DX lens checklist

[86JR]

after a few months of lengthy research, the only thing im not sure of is the ballhead.

This is what im planning on using :

And selling all of my lenses, keeping the D70. Now i was 100% on buying the D90, however the MC36 remote doesnt work with it, meaning I need a D300s (if i buy new), and then if i want to add the battery grip and a battery, im looking at an extra £1500 for the camera.

So my question is, is the MC36 really needed ? Martinturner, i know you use the D90 on a tripod, what tripod and head setup do you use and what remote ?

Also do i need the "digital coated" filters that cost £30 more than the normal UV ones, and is "digital coated" important on the polariser ?

Ive finally got the whole FX thing out of my head, with the 11-16 i dont think i need FX for landscapes, really, and DX will help me get the extra length with the 70-300.

Thoughts ?

 

[bigredshark]

Looks far more sensible than you've posted in the past, the tripod is an interesting choice though, I have a Manfrotto combo which cost me abut £200 all told and it's 100% as functional as what you have there just a bit heavier and less than half the price. If you want to spend it just for a lighter one then fine but if you're squeezing your cash then it's an odd choice.

You could reconsider the 17-50, I assume you currently have the 18-55 or 18-70 kit lens, which are both optically great but have rubbish resale value. You could stick with that, buy a fast mid range prime (35 or 50mm) and maybe have more options than the 17-50 - fast zooms in that range are a luxury (a nice one to be sure, I have the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8) as they aren't fast enough for really low light and the creative benefits you get from them aren't massive in the same way as a fast telephoto (in my view, etc etc).

No, you don't need the digital coated ones, it's marketing rubbish as usual, if you want top quality UV filters then buy the £70 Nikon ones, otherwise you're buying them as lens protection, they'll get damaged and you'll replace them so spending loads isn't worth it unless you have really top quality glass.

 

[Tooks]

Ok, first thing that jumps out is that I wouldn't be choosing my camera body based on an MC36 not working with it. If it won't work with your chosen body, sell it and get one that will. Surely that's a cheaper option?

Second thing that jumps out, is that personally I think those filters are a waste of money.
If you need filtration, and for landscapes you probably will, then I'd be looking at a Cokin/Lee/Format square filter system. It will be much more flexible and with adaptor rings will fit all your lenses. I'd start with an ND grad filter even before a polariser.

I know others on here have said you should walk before you run, a sentiment I'd agree with, but you really don't need all this stuff to get out there shooting!

For DX, I'd pair a D70 with the Nikon 16-85 VR, in my opinion it's plenty wide enough for landscapes, and is a brilliant lens for the money. Couple that with a decent tripod and head (the ones you've selected look ok, but I'd go Red Snapper personally), stick the filters on the front and off you go!

I took this on a D90/18-105 combo;

And this on the D90/16-85;

I'm not offering those up as the absolute best in terms of landscape photography, but they show what can be achieved with even the kit you've got.

 

[syke]

Looking at the kit you're most likely to be using, the RedSnapper tripods will be perfectly fine, and save you a helluva of a lot of money. The 18-70 is a decent lens, but the 17-50 is even better, but as mentioned your current lenses have a low re-sale value.

I personally don't use filters, especially UV. If you want CPL/ND Grad's etc, fair enough, but I personally don't even use any UV filters for protection, if I want some protection walking about, I just use the lens hoods, all IMO that is.

Considering your current set up, you don't need to go aaall the way to a D300s. From your set up, and the sort of kit you're after i'd go for;

Nikon D90
Tamron 17-50
Tokina 11-16
Nikon 70-300VR (is the 300 needed? I'd consider the older 80-200 f2.8's too)
RedSnapper RS-283 & RHS-12 Ball Head

Then whatever filters you want, ND Grads or CPL's.

 

[p0ss3s3d]

after a few months of lengthy research, the only thing im not sure of is the ballhead.

This is what im planning on using :

And selling all of my lenses, keeping the D70. Now i was 100% on buying the D90, however the MC36 remote doesnt work with it, meaning I need a D300s (if i buy new), and then if i want to add the battery grip and a battery, im looking at an extra £1500 for the camera.

So my question is, is the MC36 really needed ? Martinturner, i know you use the D90 on a tripod, what tripod and head setup do you use and what remote ?

Also do i need the "digital coated" filters that cost £30 more than the normal UV ones, and is "digital coated" important on the polariser ?

Ive finally got the whole FX thing out of my head, with the 11-16 i dont think i need FX for landscapes, really, and DX will help me get the extra length with the 70-300.

Thoughts ?

Looks good. I'd make the following changes...
NO UV's - costing more than a front element there!!!

Circular polariser- it's designed for the 17-50 not an UWA (causes funny skies) so perhaps 67mm (although TBH I'd still get 77mm). Get the slim filter.

Tripod - Get a redsnapper for £100. As stable, bit heavier, lot cheaper!!


70-300mm - Perhaps using the money you saved get a 70-200mm. The oldest sigma model is the sharpest (if you need full size shots then just mention - it's about £475 secondhand becuase it's so sharp). I think it's reffered to as the non-DG non-Macro lens. I'm regretting spending the extra for my Canon IS mkI Then you can 1.4x TC when you need to.

