Question for the photographers

[Gus]

I was wondering if anybody could tell me the advantage of a 70-300mm camera lense vs a 28-200mm, or essentially what more i could do with a 300mm over a 200mm. I want to get a new lense but am on a budget so I dont know if its worth the money to go from the the 200 to the 300.

[RustyRipper]

70-300mm has more optical zoom where as a 28-200mm will give you wider pictures. that's basically the difference

[SHACK]

What lens or lenses do you currently own? The 300 will have a much narrower field of view so to speak, and get you in tighter in the longer shots, I believe the 28-200 is going to be a much more versitile lens lens though.

[Bow Walker]

Stop in at a camera store/department and physically look through both setups. Do some focusing and framing of subjects that are fairly close and subjects that are way off across the store. You'll know which one is for you pretty quick.

Do you do any macro photography? Check both lens's capabilities for that as well.

[Mr. Dean]

A 70-300 mil lens would be the better choice IF you're after wildlife shots. But that said, you're going to need rock-steady support and (or both) a built in vibration control.... There's a myriad of other stuff to consider too but I'd need more info. Lets start with what exactly it is you're looking at (make and model, specs...) and what it is you're wanting too accomplish with it.

[Gus]

So I'm shooting a D70 with the 28-200mm on it (came with the camera). I havent had a much time to put a lot of effort in to photography, but I have been getting back into it lately. I was finding with the bit i have been doing that the 200mm isn't giving me the shots I would want, do to distance. I was considering getting something with more zoom but wont be affording anything passed a 300mm, which spurred the question, would it be worth it? I enjoy to shoot all sorts of things but my main focus has always been wildlife.

I dont know, its something Im tossing around. Might just try putting more effort into using what i got, now that the days are starting to get a little longer again.

Thanks for all the input so far

[KB90]

the 200 to 300 won't be that big of a difference, but it would defintaly help for wildlife. Have you looked into a teleconverter? that may be a more affordable option.

A Tip For Yeah.
What I do if I want to try a lens is go to london drugs buy it, and then they give you 14 days to return it. When I didn't have the money and I wanted a lens for a trip I would go buy it, and then on the 14th day take it back, worked great :) (O and don't break it :))

[7mag700]

A 28-200mm lens is kindofa 'catch-all' lens. On a quality camera you're much better off to have 2 lenses with better f-number (basically the light gathering capability of the lens) than one catch-all lens. Recommend a 28-105mm and a 100-300mm or so.

7m7

[lineofsight]

How many MP sensor - high MP produce better result if crop 200mm/magnify produce better result than low MP sensor.

28 will provide you with more flexibility for landscapes and indoors if not shooting portrait. 300 will provide with a little bit more on the long end - if you have enough light / subject still enough for long enough (VR/IR may reduce vibration but will not keep your subject from moving - i.e. you can handhold 300mm at 1/30th but subject may move in that time period).

Form factor may also be an issue - 28-200 could be smaller package than 70-300.

Agree that more lenses at lower f-stop produce better photos but also at much greater cost, size & weight - i.e. 28-200 $700 1/2 pound 1/2 liter (or a little less), 24-70 & 70-200 $3200, 4-5 pounds, 2 liters volume.

Your note that the 200mm is not great at 200, you will likely find the same for the 300mm - very few lenses are great at maximum zoom (and/or maximum aperture).

On a side note - am learning to shoot a larger frame than needed on the transition from film to digital as always end up cropping 2x3, 5x7, 8x10... are all different ratios so end up cropping.

[PGK]

Stepping up to a 300 isn't going to make a huge difference, but for longer shots (like out your front door 400y to a coyote) you should notice it's less grainy. Have you tried not drinking a half bottle of rye before taking pictures? :mrgreen:

[troutseeker]

Sigma makes a very nice 28-250 with anti-shake technology. Does your 40D have a full size CMOS or does it have a magnification factor like my cheaper XS? If not full size you get to multiply your lens by 1.6 (for my camera). This makes a 28-250 equivalent to a 44-400.

[Mr. Dean]

So I'm shooting a D70 with the 28-200mm on it (came with the camera). I havent had a much time to put a lot of effort in to photography, but I have been getting back into it lately. I was finding with the bit i have been doing that the 200mm isn't giving me the shots I would want, do to distance. I was considering getting something with more zoom but wont be affording anything passed a 300mm, which spurred the question, would it be worth it? I enjoy to shoot all sorts of things but my main focus has always been wildlife.

I dont know, its something Im tossing around. Might just try putting more effort into using what i got, now that the days are starting to get a little longer again.

Thanks for all the input so far

Having the extra hundred of focal length makes a very noticeable difference - But, just like a closet full of guns,,, it's NEVER enough and I wish for a prime 500 mil.

