Wake 101
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WakeWorld Home
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Video and Photography

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    Chance Alex (calexan)      Join Date: Dec 2008       01-15-2009, 6:53 AM Reply   
I have a Nikon D90 with the Kit 18-105mm lens and im guessing that will not get me far enough back to get some upclose shots if I really wanted the power to do that. So Im looking at 3 different lenses to add to my bag with one of them strictly being for wakeboarding shots. What length are some of you guys using? I guess im just not really sure how much power Id need at 80 ft back. What do you camera guys think?

Im looking at these Nikon Glass:
55-200mm VR $200
18-200mm VR $600
70-300mm VR $420
Old    Kyle (kylek306)      Join Date: Feb 2003       01-15-2009, 7:04 AM Reply   
only lens I shoot from the boat with is 70-200 2.8. I've never had the need for more than that except when I shoot from chase boats the 200mm range is a little short and I break out a 70-300 on well lit days. Have used all of these before I had my 70-200 and preferred the 18-200 since it was nice to be able to shoot the wake, then turn around and have a wide enough lens to take lifestyles around the boat with just one camera
Old    Nick Tomsyck (sidekicknicholas)      Join Date: Mar 2007       01-15-2009, 8:54 AM Reply   
I use a 70-300 and love it
Old    Chance Alex (calexan)      Join Date: Dec 2008       01-15-2009, 9:01 AM Reply   
So would 200mm be enough just shooting from my own boat? It does sound nice to be able to turn around and take pics in the boat without making a switch. I guess its all just gonna depend on whether Id rather have the 18mm range or the 70mm range on the low end, or if I just want to be cheap and have the 55mm.
Old    Chance Alex (calexan)      Join Date: Dec 2008       01-15-2009, 9:04 AM Reply   
Are there any big noticable weight differences between these three, I figure the 18-200 and 70-300 will be pretty long and heavy, but im not to worried about a little extra weight.
Old    Nate (mammoth)      Join Date: Apr 2005       01-15-2009, 10:53 AM Reply   
Check out this post for some idea on the range of the 55-200. I don't have the lens any more, but I think the range is perfect for shooting on the boat.
Old    m13 (merrion13)      Join Date: Aug 2007       01-15-2009, 2:19 PM Reply   
The 55-200 is the lightest of all of those, but as the price states, it is 'entry level' glass (although not as bad as some other entry level lenses). The 18-200 has been around for some time and has a good reputation for a reason, its a great lens. But you would have a lot of focal length overlay with that lens and the 18-105 you already own, so I wouldn't advise that one.
Based on this, I say go with the 70-300.
I'm saving up for the lens Kyle is using right now, the 70-200 2.8. But at $1500 new, it ain't cheap.
Old    Phantom (phantom5815)      Join Date: Jul 2002       01-15-2009, 3:25 PM Reply   
18-200mm & 70-300mm vr are not heavy.
I have both lenses.
18-200 is used for travel.
70-300mm vr would be a very good lens for the boat.
Old    Nate (mammoth)      Join Date: Apr 2005       01-15-2009, 4:13 PM Reply   
Chance - Are you looking for a single lens solution for the boat, or will be cool with changing lenses?

As much as I love the 70-300, it's too long for shooting any lifestyle/candid stuff in the boat. You'll want to switch back to the 18-105 for that if you go with the 70-300. The range of the 55-200 lets you shoot the rider and in-boat stuff with a single lens. The 55-200 gives you some overlap with the 18-105, but it's useful and convenient for shooting a day in the boat.
Old    Chance Alex (calexan)      Join Date: Dec 2008       01-15-2009, 5:39 PM Reply   
Yea I'm just looking for a single lens as I suspect there will be drinking, and trying to keep the lens changing to a minimum. Im starting to lean more towards the 55-200 or 18-200, just cause it seems the 200-300mm range might be a little long. The only reason im not just jumping at the 55-200 is that ive been reading that the build quility is not that great, so thats what has me worried now. If I got the 18-200 I would more than likely just trade in the 18-105 since I would basically have that range covered.
Old    Bakes (bakes5)      Join Date: Aug 2006       01-15-2009, 6:56 PM Reply   
18-200....Everything else will get dusty once you start upgrading to the good glass.
Old    Nate (mammoth)      Join Date: Apr 2005       01-16-2009, 10:12 AM Reply   
Does the 18-200 have priority manual focus? I would think it does, but I'm not sure. If not then you might try to also hang on to the 18-105 for situations where you plan to use the video feature on the D90. It's nice not to switch back and forth between M and A when shooting video.
Old    Kyle (kylek306)      Join Date: Feb 2003       01-17-2009, 8:10 AM Reply   
yeah m13 it hurts initially, but you won't regret it or look back. Bakes is def dead on too. All the other lenses will collect dust for sure. Once you upgrade your glass you'll never touch the other stuff.
Old    Chance Alex (calexan)      Join Date: Dec 2008       01-25-2009, 1:43 PM Reply   
Ok im probably going to go with the 18-200.... So should I just sell my 18-105 once I get it since ive got all the ranges covered?