 

[86JR]

I actually use the 70-300 the most, just could really do with the VR.

My 18-70 is soft. I have taken numerous images with it and all of them come out soft as ****.

So i never use it.

And the 50mm 1.8 i have doesnt offer me any flexibility over ranges so i never use that either, though it is VERY sharp at F4, i tend to shoot with a large DOF and it only goes up so high.

 

[syke]

I actually use the 70-300 the most, just could really do with the VR.

My 18-70 is soft. I have taken numerous images with it and all of them come out soft as ****.

So i never use it.

And the 50mm 1.8 i have doesnt offer me any flexibility over ranges so i never use that either, though it is VERY sharp at F4, i tend to shoot with a large DOF and it only goes up so high.

Got any shots in proper daylight at about f8?

Also, the 50mm is an awesome, awesome lens. Just use your legs, as you have said before. It's sharp from f2.

 

[Amp34]

Lens choice looks good.

Tripod, I'd go with something like the 190X Pro or 055X Pro from Manfrotto rather than the Gitzo at the moment, unless you plan on walking all day with it (say up mountains).

Get a basic 3 way or ball head (again from Manfrotto) depending on which style you like. I have one of each and they are useful for different things. The ball head is more compact but can be a bit of a pain to position accurately but the 3 ways are bigger and can be a bit fiddly in general (but you get more accuracy).

Forget about the UV filters, they are a waste of money. CPL I'd go for the largest lens diameter you are going to have soon, you can always buy a cheap step down ring (around £5 I think), but just make sure you can fit it inside the lens hood...

As for other filters, leave them until you decide if you actually need them. I went through a phase of wanting some ND grads and then realised for landscape Photoshop is much better. When on the tripod just shoot two slightly differently expose shots and blend them together after.

 

[86JR]

The tripod and ball head situation - i dont want to spend like, £200 in total, on something that isnt very good, and then have to spend £800 instead of £600 originally on replacing it with something thats perfect.

I was going to ***** the whole budget on a gitzo and arca swiss setup, the gitzo goes up to 8 foot tall, and has no central columm which means the ultimate in flexibility and stability. Im 6ft 8 so I could stand up fully at airshows etc with the camera in the perfect place to get shots of aircraft up in the sky. If i already had the 70-300mm vr and the wide angle i would probably go down this route, and in 10 years time when ive mastered photography and have the money, i can then go large format and the tripod and head will still be perfect for the job.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/heritagefutures/3751322683/

You can see some of the flexibility of it there.

 

[86JR]

Got any shots in proper daylight at about f8?

Also, the 50mm is an awesome, awesome lens. Just use your legs, as you have said before. It's sharp from f2.

Just charging battery, just taken a load of identical shots at F8 1000/1th in sunny light with WB set to direct sunlight, ISO 200, with both 70-300 @ 70mm and 18-70 at 18 and 70mm.

 

[86JR]

Looks good. I'd make the following changes...
NO UV's - costing more than a front element there!!!

Circular polariser- it's designed for the 17-50 not an UWA (causes funny skies) so perhaps 67mm (although TBH I'd still get 77mm). Get the slim filter.

Tripod - Get a redsnapper for £100. As stable, bit heavier, lot cheaper!!


70-300mm - Perhaps using the money you saved get a 70-200mm. The oldest sigma model is the sharpest (if you need full size shots then just mention - it's about £475 secondhand becuase it's so sharp). I think it's reffered to as the non-DG non-Macro lens. I'm regretting spending the extra for my Canon IS mkI Then you can 1.4x TC when you need to.

Is that this lens ? Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 f/2.8 APO EX DG Nikon


thats the only one i can find for £400 ish.. unfortunatly sigma have around 15 different models secondhand ?

 

[86JR]

18-70 F8 18mm

18-70 70mm F8

70-300 F8 70mm

 

[p0ss3s3d]

Is that this lens ? Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 f/2.8 APO EX DG Nikon


thats the only one i can find for £400 ish.. unfortunatly sigma have around 15 different models secondhand ?

Yes they do hav a fair few. DON'T buy it if it has 'macro' written on it.

THe APO EX DG [aka APO EX DG HSM] is great and goes about £425. The non-DG version is about £50 more (and twice as hard to find) and it's a little sharper (especially in the corners - the digital coating supposedsly softened the corners? but thats probably web-nonsense )

I think £450 is reasonable for a sharp f/2.8 zoom with a HSM motor. Good Luck!!!

 

[GTRacer]

I'd swap the 17-50mm with a 35mm /f1.8 and a 50mm f/1.8 personally, I found that I either used my own 17-50mm either at it's widest (which is covered by your Tokina), around 35mm, or at 50mm. I'd take the extra stop and smaller size over the ability to zoom, especially with a 'boring' range like that. Sure you have to swap lenses, but the lack of zoom means that you tend to compose your shot before you even lift the camera to your eye - it's a really rewarding and efficient way of shooting.