I now shoot w/ 2 bodies (a D80 and a D300) and likely have the same lens you're looking at (70-300 f4/5.6 VR DX). I've had this lens for 3 or 4 years now and as a rule, it NEVER leaves the camera... It's just sooo versatile, it has pretty much became my work horse. The only kick that I could give it, is, I hate the variable aperture as I pretty much hang out in manual mode 99.9% of the time. But because I also shoot RAW, I can normally make up that shift in exposure in ACR, when processing.

IIRC, you're D40 *should* give ya acceptable results with ISO settings of up to 800, or so, before noise becomes a total PITA... Permitting you to retain decent enough shutter speeds, for controlled shots, even when the sun starts falling.

Tele-converters aren't an option for you unless you're willing too for-go alot of options, like auto focus, for instance and I *think* you'll also need to shoot 100% manually.... IIRC, the only thing that'll work is the light meter.

Here's an example pic that I shot in lowish evening light (May 17/09 @ 7:25 PM), using my D80 and that lens;

- ISO 640
- manual mode.
- 1/30th sec for the shutter.
- f5.6
- Camera was hand-held.
- Heart was-a-thumpin' :cool:
- Pic is uncropped (out of camera).
- Bear lived to see me again, next spring.


http://api.photoshop.com/home_93c183238c264b21aebf84403f631f01/adobe-px-assets/d94e77f74a1746e8a030fb093bf9b5b0

If you're out my way and would like to "fiddle" with the lens a bit, just give me a shout.



:mrgreen:

[lineofsight]

Some more food for thought - a wide lens can be cropped to zoom/magnify. A long lens cannot be made wide.

A 200 to 300mm comparison from another site
http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00S/00S5Ds-104803584.jpg

Here is a tool that compares zoom ranges (http://www.tamron.com/lenses/learning_center/tools/focal-length-comparison.php)

And to keep with the bear theme:
First photo original.
Then cropped to 1/2 original image width
Then cropped to 1/3 original image width

http://members.shaw.ca/lineofsight/Original.jpg

http://members.shaw.ca/lineofsight/half length.jpg

http://members.shaw.ca/lineofsight/third length.jpg

As I also like landscapes I feel I would give up more in the 28-70 range than I would gain in the 200-300 range.

PS - anyone know how to convert crop to focal length equivalent (i.e. 200mm lens, crop to 1/2 original on horizontal - equivalent to photo taken at focal length of...)

[Gus]

Lots of good info there guys, thanks. I'm still on the fence about it. I have been cropping alot of my pictures but I have been finding that alot of the times the photo has been taken at an exetent to much for the lense, and therefor the subject has been out of focus.

[7mag700]

x2 on the Sigma lenses. Every bit as good as the Nikon/Canon lenses, and you get way more bang for the same buck.

7m7

[Mr. Dean]

Rule 1 of shooting images for print; Retain maximum allowable and original pixels... Cropping in and re sampling (adding computron generated pixels), works fine for viewing on monitors because all you need for a resolution is ~ 72 pixies per inch. Wall-hangers are a different story (especially when you go past the standard 8x10), one should be trying for a res of around 300 pixies.... OR the best that can be offered without up-sizing (up-sizing for print is a beast of it's own).

Basically, cropping off a file in order to accommodate another format (say the now "typical" 8x12 format for a 5x7) is fine because all we're doing is discarding a portion of the large image, wanting a smaller one (kinda like trimming it with a pair of scissors), but if we crop down to a 5x7 sized file that kicks off imagery everywhere, and then want a larger print from it, things get tricky because of the need to generate *new* pixels within this new, small sized file - Bestest to retain all of the original image/file, unless you like prints that start taking on a cartoonish look or a degration in crispness. :wink:

And if shooting for monitor viewing only; there's a lot more cheaper ways in doing so that don't call for ultra-mega pixie'd DSLR's...

[lineofsight]

300 dpi is about industry standard so if have 12mp camera have 4288 x 2848 so can print 11" x 14" at 300 dpi - or - crop to half the size and print half the size and have the same dpi. If printing the three bear pictures I posted at 5x7 no difference in quality would be noticed between those three crops (unless look at the pics with a magnifying glass).

The images at 200mm and 300mm and the link to the tool I posted were just to illustrate the magnification gained by increasing from 200-300, should compare that to 28-70 as well and the overall form factor, brightness, and cost of the lens.

[Mr. Dean]

I posted at 5x7 no difference in quality would be noticed between those three crops (unless look at the pics with a magnifying glass).


Or,,, you want them to be more than 5x7 :wink:
Guess I'm a believer in that bigger is better.... :twisted:


Like I said earlier; it all depends on what one wants/expects/hopes. Ain't nothing wrong with a nice 5x7 (seriously).... I just like trying to set things up that'll get me a 16x20. And that foundation, is simply made up from,,, resolution. Without it, it ain't happenin'.

