Help With Options

[Yugoboy]

OK. my parents finally listened and gave me $100 in Amazon gift cards. I had almost $50 I never spent at Christmas (it’s $50 minus whatever my wife’s camera battery will cost). There’s another $50 I can turn into Amazon cash if I need/want to – otherwise it gets spent on camera stuff not from Amazon.

Anyway…

my first inclination was to get a 2x teleconverter because it would make my 55-200 into 110-400. The prices have me doing a bit more poking around.
I found a Tamron 70-300 for $165 used, a Sigma 70-300 for $144 new, under $130 used.
I also found a manual focus Phoenix 500mm with 2x teleconverter for $119. It is manual focus, and the brand sounds iffy, but the few customer reviews on the site seemed pleased. Admittedly, the only way to get good pix is on a tripod with a remote, but I already got those. I can’t figure out if the teleconverter is any good with other lenses, and a reviewer elsewhere said the lens was good but the teleconveter was iffy at best.

I need some help sifting through my options. I’ve already got the kit 18-55 and the 55-200 (without VR). I’ve got the cheap-o extension tubes for up close. I’m trying to get something I will enjoy and use for the money I’m going to spend. I don’t mind gadgets and stuff, but I’ve kinda been holding out for a lens. The 500 has my serious interest, but I’m not completely sold on the Phoenix brand. I need somebody to give me a compelling reason to stick with a known brand for more money and fewer mm. I also need to know if I’m missing something I should be looking at to spend my money on I haven’t even thought about.

Please help me spend my money wisely.

Oh… I do have a film Nikon SLR that will probably also hold the 500, but I haven’t used it in a bloody long time. Although, I’m beginning to toy with the idea of dragging it along and when I get a truly spectacular dSLR shot, replicating it with film for posterity’s sake (and to use up the many rolls of film still hanging around my house).

Finally, I’m going to be sending in my d5000 for annual servicing after this weekend (there’s a Civil War encampment I wanna shoot Sunday), so I’ve got a few days to cogitate and debate because anything I get I won’t be able to use until it comes back – although they probably will all get here about the same time.

[CauseISaidSo]

I can only comment on the teleconverter option. I’ve got a 1.4x which I used with my 70-200 to shoot my son’s football games. I was very pleased with it for that usage. Now that he’s out of that, I’ve found that a lot of the times when I want to use it, I wish I had more.

I went with the 1.4x instead of the 2x because you only lose 1 stop with it instead of 2. Since a lot of games are at night under lights, you need every stop you can get.

Overall, I think the 1.4x is a bit pricey for the boost you get (but again, it served my purpose perfectly). Photowise, I couldn’t see any degradation when using the TC. If you go with a TC, IIRC the 2x is about the same cost at the 1.4x, so if you can tolerate losing 2 stops, I’d definitely go with the 2x.

annual servicing

I’ve seen this mentioned a couple of times. Is this a thing? Is annual servicing recommended? I’ve never had it done with either of mine, so I’m wondering if it’s something I should be doing…

[orionid]

OK. my parents finally listened and gave me $100 in Amazon gift cards. I had almost $50 I never spent at Christmas (it’s $50 minus whatever my wife’s camera battery will cost). There’s another $50 I can turn into Amazon cash if I need/want to – otherwise it gets spent on camera stuff not from Amazon.

Anyway…

my first inclination was to get a 2x teleconverter because it would make my 55-200 into 110-400. The prices have me doing a bit more poking around.

Don’t. Save what you’d spend on a teleconverter and use it for a lens when you have deeper pockets. Teleconverters only take away light. The long end of your 55-200 is already f/5.6. Add a 2x in there and it becomes f/11.3, even when the camera “sees” 5.6. You’re also adding glass, which reduces transmittance so you’ll flatten your histogram and end up with dull photos. The only thing I’ve found my teleconverters to be good for is shooting the sun through a solar filter where the tighter focal ratio doesn’t much matter.

I found a Tamron 70-300 for $165 used, a Sigma 70-300 for $144 new, under $130 used.

