Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 29, 2008, 10:26 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

Angel L. wrote:
Quote:
Recomendation, the 70-300 VR to shoot in daylight only or 80-200 F2.8 with TC to shoot in both night and day. The 70-300 VR will be 2.5 times more expensive (granted new vs used for the Tokina).

Right now I have a 70-210 AF F4, and I can fill the frame on the batters box and Pitcher from the backstop and the corners. I need to crop for the infield, and the outfield is just to far for anything afordable for an amature who likes photography.

This is my plan to fill my bag in the future for my D80.

18-135 (kit), 16-80vr, 80-200 f2.8 or 70-300vr and a speedlight sb22.

Will this be a well rounded setup?

I would probably drop the 18-135. It's redundant and not Vr enabled (although VR isn't a huge help for baseball)..with the 16-80 and 70-300/80-200 I just can't think of any reason for you to use it over those two other lenses. I would sell that and use the proceeds to pick up the SB600 or ad a few bucks out of pocket and get the SB800. The SB22 is not fully compatible with the D80 and will require a lot of manual work get good results. The SB600-800 work extremley well, are more powerful, and can be used off camera with the D80's flash in commander mode. I know the Sb22 is a bit smaller and a lot cheaper (about 1/2 the price of the 600, and 1/4 the price of the SB800), but the 600/800 will give you better results and will be worth the money.

I'm with Jim....if your going to shoot at night, you need to go with the f2.8 lens. You can get a TC and get some extra reach for day games.
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2008, 10:56 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 242
Default

The night games are important, its 1/2 the season. Im going to get the tokina 80-200 and a TC for sunny days. I agree I need a better speedlight. As far as the kit lense, I do not think its worth that much used, to reinvest in a sb 600 or the 16-80 vr.
Angel L. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2008, 11:07 AM   #13
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

That sounds like a pretty good plan.

With a 1.4x TC, the Tokina will become the equivalent of a 112-280mm f/4. For day games using the TC, I'd just use it in Av (Aperture Priority) mode a stop down from wide open to sharpen it up some (giving you f/5.6 with a 1.4x TC), bumping up the ISO speed to ISO 400 or 800 as needed.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2008, 11:25 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

Angel L. wrote
Quote:
I agree I need a better speedlight. As far as the kit lense, I do not think its worth that much used, to reinvest in a sb 600 or the 16-80 vr.
You'd be suprised. That lens sells for over $300 new. I've seen it used in good condition for up to $250. I just bought a 3rd SB600 speedlight for $180. Even if you got a bit less for the lens, you'll still come out ahead.
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2008, 2:20 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 242
Default

JimC wrote:
Quote:
What's a "very good price" on the Tokina?
The Tokina is going for $230.00 with caps and hood.
Angel L. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2008, 2:25 PM   #16
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Super Deal. Buy it.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2008, 10:03 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 242
Default

I picked it up this afternoon, wow what a TANK! Smooth and fast afs. I will test is at a night game to see if its better than my f717.
Angel L. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 30, 2008, 8:54 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 242
Default

I took some pics yesterday at a night game, SOSOSOSO.
Attached Images
 
Angel L. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 30, 2008, 9:50 AM   #19
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Angel:

I'd downsize your images more for posting. Around 640 to 720 pixels wide is usually about right for forum posts. That way, members with lower resolution monitor settings won't have to scroll back and forth to see the entire image and read the text in responses.

I'm not sure the lens is the problem for that one. It looks a bit underexposed. I see that one was using f/2.8, 1/320 second at ISO 2500. So, the shutter speeds are slow enough that you're probably catching a bit of blur from subject movement. But, you won't be able to do much better in that lighting. I'd probably try around ISO 3200 and 1/320 to 1/400 second and see what you get in that same lighting, trying for a slightly brighter exposure.

Your cloudy white balance setting may also be influencing apparent exposure (you may be getting a warm cast to images in artificial lighting with that setting). Your setting for higher saturation may also be influencing it.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 30, 2008, 9:56 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 242
Default

I posted some more pics in the sports section, and I experimented with differat iso and white balance settings with similar results. I cant complain much when you factor what I paid for the lense.

Do you know what TC I can use?
Angel L. is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:59 PM.