Im also watching my local circuit city cause every one knows about their sale, but they have two 70-300 still on the shelves. They are only 10% off right now but they might be a little more appealing in the coming weeks if nobody else picks them up. It didnt look like the DSLR lenses have been flying off the shelves there.
Old    Alan Slabaugh (alans)      Join Date: Aug 2005       01-26-2009, 12:33 PM Reply   
I just went full frame with the D700 and found that my 70-200 2.8 did not give me the focal length I wanted. Just picked up the AF-S VR 70-300 for 1/3 the price. Yea, its a 4.5-5.6 but being able to crank the ISO to 6400 gets those stops back. The 80-400 is sweet too but it is too big, and does not have AF-S.

I would look into the future, I would bet that in 4-8 years you will be replacing that camera with a Full Frame sensor camera. Good glass lasts a lot longer than that.
Old    Rich Dykmans (richd)      Join Date: Oct 2003       01-26-2009, 1:22 PM Reply   
Interesting take, a lot of people want full frame sensors so their lenses act like they did when they were shooting film.

When someone has never shot anything but cropped sensors goes full frame the first thing you think is "where did my telephoto go?"

That D700 looks like a really nice body. It's nice when you throw a 24 or 35 mm lens on a FF and see that nice wide field of view on the other end though.

Are you keeping the 70-200? Those definitely have their place.
Old    Alan Slabaugh (alans)      Join Date: Aug 2005       01-26-2009, 1:48 PM Reply   
I made the switch from Sony/Minolta, over to Nikon.

First and foremost I wanted a FF body. I had a CZ 24-70 2.8, Sigma EX 70-200 2.8, and a 16mm 2.8 Fisheye. But I found my self really wanting a CZ 16-35 2.8 ($1700.) So instead of dropping that coin, I figured with Full frame I could get by with two zooms, 24-70, 70-300. And in the meantime, upgrade my body. D700 fit the bill perfectly. I loved my Sony stuff, but I have no desire for a $3k, 24 mp camera (a900.)

So after all is said and done. It cost me $700 to go to the d700, with new "pro" glass, with all of my desired focal lengths covered, minus the fisheye. Instead of $1700 for the CZ 16-35, a far inferior body, and too many lenses to fit in an inconspicuous camera bag.

(Message edited by alans on January 26, 2009)
Old    Rich Dykmans (richd)      Join Date: Oct 2003       01-26-2009, 7:39 PM Reply   
Are you sure you want the Zeiss?

I hear the Nikon 14-24 absolutely kicks a$$ on anything else in that range.

Heck Canon guys are spending a fortune on adaptors just to use that Nikon lens on Canon bodies with MF only to boot.
Old    Alan Slabaugh (alans)      Join Date: Aug 2005       01-27-2009, 6:11 AM Reply   
No I don't want the Zeiss, that is why I switched from Sony to Nikon, for the glass, and because Nikon has the only affordable FF camera.

Yes, I have been drooling over the 14-24 too, I have some realtor friends that I may get some gigs with for listing pictures, that should pay for the 14-24. Otherwise I am still mezmorized with my 24-70.

I took this picture last night, in a dark room, no flash, one small children's table lamp in the corner.

1/50 f/2.8
ISO 2000
56mm Handheld.
Old    Alan Slabaugh (alans)      Join Date: Aug 2005       01-27-2009, 6:22 AM Reply   
wow, just noticed how bad those look as jpg's compared to the raw files.
Old    Rich Dykmans (richd)      Join Date: Oct 2003       01-27-2009, 9:51 PM Reply   
Uhhhh, that doesn't look very good at all, I think either you're getting the Nikon high ISO smear or else the image got whacked somehow during your jpeg conversion. Normally reducing the image for the web increases detail so my suspicion is the in cam NR.

