D300 & lenses for humanitarian field work

[Pelao]

Hi

I work for a humanitarian / relief organization. We use a lot of pro photographers for field work in Asia, Africa and Latin America. We also do a lot of our own photography, using Nikon gear.

The D300 is looking attractive as a bit of an upgrade. I am a Canon guy, so have little knowledge of Nikon lenses. I hope some of you can advise on a set of lenses to go with the D300.

Here's some of the shooting we'll do:

- Many images are unposed / candid: journalistic in nature
- Not too much long range stuff
- often dusty conditions
- variable light, often lo, with little chance to set up for flash
- prefer not to use tripod

I know which Canon lenses I would go for....

In any case, one zoom up to 200mm would be good, other than that, I feel we need fast stuff with decent wide-angle abilities.

IS would really be nice...

Suggestions appreciated.

[cecelia]

Hi

I work for a humanitarian / relief organization. We use a lot of pro photographers for field work in Asia, Africa and Latin America. We also do a lot of our own photography, using Nikon gear.

The D300 is looking attractive as a bit of an upgrade. I am a Canon guy, so have little knowledge of Nikon lenses. I hope some of you can advise on a set of lenses to go with the D300.

Here's some of the shooting we'll do:

- Many images are unposed / candid: journalistic in nature
- Not too much long range stuff
- often dusty conditions
- variable light, often lo, with little chance to set up for flash
- prefer not to use tripod

I know which Canon lenses I would go for....

In any case, one zoom up to 200mm would be good, other than that, I feel we need fast stuff with decent wide-angle abilities.

IS would really be nice...

Suggestions appreciated.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214098\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

D300 with 18-200 VR zoom makes for a simple kit...27-300 mm equivalent.  Absolute top IQ requires multiple lenses: 17-55f2.8 + 70-200f2.8, but with much higher cost and worse usability.  The ability to correct in PP makes the 18-200 compelling.

[vandevanterSH]

Michael has a list of Nikon lenses that he likes and a brief description.

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/came...n-d3-d300.shtml

Steve

[Pelao]

Thank you - I appreciate the replies.

[Philip Weber]

Thank you - I appreciate the replies.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214137\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have a D300 (and the new D700) and the two I would recommend are the 16-85mm VR II and the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR.

The 16-85 is a great lens for the price (approx $600) and the 70-200 is a pro-level, awesome lens. If your budget prohibits the latter (approx $1,700) then I'd go for the new 70-300mm VR II (approx $500). Between that and the 16-85, you would have an equivalent of 24-450mm, which should be more than enough.

Their pro glass has better weather sealing and if $ is not an issue I'd go with their 24-70mm and the 70-200mm.

The other option, for max flexability would be the 80-400, to go with the 16-85. More money and a little dated as their lenses go but still excellent glass, with VR.

While I haven't used it, the new Tamron 28-300, with VC might be a one lens, do all option for you.

Best of luck!
Phil

[Mike W]

How can you tell a lens has better weather sealing? I'm always confused by Nikons lens line up. At least canon does some effort to distinguish their "top" lenses.

I have a D300 (and the new D700) and the two I would recommend are the 16-85mm VR II and the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR.

The 16-85 is a great lens for the price (approx $600) and the 70-200 is a pro-level, awesome lens. If your budget prohibits the latter (approx $1,700) then I'd go for the new 70-300mm VR II (approx $500). Between that and the 16-85, you would have an equivalent of 24-450mm, which should be more than enough.

Their pro glass has better weather sealing and if $ is not an issue I'd go with their 24-70mm and the 70-200mm.

The other option, for max flexability would be the 80-400, to go with the 16-85. More money and a little dated as their lenses go but still excellent glass, with VR.

While I haven't used it, the new Tamron 28-300, with VC might be a one lens, do all option for you.

Best of luck!
Phil
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214169\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Ken Bennett]

I'm a Canon guy, too, but my understanding is that Nikon is widely expected to announce or release the kinds of fast wide and normal lenses that you want, perhaps as soon as this fall.

And yeah, I bring my 24, 35, and 85 for this sort of thing. Maybe a 70-200 in the bag.

[vandevanterSH]

In thinking more about the environment...you don't want to be changing lenses and you don't want to be carrying a large lens all day.  I have the 24-70 2.8 on my D-300 and that is about as big as I would want to carry all day.  The 24-120 ED-IF may be your best bet.  It is slow but the D-300 ISO will easily make up for 1-2 stops.  It is not sealed but it is not very expensive.  (I took a prosumer Nikon lens to Antelope Canyon with moderate blowing dust...you could hear the sand grinding in the mechanism by the end of the day..it still worked and took  good pictures but...) Another option is one zoom and a 1.7x teleconverter..if you want to pack light.

