigma do an 18-50 f2.8 but i dont think its as good optically ( i have no personal experience of either )
 
OK, quick update. I have just gone and ordered a D300, 18-70 and 70-300 Nikkor lenses with a 4GB card. Saturday is going to be a fun day :D
 
Guess what arrived today :D I'll be out this weekend firing off a few shots, here's to hoping I can do the camera some justice.

Thank you all for your help.

494947ef.jpg
 
Thanks again David for your offer of letting me play about with you camera. I've had a few doctor, hopital and physio appointment over the last week so time has been pretty tight. I'm looking forward to Saturday now to get out and get it into action :D
 
Back
Top