I think you can turn noise reduction down or off and use noise ninja or neat image which sometimes works better at keeping the fine detail in the eyelash/hair.
Old    Alan Slabaugh (alans)      Join Date: Aug 2005       01-28-2009, 12:58 PM Reply   
I just checked it out. the top picture is a 50% crop and the bottom pic is around 300%. I think that has a lot to do with it.

No, noise reduction is used at all and no PP besides a little crop and a little angle adjustment in Lightroom

I am just amazed that I could pull the picture off with no tripod, flash, etc. Like I said the room was basically dark.
Old    Rich Dykmans (richd)      Join Date: Oct 2003       01-28-2009, 8:20 PM Reply   
There's no way the eye is a 300% crop, you'd see the pixels blocking up. It's looks like a 100% crop.

As far as the main shot goes even at a 50% crop you should have more detail with that lens and sensor. But if the room was basically dark as you say then that would explain it. The sensor can't capture enough detail in a near dark room to have the exposure pushed that much. (the way it's exposed above it doesn't not look like it was taken in a dark room.)

See my examples below, the first is the original full shot and the second a 100% pixel view crop. This is from only a 10mp sensor. Look at the difference in detail.

Old    Alan Slabaugh (alans)      Join Date: Aug 2005       01-28-2009, 9:00 PM Reply   
Yea, I think you are missing the point. The shot was at ISO 2000 and wide open 2.8, handheld at 1/50 with no VR/anti-shake/etc., of an 8 month old. Not an easy task, and yes it is a 300% crop, and yes, before I saved it as a jpg, I could easily see the pixels.

Here is 6 megapixels with a 100% crop, in daylight like yours.

Old    Rich Dykmans (richd)      Join Date: Oct 2003       01-29-2009, 8:55 AM Reply   
Can you post a 100 percent crop of the original with no exposure adjustments, like I said before that looks like a well lit room in your photo above.

Below handheld at 400mm 1/100th ISO2000 pushed +.7 EV to make sure I got detail in the bird.

Old    Rich Dykmans (richd)      Join Date: Oct 2003       01-29-2009, 9:00 AM Reply   
Forgot to mention above - shot with a Canon 400 f5.6L - no IS, no tripod. (I'm just a run & gun type)
Old    Alan Slabaugh (alans)      Join Date: Aug 2005       01-29-2009, 9:34 AM Reply   
Is the bird above cropped? What camera? What PP?

Here is a 100% Crop of the baby with no adjustments at all. I know it could be a lot sharper. I just think it looks good for ISO 2000.

Here is an 100% crop of an Osprey I shot over thanksgiving. 1/1000 f/5.6, no PP, handheld at 300mm with my Sony A700.

I have a lot to learn with the software side of things and I am sure that there are ways to sharpen things a little, but I don't like how it looks when sharpening is added. All I know is that I had the baby pic printed in 5x7 and it shows no noise and looks tack sharp to my mom on her fridge.
Old    Rich Dykmans (richd)      Join Date: Oct 2003       01-29-2009, 10:35 AM Reply   
That blue jay shot is uncropped was taken at 1/100th not 1/1000th. The blue jay at 100% shows some noise but decent detail. I find by leaving a little noise I can save some of the detail when viewed at normal sizes.


Nice shot of the Osprey especially for 100%,

Canon's in cam noise reduction is not usually as aggressive as Nikon's and that's probably why I'm expecting more detail then I'm seeing in your baby shots.

There is virtually no noise at 100% though as you point out and yes printed at 5X7 that is going look just fine because you wouldn't expect to see the detail at that size print anyhow. If you not into sharpening then having a tad less detail with no noise would be more pleasing to you. Different strokes I guess!

Maybe at some point you could send me a RAW high ISO image to play around shot at 3200-6400. I'd like to see how it looks.
Old    Alan Slabaugh (alans)      Join Date: Aug 2005       01-29-2009, 10:52 AM Reply   
Yea I will play around with it some more. I have only had the D700 for a week or so, and have not taken one outdoor shot with it yet. Sleet and rain here in VA.

I am hoping to shoot a basketball game on Saturday night and since I no longer have a 2.8 telephoto, I will we using the 70-300 4.5-5.6. I imagine I will have a lot of shots at 3200 and 6400.
Old    Rich Dykmans (richd)      Join Date: Oct 2003       01-29-2009, 11:01 AM Reply   
Yep that's where high ISO can earn it's keep!

Post some up when you get a chance!


Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 On

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 3:21 AM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home


© 2016 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us