Steve

[Pelao]

Thanks again.

Generally, we buy the best, especially regarding lenses, as they usually outlast our cameras.

Both our video and photography need to be of the highest quality as they are used across various media.

I would very much like us to have VR, but if it's a choice of that or weather-sealing, I suspect we'll go with the latter. Rain is not too much of an issue, but dust is a common problem.

The 24-70 and the 70-200 are looking like a good team. Eventually an additional lens for more wide-angle coverage might help.

[Philip Weber]

Thanks again.

Generally, we buy the best, especially regarding lenses, as they usually outlast our cameras.

Both our video and photography need to be of the highest quality as they are used across various media.

I would very much like us to have VR, but if it's a choice of that or weather-sealing, I suspect we'll go with the latter. Rain is not too much of an issue, but dust is a common problem.

The 24-70 and the 70-200 are looking like a good team. Eventually an additional lens for more wide-angle coverage might help.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214239\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Pelao - For wide angle Nikon makes a 12-24, which many use on a DX like the D300 but without a doubt, Nikon's best wide angle is the 14-24mm f/2.8. It's amazing on my full frame D700 but even on the D300, it's GREAT.

Sigma also makes a 10-20mm which is an EX lens (their top glass) and Tokina has a new 11-16mm out. I have not used either but have read good things about Sigma in particular. You would gain a little on the wide end with it vs. the Nikkor but there would be a small gap from 20-24 on the longer side.

Since dust is an issue, besides the camera and lenses, I hope they'll spend just a little more on a rocket blower and some sort of sensor cleaning system. There are many to choose from and you'll find threads in the LL forum discussing both. The D300 does have a sensor cleaning system but in a harsh environment, over time, any camera will need some help to stay clean.

All the best,
Phil

[Tony Beach]

The 24-70 and the 70-200 are looking like a good team. Eventually an additional lens for more wide-angle coverage might help.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214239\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think the 17-55/2.8 is a better choice on the short end for DX, while image quality is not as good as the 24-70, you will miss more shots between 17mm and 23mm then you will between 56mm and 69mm.  The 16-85 is a slower lens and no amount of VR compensates for subject motion or more limited DOF choices (with the latter consideration every stop becomes more critical with DX).

A 14-24 to augment the 24-70 of course is cream of the crop; but you will lose shots and increase dirt on the sensor changing lenses, and then there's the added weight.  Now if you had two cameras to tote around, then lens changes would decrease but not be eliminated by a 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 combo; instead I would choose a D700 attached to a 24-70 and a D300 attached to a 70-200, that could be an awesome pair and the high ISO/wide open performance of the D700 and 24-70 would be better than VR on a D300 and 16-85.  Another consideration in all of this is cost as a D700 and 24-70 will run you $4700 compared to the D300 and 17-55 which would cost closer to $2800.

[vandevanterSH]

Thanks again.

Generally, we buy the best, especially regarding lenses, as they usually outlast our cameras.

Both our video and photography need to be of the highest quality as they are used across various media.

I would very much like us to have VR, but if it's a choice of that or weather-sealing, I suspect we'll go with the latter. Rain is not too much of an issue, but dust is a common problem.

The 24-70 and the 70-200 are looking like a good team. Eventually an additional lens for more wide-angle coverage might help.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214239\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In that is the case go with the 24-70 and 70-200.  The 24-70 will probably be right for most occasions.  On the D-300 the effective FOV is 36-105.  I have tried the 14-24 on the D-300 and D-700..I didn't really like it on the D-300 but may buy it for the future when D-700 prices drop.  The front lens on the 14-24 is very large and can't be protected with a filter in "bad environments".

Steve

[Tony Beach]

I have tried the 14-24 on the D-300 and D-700..I didn't really like it on the D-300...

The front lens on the 14-24 is very large and can't be protected with a filter in "bad environments".[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=214273\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The 14-24 lives on my DX cameras and is my favorite lens for landscapes.  As I see it, the 14-24 is like having three primes (14mm, 20mm and 24mm) with better image quality and weather seal rear gasket -- for $150 more than the 14/2.8 by itself.

The front element on the 14-24 is exposed, about the same as the 14/2.8 (images from Nikon USA website):





However, I don't generally use the 14-24 for people photography; for that I have the 35/2, 50/1.8 and the 70-200.  While this might be a good argument for the 24-70, I would still find 24mm too constraining for group shots taken indoors with a DX camera.

[stever]

i agree that the 17-55 may be a better choice.  i've tried using the Canon 24-85 and 24-105 on 40D for travel and found a large number of situations where it just wasn't wide enough