Better to get new body or lens?

[d7e7r7]

Hey guys,

Info:
Full frame cameras handle higher ISO's better and give better overall quality than DX cameras.
Fast lenses give better results in low light, allowing one to shoot at lower ISO's.

I've currently got a Nikon D80 with a 18-135mm Nikon lens and 70-300mm Sigma lens.
In the future I hope to get some more equipment and I want to know if its better to get a full frame camera (D700 - R 26,995.00) or a fast lens (Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Lens - PRICE R 23,495.00).

Obviously the ideal scenario would be to get both camera and lens and keep my D80 as a backup, I wish

 

[koffiejunkie]

I would say the 70-200 f/2.8 will give you far more joy. For one thing, your 18-135 is a crop lens, and although the Nikons can fit them, it's not ideal. If I was you I'd get the 70-200 and then start saving for the D700 (or its successor) + 24-70mm f/2.8.

 

[d7e7r7]

I would say the 70-200 f/2.8 will give you far more joy. For one thing, your 18-135 is a crop lens, and although the Nikons can fit them, it's not ideal. If I was you I'd get the 70-200 and then start saving for the D700 (or its successor) + 24-70mm f/2.8.

Thanks for the reply.

For one thing, your 18-135 is a crop lens, and although the Nikons can fit them, it's not ideal.

Are you referring to using this lens on a full frame camera?

If I was you I'd get the 70-200 and then start saving for the D700 (or its successor) + 24-70mm f/2.

How does a 24-70mm look on a full frame compared to say 18mm (18-135mm) on my D80?

 

[koffiejunkie]

Are you referring to using this lens on a full frame camera?

Yes. Assuming you won't be buying a D700 and a lens.

How does a 24-70mm look on a full frame compared to say 18mm (18-135mm) on my D80?

18mm on crop has the same field of view as about 28mm on full frame. So the 24-70 is a touch wider, but of course, much shorter on the long end. 135mm on crop works out the same as about 200mm on full frame, so the 24-70mm and 70-200mm will give you the same range on a D700 as the 18-135 will on the D80. Only better quality glass and everything that goes with it..

 

[d7e7r7]

Yes. Assuming you won't be buying a D700 and a lens.

Yeah I was comparing just a D700 body and the 70-200m 2.8 lens.

18mm on crop has the same field of view as about 28mm on full frame. So the 24-70 is a touch wider, but of course, much shorter on the long end. 135mm on crop works out the same as about 200mm on full frame, so the 24-70mm and 70-200mm will give you the same range on a D700 as the 18-135 will on the D80. Only better quality glass and everything that goes with it..

So you reckon I get the 70-200mm 2.8 lens before I get a new body?
Will the 24-70mm 2.8 be "useless" on my D80 because of the crop factor I won't be able to get wide shots?

 

[koffiejunkie]

So you reckon I get the 70-200mm 2.8 lens before I get a new body?

Yes. It covers the slower part of the range of your current lens, and gives you some extra reach. In other words, it significantly expands what you have now.

Will the 24-70mm 2.8 be "useless" on my D80 because of the crop factor I won't be able to get wide shots?

No. I have a 24-105mm f/4L (the slightly slower, slightly longer cousing of canon's 24-70mm lens) on my 50D. It's not f/2.8 but it's a professional piece of equipment, with the approprate build quality, weather sealing, blisteringly fast and deadly accurate auto focus, etc. I bought it to replace the 18-200mm IS I had before, and the difference is visible in my pictures. Worth every penny. The 24-70 lenses from Nikon and Canon, and from what I hear Sigma's latest model) are all a step up from my 24-70mm, so it can only be good. In terms of range, it's slightly more limited on the wide end but that's not the end of the world. You have the 18-135 after all.

 

[d7e7r7]

Yes. It covers the slower part of the range of your current lens, and gives you some extra reach. In other words, it significantly expands what you have now.

Well I have a Sigma 70-300mm so I wouldn't be getting any more range. I'll be getting less range but faster.