70-300 is a good range, but the lens are all over the chart. I’m not familiar with those two specifically, but both companies make really good glass and really poor glass. Judging by the prices, my conclusion isn’t favorable, but I’d say do your research and see what others are saying about them. Anything above 200mm and f/5.6 you’re going to want VR/IS if you plan on or think you even might plan on doing any kind of evening-light action (Think football games, baseball, wildlife), but even that won’t get you where some serious $$$ on a wider aperture will get you. I have the nikkor 70-300 VR, and it’s great for landscapes and midday, but shite for sports or wildlife.

I also found a manual focus Phoenix 500mm with 2x teleconverter for $119. It is manual focus, and the brand sounds iffy, but the few customer reviews on the site seemed pleased. Admittedly, the only way to get good pix is on a tripod with a remote, but I already got those. I can’t figure out if the teleconverter is any good with other lenses, and a reviewer elsewhere said the lens was good but the teleconveter was iffy at best.

I already gave my opinion on converters, so this is only in reference to the Phoenix lens. Two words: Donut Bokeh. Basically, with this lens, you’re mounting your camera to the back of a small Schmidt-cassegrain reflecting telescope, and it behaves as such. I’ve actually read good reviews on these under all the various brands they’re made and sold under. While I don’t have one of these, I do have other Phoenix glass and keep eyeballing the mini-SCT. It’s a beautifully simple design, so to say you get what you pay for isn’t fair in this case. You’re paying for two mirors in an aluminum and plastic shell. This lens, while great for pure magnification, will never make beautiful bokeh due to it’s centered-secondary-mirror design, but I have seen it make some amazing wildlife and sports shots on Flickr.

I need some help sifting through my options. I’ve already got the kit 18-55 and the 55-200 (without VR). I’ve got the cheap-o extension tubes for up close. I’m trying to get something I will enjoy and use for the money I’m going to spend. I don’t mind gadgets and stuff, but I’ve kinda been holding out for a lens. The 500 has my serious interest, but I’m not completely sold on the Phoenix brand. I need somebody to give me a compelling reason to stick with a known brand for more money and fewer mm. I also need to know if I’m missing something I should be looking at to spend my money on I haven’t even thought about.

Please help me spend my money wisely.

Oh… I do have a film Nikon SLR that will probably also hold the 500, but I haven’t used it in a bloody long time. Although, I’m beginning to toy with the idea of dragging it along and when I get a truly spectacular dSLR shot, replicating it with film for posterity’s sake (and to use up the many rolls of film still hanging around my house).

Finally, I’m going to be sending in my d5000 for annual servicing after this weekend (there’s a Civil War encampment I wanna shoot Sunday), so I’ve got a few days to cogitate and debate because anything I get I won’t be able to use until it comes back – although they probably will all get here about the same time.

Other thoughts:

The more long lenses I got, the less I used. I eventually fell in love with my 24mm f/2.8. Now I walk around with a Sigma 15-30 f/3.5-5.6. As the Hawai’ians say, “E aho la’ula.” Your milage may vary.

If you plan on swapping out to your film SLR, avoid DX lenses. Your kit lenses are both DX. Most of the 70-300s out there are DX. At tighter zooms, you’ll see extreme vignetting. When you have a full-frame lens, you’ll have a field of view about 1.5 times as wide on film. Also, what SLR you have dictates what lens choices you have for swapping. The d5000 doesn’t have the screw drive and only AF with AF-S. Cheap cameras, expensive lenses. Newer SLRs (early to mid 90’s on) tend to be compatible with both screw drive and AF-S. If you have an older SLR that’s screw-drive only, then you pretty much have to use older lenses on it and newer ones on the d5000. There’s a similar compatability with AI and AI-S. The optimum solution is to buy D and G glass, using it in manual only on the 5000, then when you upgrade the body get one with a screw drive.

Put your film in the freezer of you’re not using it up quickly.

Hope some of this helps.

[Yugoboy]

This lens, while great for pure magnification, will never make beautiful bokeh due to it’s centered-secondary-mirror design, but I have seen it make some amazing wildlife and sports shots on Flickr.