Hats off to the people that get wildlife images and can consistantly earn money from it; In most instances you need to close the distance MUCH more than a Hunter ever would, regardless of glass used - I'd bet that I have a thousand images of "small dots in the middle", that are *believed* to be animals. :redface: :lol:

[Mr. Dean]

Just for the hell of it, here's another pic. :smile:
Same camera, same lens.

Looks pretty good when layed over my entire 24" screen but because of cropping, all I can crank is a decent 11x14 or a GOOD 8x10 (crisp when viewed "nose to print"). In order to get more, I'd need to buy some fancy, dedicated, up-sizing software. PS can only do so much with what it's fed, FWIW.

ISO 400
f 5.6
1/125th seconds
Manual

http://api.photoshop.com/home_93c183238c264b21aebf84403f631f01/adobe-px-assets/b01be6b59a95448c8cfb5b7058f2e340


So Gus, that's about all that I can do/offer..... If you want "all that can be" from your outfit, then IMO, moving up will serve you better - As long as what you get equates to the same quality as that you now have.


Cheers!

[Kody94]

That sheep pic is very easy on the eyes. Very nice Mr Dean.

I have been watching this thread and wanted to say thanks for the info gents. I picked up a D60 cheap a couple years ago, and bought a 300mm lens last year (I believe the same one you have Mr Dean)...just need to play with it more.

[Mr. Dean]

So I'm shooting a D70 with the 28-200mm on it (came with the camera).

Hey Gus, I'm not seeing a zoom of this config in nikons line up... What exactly is it? Give me all the numbers on the barrel, please.

[Mr. Dean]

And I just noticed that ya got a D70 and not their 40...... Yours and mine (camera) have the exact same sensor.

[lineofsight]

I was wondering if anybody could tell me the advantage of a 70-300mm camera lense vs a 28-200mm, or essentially what more i could do with a 300mm over a 200mm. I want to get a new lense but am on a budget so I dont know if its worth the money to go from the the 200 to the 300.


If you want "all that can be" from your outfit, then IMO, moving up will serve you better - As long as what you get equates to the same quality as that you now have.


As I understood the original post it is a choice between 28-200 and 70-300. I do not see how that equates to "all that can be"
A 70mm lens wont shoot at 28mm (landscape), 35mm, 50mm (human eye)...
A 200mm lens wont shoot at 250 or 300mm...

So I would summarize it as a 300mm would provide you with slightly more zoom and unless you are zooming in a lot and printing in a large format cropping will eliminate a lot of the 200-300 difference with the 200 & 300 gazebo comparison has shown as not to be that much to begin with. Then also have to consider form factor (if 300 significantly bigger will it be with you or at home), quality (f2.8, f4, or f5.6...) and cost.

You may want to put the 300 on, take a pic at 300 and again at 200, see for yourself (or use the link that I posted to the tool that does the same thing). Then put on the 28-200 take a pic at 28 and 70, see the difference (and what you give up with 70-300).

----

Edit - just understood that you already have the 28-200. At that point would add a prime of some length. Why not sort the photos you have by focal length, see what you use most then buy that - maybe its a 30mm, maybe a 100 macro, maybe a 300... Could also keep the lens and upgrade the body 70 to 90 doubles your MP, significantly improves the ISO (800 is excellent, 1600 very impressive on the 90), ads HD video, custom menu, and couple other little features.

[Mountain Hunter]

I'm surprised nobody mentioned getting and using (as much as possible) a good quality sturdy tripod. Mr Dean hinted at it earlier.

Doesn't matter what lens you have, a tripod will help produce a better quality wildlife shot (despite the vibration reduction built-in to many lens). Although it is a pain in the butt to carry and consistently use.

[Mr. Dean]

Many alternatives to consider..... Another may be to get what you have you're eye on, sell the existing, then get a dedicated wide angle (prime or zoom), if you feel you need one - Mine seldom see's the light of day and I mainly keep it for, "just in case".

But not knowing what exact lens ya have now, may make all my thoughts change.

[Gus]

Hey Gus, I'm not seeing a zoom of this config in nikons line up... What exactly is it? Give me all the numbers on the barrel, please.

Nikon AF NIKKOR 28-200mm 1:3.5-5.6 D.......does that help you at all?

Lots of good stuff in here thanks guys, trying to learn as much as I can

[Mr. Dean]

Nikon AF NIKKOR 28-200mm 1:3.5-5.6 D.......does that help you at all?


OK. I just wanted to be sure that you didn't have some high-class, fancy glass there... I think you got very good POV's from both sides of the fence and hopefully my examples show what the lens is capable of.

The rest is up to you, Sir - If you have any more questions reguarding this, shoot me a PM.


Cheers!