No. I have a 24-105mm f/4L (the slightly slower, slightly longer cousing of canon's 24-70mm lens) on my 50D. It's not f/2.8 but it's a professional piece of equipment, with the approprate build quality, weather sealing, blisteringly fast and deadly accurate auto focus, etc. I bought it to replace the 18-200mm IS I had before, and the difference is visible in my pictures. Worth every penny. The 24-70 lenses from Nikon and Canon, and from what I hear Sigma's latest model) are all a step up from my 24-70mm, so it can only be good. In terms of range, it's slightly more limited on the wide end but that's not the end of the world. You have the 18-135 after all.

You mean a step up from the 24-105mm?

Why would I consider getting a 24mm-70mm to use instead of my 18-135mm? Better quality?

 

[koffiejunkie]

Well I have a Sigma 70-300mm so I wouldn't be getting any more range.

Sorry, I completely forgot that. But since I have the Sigma 70-300 myself, I can assure you you'll get a good boost in image quality from the 70-200.

You mean a step up from the 24-105mm?

Yes. The 24-105L is slightly cheaper than the 24-70L, and for the price you get 35mm extra and IS. It's also more compact and lighter than the 24-70. For the 24-70's defence, it has f/2.8, it is apparently sharper, it has less barrel distortion and vignetting on a full frame (although I don't notice it much on the 50D), and CA is better controlled.

Why would I consider getting a 24mm-70mm to use instead of my 18-135mm? Better quality?

No, I was thinking get the 70-200, then get the 24-70 because you're going to need it anyway when you get a FF body, and only then get the FF body.

 

[d7e7r7]

Sorry, I completely forgot that. But since I have the Sigma 70-300 myself, I can assure you you'll get a good boost in image quality from the 70-200.

Will the 70-200mm also allow faster shooting in low light? Went to a college fashion event tonight and had to push my iso to 1250 (which on my d80 is noisy as hell) and the images were still blurred so i just put my camera away and enjoyed the show, lol.

No, I was thinking get the 70-200, then get the 24-70 because you're going to need it anyway when you get a FF body, and only then get the FF body.

How will my 18-135mm look on the FX camera?
Will it look like this?

 

[koffiejunkie]

Will the 70-200mm also allow faster shooting in low light?

Yes, because you'll be able to use a wider aperture, so faster shutter speed. Maybe not enough for that, but who knows. No amount of ISO can fix bad light.

How will my 18-135mm look on the FX camera?
Will it look like this?

No idea, I'm not that familiar with the Nikon bodies. I think it masks the frame, so you're shooting at a lower resolution.

 

[d7e7r7]

Yes, because you'll be able to use a wider aperture, so faster shutter speed. Maybe not enough for that, but who knows. No amount of ISO can fix bad light.



No idea, I'm not that familiar with the Nikon bodies. I think it masks the frame, so you're shooting at a lower resolution.

So to shoot like in theatre's/stages etc (low light) I would ideally need both a FX camera and a fast lens?

Oh wow, thats cool, so it recognizes that its a DX lens and does magic!
When I put the 18-135mm on my film camera it looked like it did in that image above ^^

 

[koffiejunkie]

So to shoot like in theatre's/stages etc (low light) I would ideally need both a FX camera and a fast lens?

Well, speaking as a wannabe photographer, and a former full time musician, I'd say if the stage has low light, you need to fire the lighting guy. But generally, yeah, that would help, although there's more to it. The first thing you have to do when shooting events where a person is lit on a stage and everything surrounding them is dark, is get the camera into spot or at least partial metering. You'll find your exposure to be better with more headroom for shutter and/or aperture.

I took some shots at the Green Man festival, and one the one stage the lighting was good and I got great shots. Although I was using the 50mm f/1.8, most of my shots were at larger apertures and 1/250 or higher. I could easily have taken my 24-105L and made most shots. This was with the 40D, btw. On another stage the band had soft coloured lights on them and bright white light behind them - just about impossible to shoot. On my most recent uploads on flickr there are some shots taken in a blues bar. Bad light. Very bad light. It was fairly dark with heavy red light. So heavy that even on shots that I deliberately underexposed, the red channel was blown out. No full frame camera in the world would have helped there - what I really needed was a filter to get rid of the red *before* it gets into the camera.