This quote alone is worth the question. These uses are exactly the sort of thing I want to be doing with it. There are tons and tons of times when I wish I had more length. Obviously, this lens probably won’t live in my camera bag, but if it will take good shots of far away, I’m all for it.

One of the reviewers on Amazon said his moon shots with it were really good. Given what I’ve gotten with my 55-200, I’m all for this.

Any other ideas?

Oh… I totally understand what y’all are saying about losing f-stops, but I had 2x’s for two of my older SLRs (a Pentax K1000 and a Minolta) and I enjoyed what I got out of them. They’re not out of the question, but the main reason for ’em is distance, so the 500 is good also.

Still cogitatin’…

[staplermofo]

I have the Samyang/Phoenix/Rokinon 800mm mirror lens, it is insanely hard to focus. The bundled x2 converter affects focus distance and is m49 mount, so it doesn’t play nice with others.
At 2560mm equivalent with sensor cropping it’s like a donkey boner; very long, gets a lot of attention, but usually only fun for the one using it and ultimately not very useful.
I don’t know how much of that also is true of the 500mm.

[orionid]

it’s like a donkey boner

+1

[bender16v]

I think that orionid covered the TCs pretty well except that you need to be careful that they will even fit. Nikon has a compatibility chart for theirs. Maybe other brands are designed differently. I have a Nikon 1.7 and it won’t fit on my 70-300 VR because the rear element will have a collision. It works on the 70-200 and 300 f4 but does take a lot of light and loses a bit of quality, especially since I have to crank up the ISO to maintain a fast enough shutter speed. I hate the fact that the super-tele lenses cost so much, but to have a fast and long lens it’s the only way and I know I miss things since I don’t have one.

I had a Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 DG OS (IIRC) lens and it was pretty good. I had a little trouble with getting consistently crisp photos but I think that was mostly my fault for not know what I was doing and using poor technique. When I look back at EXIF data from a couple years ago I say WTF was I thinking? For the price I would recommend it. Mine didn’t have the Macro switch on it but most do and it would be a nice feature to have.

One other lens to consider in that neighborhood is the Rokinon 8mm fisheye. I know it’s the opposite of what you discussed, but it is interesting to use.

[ravnostic]

I recently upgraded to this (but for the Canon) and I’m VERY happy): http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-70-300mm-4-0-5-6-Digital-Cameras/dp/B003YH9DZE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1367071225&sr=8-1&keywords=tamron+70-300mm+vr. It’s $449, but there’s a $100 rebate on it (reminds me I need to get that form sent in, STAT!) I don’t think you’re on a crop sensor, though? It’s 480mm equiv on my 2Ti.

The VR is very effective, handheld shots (not all at 300mm):

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Fv4d8mqugfk/UXHjfdDZDeI/AAAAAAAAiE8/SpL8cWqn8cM/w456-h342-p-o/floral2.JPG
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-TcpsMJrOiiQ/UWV61fyFBSI/AAAAAAAAhnE/JiluqVB8DPU/w893-h447-p-o/horsesweb.jpg
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-M0njBgqJqRE/UWd1gRbtxlI/AAAAAAAAhuU/F-CArEfhQTQ/w556-h370-p-o/moon.JPG
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-kY5mI5Dm98Q/UWdzGk-KeeI/AAAAAAAAhto/iMYdUOtW0O8/w556-h370-p-o/sunset.JPG
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-L_-Eio3JRTE/UWWU2Km_fEI/AAAAAAAAhn8/UxkCJmV30hk/w594-h444-p-o/quail.JPG

This one is on a tripod, and only about 200mm, but awesome crispiness can be had with this lens (you don’t use the VR on a tripod, however)

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-P6jsQKV0Kmg/UUApRDY-i8I/AAAAAAAAgNA/q2fXaLFByEU/w564-h375-p-o/panstarrpano.jpg

I recommend holding out for costlier glass you can rely upon. This lens replaced my previous Tamron 70/300; it’s sharper, but even the old one beat out the sharpness of the 75/300mm used Canon I’d bought (and eventually gave away in dissatisfaction.) And it’s got a 6 year warranty.

