| Author |
Message |
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 32268
Location: Stock,food,portrait books www.rindersmithphotography.com
|
Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:22 am
|  |
4 words...It's not your camera. Also, Do you know all about the different focus methods you can use for moving targets?? Most don't. Thats where the manual comes in. The D200 is a fine machine and only as good as the user just like most cameras. you really should have no problems. |
|
civdis
Joined: 16 Jun 2009
Posts: 95
Location: Toronto Area
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:38 pm
| |
| vclements wrote: | Your two biggest problems are Sigma and Tokina.
You need to invest in good glass. Sigma and Tokina both manufacture useless toys, not real glass.
Don't buy another body. Sell that other junk for whatever you can get for them.
If you want a 70-200 2.8, Nikon's VR is around $1800.
Great glass!!!
If that is not in the budget, you can get a used non VR for around $600 US.
I have used both the non VR and the VR versions and they are both great glass.
SO....the D200 is not at fault.
Sigma and Tokina are both synonymous with crap. |
I totally disagree with your comments. I have lots of pro grade Nikon glass and there is no doubt it is outstanding, but to generalize that all Sigma and Tokina lenses are crap is wrong. My Tokina 100mm macro is one of the sharpest in my bag. The build quality is on par if not better than the equivalent Nikon. Although I agree that pro Nikon glass will beat third party glass most of the time, there are some excellent third party lenses that deserve consideration. |
|
AmeeC
Joined: 22 Mar 2005
Posts: 385
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:11 am
| |
Well, I noticed recently that the Tokina is slow to focus. For a 2.8 lens that is not very long (mm), I think it should focus faster.
The sports I am photographing are swimming and soccer. Out in the bright light during soccer, I don't have much of a problem. The swimming is the problem. It is mostly indoors under dim light, ugh.
I do like the Sigma. The photo quality seems much better than the Tokina.
Unfortunately, I don't think the different focus methods can help me when my subject appears from under the water to the middle of the frame. The tracking during soccer works ok.
Thx |
|
lukaszb
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
Posts: 145
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:07 pm
| |
| AmeeC wrote: | Well, I noticed recently that the Tokina is slow to focus. For a 2.8 lens that is not very long (mm), I think it should focus faster.
The sports I am photographing are swimming and soccer. Out in the bright light during soccer, I don't have much of a problem. The swimming is the problem. It is mostly indoors under dim light, ugh.
I do like the Sigma. The photo quality seems much better than the Tokina.
Unfortunately, I don't think the different focus methods can help me when my subject appears from under the water to the middle of the frame. The tracking during soccer works ok.
Thx |
2.8 is the apperture size and not the focal length of the lens. I've used a Tokina lens before with moderate success, my lens was a bit too soft so I sold it. Overall it is decent equipment. I also used Sigma glass but didn't have much luck with it. The picture quality was actually worse than Tokina. The two lenses here are Tokina 28-70 f/2.8 ATX Pro and similar Sigma model (I borrowed it from a friend and don't remember exact model name). Tokina actually had a pretty quick focusing mechanism; I just had to make sure that the clutch was in the forward position and the AF switch was actually on AF. If the Tokina had a clutch set to manual and the AF switch was in autofocus position it was taking forever to focus.
Would I buy another Tokina lens? No, I'd rather save money and buy Canon's L lens a year later. If I need something one time, there are rental places that can help. |
|
jeffbanke
Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 13738
Location: www.xlr8photo.com, slipping into darkness
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:21 pm
| |
No question about it the Pro quality Nikon lenses are both sharper, faster auto focussing and heavier (read stability into that) and as I think it was Vince said the non VR lenses can be had for far less than the VR types, which you would have to turn off anyway since you are wisely using a a tripod. No sense in paying for something that you will not be using:)
As Laurin said, good idea to read the manual regarding different ways to focus especially for sporting events, (look for trap focussing for one).
As far as you question regarding the D300, it is a great machine, as was pointed out earlier, more auto focus points than the average person will ever use, but there none-the less:) Works better in low light than my other cameras!
The 200 default like the 300 is a compressed RAW + JPG, so I would check the manual again here, as the D300 you can select compressed or not! I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would shoot a compressed RAW file, defies logic! :) |
|
davidcrehner
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
Posts: 4839
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:31 pm
| |
Compressed RAW... WTF?
Is it lossless compression??
That's messed up if it isn't. |
|
felix_casio
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1563
Location: www.felixtm.com
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 10:02 pm
| |
canon and nikon are both great systems. I'm not really sure of how canon would work for sports. Has it ever been tried before??
 |
|
AmeeC
Joined: 22 Mar 2005
Posts: 385
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:45 am
| |
| AmeeC wrote: | | Well, I noticed recently that the Tokina is slow to focus. For a 2.8 lens that is not very long (mm), I think it should focus faster. |
| lukaszb wrote: | 2.8 is the apperture size and not the focal length of the lens.
|
I was referring to the 70mm size, not the 2.8 aperture size. I guess I was not very clear. What I meant was the for a 2.8 aperture, it does not seem to focus very fast considering it is only a 70mm lens. I guess that's what I get for trying to shorten the words, lol. thx
I have been looking at Nikon lenses, and there is no way I can afford to get one right now.
Last edited by AmeeC on Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:48 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
AmeeC
Joined: 22 Mar 2005
Posts: 385
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:46 am
| |
| felix_casio wrote: | canon and nikon are both great systems. I'm not really sure of how canon would work for sports. Has it ever been tried before??
|
Hehe. That's why I posed the question in the first place... |
|
jeffbanke
Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 13738
Location: www.xlr8photo.com, slipping into darkness
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:04 pm
| |
| davidcrehner wrote: | Compressed RAW... WTF?
Is it lossless compression??
That's messed up if it isn't. |
That's what I said when I found out several years ago David!
No such thing as lossless compression!
D70s and D100 are both 6 MP cameras, D70s compressed RAW, D100 is switched into straight RAW not the comp RAW mode, and I have NEVER had to do any fixing of blotchy skies that I still do with the D70s.
Of course I have never had with the D300 either, but then I have never switched into the compressed RAW mode:) |
|
jeffbanke
Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 13738
Location: www.xlr8photo.com, slipping into darkness
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 8:10 pm
| |
| AmeeC wrote: | | AmeeC wrote: | | Well, I noticed recently that the Tokina is slow to focus. For a 2.8 lens that is not very long (mm), I think it should focus faster. |
| lukaszb wrote: | 2.8 is the apperture size and not the focal length of the lens.
|
I was referring to the 70mm size, not the 2.8 aperture size. I guess I was not very clear. What I meant was the for a 2.8 aperture, it does not seem to focus very fast considering it is only a 70mm lens. I guess that's what I get for trying to shorten the words, lol. thx
I have been looking at Nikon lenses, and there is no way I can afford to get one right now. |
AmeeC, don't despair, Nikon cameras can use most of the older lenses, I still shoot frequently with my older film lens great glass, but of course they are manual, not a problem for me, but for some?
Between the older manual lenses there is the the other series of auto lenses, but they don't work with D40, 40x or 60's , not sure about 90's, also don't think they work with the 3000, 5000 type cameras either. |
|
AmeeC
Joined: 22 Mar 2005
Posts: 385
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:19 pm
| |
Thanks Jeff. I do have an older Nikon love. I just can't afford anything right now that is as fast as I think I need for the poor lighting at the swimming pools. |
|
jeffbanke
Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 13738
Location: www.xlr8photo.com, slipping into darkness
|
|
| |
|
Log in