 

[d7e7r7]

Well, speaking as a wannabe photographer, and a former full time musician, I'd say if the stage has low light, you need to fire the lighting guy. But generally, yeah, that would help, although there's more to it. The first thing you have to do when shooting events where a person is lit on a stage and everything surrounding them is dark, is get the camera into spot or at least partial metering. You'll find your exposure to be better with more headroom for shutter and/or aperture.

I took some shots at the Green Man festival, and one the one stage the lighting was good and I got great shots. Although I was using the 50mm f/1.8, most of my shots were at larger apertures and 1/250 or higher. I could easily have taken my 24-105L and made most shots. This was with the 40D, btw. On another stage the band had soft coloured lights on them and bright white light behind them - just about impossible to shoot. On my most recent uploads on flickr there are some shots taken in a blues bar. Bad light. Very bad light. It was fairly dark with heavy red light. So heavy that even on shots that I deliberately underexposed, the red channel was blown out. No full frame camera in the world would have helped there - what I really needed was a filter to get rid of the red *before* it gets into the camera.

I'm really tired so will set my brain to process this info in the morning.
Just a quick question regarding the red light. Why didn't you try shooting in RAW and them fix it in Camera Raw or some other RAW app? Would that not have helped?

 

[bwana]

I don't know much about Nikon and nothing about the D80 but there comes a time when technology has advanced so much that you're going to benefit a lot by upgrading the body. This is particularly true with regard to high ISO.

As for lenses and aperture . . . I spent the long Easter weekend shooting a lot of stage events and when the sun went down my f/4 70-200 had to go back in the bag. F/2.8 or faster is a must, particularly if the artist isn't too keen about flash photography.

 

[d7e7r7]

I don't know much about Nikon and nothing about the D80 but there comes a time when technology has advanced so much that you're going to benefit a lot by upgrading the body. This is particularly true with regard to high ISO.

As for lenses and aperture . . . I spent the long Easter weekend shooting a lot of stage events and when the sun went down my f/4 70-200 had to go back in the bag. F/2.8 or faster is a must, particularly if the artist isn't too keen about flash photography.

So what do you recommend? Get a new body or a lens as asked in the OP?

 

[bwana]

So what do you recommend? Get a new body or a lens as asked in the OP?

I don't know enough about the D80 to answer that.

My rule of thumb is a body that is older than two or three generations is probably worth replacing.

 

[koffiejunkie]

I'm really tired so will set my brain to process this info in the morning.
Just a quick question regarding the red light. Why didn't you try shooting in RAW and them fix it in Camera Raw or some other RAW app? Would that not have helped?

I did shoot RAW. RAW gives you a lot of latitude, but on these images, even if I bring the exposure down by two stops, the red channel is still blown. That's why I said, in that case the only thing that would have helped was a filter in front of the lens.

 

[bwana]

Why do you want to take all the red out? Wasn't it lit that way when you took the photo?

I could have taken the red tint away in post but that's how it looked.

ISO 3200, 300mm, f/2.8 if anyone is interested.

 

[d7e7r7]

Why do you want to take all the red out? Wasn't it lit that way when you took the photo?

I could have taken the red tint away in post but this is how it looked at the time.

ISO 3200, 300mm, f/2.8 if anyone is interested.

What camera? My D80 at ISO 3200 is so bloody noisy

 

[koffiejunkie]

Why do you want to take all the red out? Wasn't it lit that way when you took the photo?

I don't intend to remove all the ambient light, but when one channel is blown it still shows the same way as when everything is blown. If you look at the before/after photo in my other thread (about RAW) you can see it in the guy's face. That's a bad photo, but because there's so much red, I had no way to expose it properly.