(dunno why the links to G+ appear small; lets give you a larger taste of that last one): http://fossilspringsaz.com/pics/2013/apr/17/panstarrpano2.jpg

[Edit to add: that downtown skyline is 8 miles away]

[Yugoboy]

I understand the suggestions to hold out for better glass. I might except that the budget we’re running will have a whole LOT of stuff paid off in about a year and a half and suddenly I’ll be able to afford most of that anyway (at least the reasonable ones… the serious money lenses will still be quite out of reach). At that point, I’ll probably also be looking for a full-frame-type camera and other stuff. I want to be able to maximize what I have available now and let the future fend for itself. I don’t have another gift-getting holiday until December, so holding off will also require more discipline than I possess.

We’re returning to the Adirondacks this summer and then heading south later in the summer. My summer job has fallen through, as well, so I’m looking at a long summer with more than ample opportunity to do cool stuff with my camera, and I want the best stuff I can get now.

All the advice is genuinely appreciated, but I will be honest that the part of orionid‘s original post I did not exactly understand was all the lens compatibility stuff. The acronyms and “screw drive” had me a bit baffled. I’m not planning on putting the lenses for the d5000 on the analogue body, but if the Phoenix will work, that might happen. I have the old 50mm and a zoom/telephoto manual lens for the analogue that fit the d5000, though, but I rarely use ’em. The 50 is ok, but I’m mostly happy with using it with my extension tubes (I can play with the f-stops in a way I can’t with the AF lenses). The zoom/telephoto is “cloudy” in terms of the pictures it takes. I don’t exactly know why, but whenever I have used it in the past on the d5000 I’ve had to ramp up the contrast and fiddle with the curves/levels more than I usually do to get a picture I’m happy with – and I don’t even get extra mms out of it. Any idea how to clean up a lens like that? Is it worth trying to screw around with?

[Yugoboy]

annual servicing

I’ve seen this mentioned a couple of times. Is this a thing? Is annual servicing recommended? I’ve never had it done with either of mine, so I’m wondering if it’s something I should be doing…

I don’t honestly know. Whenever we buy anything expensive we do the service contract thing. We totally understand that in general it’s simply a waste of money, but the few times we’ve done the “wise” thing and skipped it, we generally end up spending nearly as much or more on replacement or repair that would have been covered. We’re probably about even, at this point, and security of mind can be worth paying for.

All that leads me to this: part of the security contract allows for annual servicing for 3 years. Given how much I schlep this thing around, under what conditions, and how stupid-many shots I take with it, getting it serviced is worth it to me. It takes about 2 weeks from hand-over to return. 2 nervous, twitching, tension-filled weeks. There’s a reason I kept my old camera, and got a couple super cheap ones at garage sales… keeps the DTs at bay.

Basically, they ensure the firmware’s up to date, and they make sure all the moving parts are lubed and working. Prior to last year’s servicing, the mirror would occasionally stay up (happened 3 or 4 times in the 2-ish months prior to service) so that got fixed.
This year I’m going to be mentioning a “hot” pixel. If I zoom in to about 100% at an un-reduced photo, there’s one pixel that is always white with a red ring around it with a white glow around the ring. When shots are reduced for printing purposes or to web-usefulness, it’s not a big deal, but if I ever want to do something large format or print only a tiny section at 100% it may be an issue. So, given that I’m covered, I’m going to get it fixed (I hope).

I suppose whether or not you get it done depends on your usage and confidence in your own ability to service your own camera. If you’re shooting in excess of 10K shots like I do, and you carry your camera bloody well everywhere you go, you probably want to think about it. If you are confident that you can follow the directions, you can probably do the servicing yourself (the directions are in my camera’s manual, for example). If, like me, you think you can, but can’t afford to replace anything if you screw up, then you probably have an expert do it for your own peace of mind. It’s the same reason I have an expert do my brakes. It’s not like I haven’t got the skills or tools to do them. . . but if I screw them up, the results could be catastrophic, and even if I do them right 5 times in a row, at some point I’ll screw it up. YMMV. (I’ve replaced other car parts just fine, but if the alternator or starter goes, for example, it won’t send me careening into someone’s house or a bridge abutment.)

[orionid]

All the advice is genuinely appreciated, but I will be honest that the part of orionid‘s original post I did not exactly understand was all the lens compatibility stuff. The acronyms and “screw drive” had me a bit baffled.

These should help. Peruse at your own leisure. I can’t for the life of me figure why you’d want to build a baseline lens collection that isn’t fully compatible with a) both bodies you currently own, and b) any future planned upgrade. Once you have all your basic needs filled (wide, tele, macro, wlakaround), that’s when I’d start looking at specialties that only work with one or two of your bodies.

http://www.nikonians.org/reviews?alias=nikon-slr-camera-and-lens-compatibility

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm

[Yugoboy]

These should help. Peruse at your own leisure. I can’t for the life of me figure why you’d want to build a baseline lens collection that isn’t fully compatible with a) both bodies you currently own, and b) any future planned upgrade. Once you have all your basic needs filled (wide, tele, macro, wlakaround), that’s when I’d start looking at specialties that only work with one or two of your bodies.

http://www.nikonians.org/reviews?alias=nikon-slr-camera-and-lens-compatibility

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm

It’s not that I don’t care whether or not I can use the lenses into the future… I’d love to. I’m making a semi-educated guess that the Phoenix, or any other manual focus lens will fit on the F3 as well as the d5000 – the other 2 MF lenses I’ve got do. What I don’t/can’t know is what sort of full-frame body I’ll be getting in the future. I’m thinking Nikon, because I’m pretty much Nikon’s bitch, and have been ever since I knew I wasn’t going to get a second Pentax after my K1000 (which was rock-solid and lasted for years and got handed off still functioning perfectly to my dad, but wasn’t “professional,” so I was looking to upgrade). If a lens I have now won’t fit on some unknown future body, I can only hope for a decent conversion ring.

I’ve seen the conversion chart before (the first one, not the second) but that seems to be for Nikon lenses only. Doesn’t really help with off-brands (Tamron, Sigma, Phoenix, Vivitar, etc…).
It did help me with the “screw” thing, however, so there’s that…

p.s. I may have to hold off a little more on the annual service, as well as make the lens order ASAP as I quite nearly forgot… they’re going to be filming a number of street scenes for the next Amazing Spider-man in my fair city. I currently have no idea what my access might be, but I will cry tears of blood if I can get close (or even line-of-sight) and have to shoot with my Olympus Cammedia instead of the “good” camera…

[orionid]

Ahhh…. Gotcha. Most of the third parties pretty accurately translate to Nikkor. AF is Screw AF. Silent wave, hypersonic, etc is AF-S

As far as changing brands, the advantage that you do have is that Nikon’s backfocal length is the longest of all the major brands, so any Nikon lens capable of full mechanical manual can be used as such on pretty much any other body with a simple passive adapter ring. Yet another reason to avoid G-series and AF-S or equivalent.

/This still doesn’t change the fact that I have a Canon lens on my wishlist, backfocal length be damned. Who needs infinity focus on a 65mm 5X Macro?

[ennuipoet]

My first tele lens was the Sigma 70-300 EF Mount. I was cheap and I got what I paid for. It wasn’t that it was a BAD lens, it was just a cheap lens. The colors were flat, the bokeh was terrible and of course it was worse than useless in low light. I thought it was “good enough” until I purchased my 70-200L and the clouds parted, the light reached down from the Heavens and I saw what a good lens was.

Would I buy the Sigma again? If I had no other long options and money was tight, I would at the price quoted. If I had the money coming in within 6 months to buy a better lens, I would wait.

I am in dire need of a new 24-70 to replace my Sigma of the same length, but I won’t do anything until I can afford an L replacement, which could be a LONG time.

[staplermofo]

Don’t forget that used lenses sell for about what you pay for them, and sometimes more. It’s all pretty low risk.

[Author]

Posts