[Pavel]

Many of you know my style of photography, so I hope that I could get a good advice from you. I have one of those urges to buy a new lens. As you see, I have a nice collection and with the exception of the 50 mm and 105 macro, I make use of them. I am thinking of Nikon upcomming 100-500 (if under 2K US) and if it has good writeups, or sigma 150-500. I do have a 70-300 (nikon) which I like a lot - great walk around lens to isolate and at 1:4, it is a nice macro sleeper. However, when it comes to living things other than bigger ducks, friendly pigeons etc, it is short. I figure I could use 500 for some landscapes to compress the distance and to isolate better than with 300, but I suspect that the number of times the diwstances will be sufficient for the use of 500 will be limited. Lately, I was thinking of a fisheye. However i do have tokina 11-16 and so with nikon 10.5 fisheye, i would just gain the barrel distortion, which I could fake in photoshop. Sigma 8 mm is expensive and I still do not know how much use i would get out of it. The rational side says i do not need a new lens.

If you have time, check my lens list below (it would be nice if you would check my photos on flickr) and please advise.

Thanks

Pavel

[Toad]

I took a good look at your list and I can't see anything that you are missing - in fact you have a fair bit of overlap in some areas. I suppose a super telephoto would fit in your lineup - but I think the lens purchase urge is one that you could safely fight off.

If you want something completely different, why not buy another Nikon body second hand and convert it to infrared?

[shuttertalk]

If you think you will get good use out of it, and if you can afford it, then go for it! I'm sure you'll be able to justify it one way or another you keep thinking long enough.

With purchases I'm not sure of, I usually just put it on the backburner and see if I'm still keen after a month or three. By this time, I usually know whether it was just a passing fancy or whether I'm really serious about it.

[Pavel]

Thank you guys, I needed to hear voice of reason.

Toad with regards to overlap, I think Jules was right that I am "able to justify it one way or another you keep thinking long enough". My main overlap is 18-200, which is my travel lens when I must travel light and take photos quickly. I tend to use 18-70 and 70-300 instead in other cases. 50 f/1.4 is my portrait/ low light lens. Infrared bu is not yet upon me, but a few years from now, if i am still around and sturdy enough to carry 2 bodies, I may buy another so I have less need to switch lenses. I hate switching between 18-70 and 70 to 300. I am waiting for a new (Nikon) body which would offer a significantly greater dynamic range.

Jules, the 3 months idea is a good one. The tele already passed the test, but I will give it another few months I suppose. The fisheye still has a way to go.

Thank you again both. Pavel

[matthew]

Pavel, I know the feeling that you're experiencing.

The 11-16 and a fisheye will give you different views; I'm not sure that I love the effect but even my Oly ultrawide with its 14mm-e focal length is tame by comparison. But both Vistek and Filmplus(.ca) rent the 10.5 DX fisheye (film plus, in the west end, is cheaper). Of course, there are also several camera shops that will let you try out the fisheye in the store, with your 11-16 for comparison, without needing to spend any money at all.

[Irma]

Hi Pavel...

I find a lot more versatil the 100-500mm lens than the fish eye and if you enjoy bird shooting... and you have been already considering the idea of buying it... it should be yours... much better if it has VR ...

mine is 100-400mm and the only place I don't take it is to the city... other than that I am really very happy shooting in the zoo, in the forest, in the sea... landscapes, birds... any outdoor events... motorcross, tractor pulling... etc...

I was asked to take pictures for a website, she is a horse trainer, and all my pictures were taken with this lens... I ran all over the place because sometimes I was too close but most of the times I got nice pictures capturing moments without me interfering with her and the horse... I know it is heavy but I most of the times have my monopod with me... it helps too... I think to get one for testing it one or two days, comparing the lens with the ones you have at the long run it isn't a waste of money...

On the other hand, as I know you like a lot landscape photography and you have the chance to go out and see beautiful landscapes... I think Toad's idea about an infrared camera would be really nice. Something I have in my wish list as well...

Have a nice day!!

[EnglishBob]

I have the Sigma 50-500 and am amazed by how often I find I am using it at greater than 400mm... if I didn't already own the 50-500 I would buy the 150-500 as I have read that it is a better lens than the 50-500 I have. Both lenses are very heavy to use though.

[Pavel]

Thank you Matthew, Irma and Craig.

Matthew - rental is a good idea, but in store view of the fisheye (preferably both the 8 mm Sigma and 10.5 mm nikon compared to straight 10-11 mm (Sigma or Nikon or tokina) would be fun. Perhaps i will come to haras you at some point - interested to hear what you see - I think you have a good perspective on this). I am just not sure that i will not tire of the striking but limiting effect of barrel distortion. I wonder whether i should not try it out in photoshop first. What do you think? Longer lens seems to be more versatile and thde noises I am hearing is that this should be a good, high-performing prosumer lens (Tom Hogan, Nikon Rumors) is precisely what I am looking for.

Irma, I suspect that I will have to learn to live with a monopod, I am not sure that i will be able to compose effectively at 500 hand held. It is sometimes a challenge even at 300. I would like to be able to take photo of wildlife, even though I do not think I will be a wildlife photographer. I am hoping that the lens is not too long for general and landscape photography. I find many appealing opportunities with 300, and that surprised me. Perhaps 500 will work well as well, once I learn to understand it. I used to own 70s, a perfect camera for infrared, but i gave it away a while back to a friend. I would have to find another. I am not sure that I have patience for infrared.

Craig, I am considering the 150-500 from Sigma and on occasion i have an urge to just buy it. In more rational moments, I end up deciding to wait for what Nikon will come up with first. If I was a Canon guy, I would already own the 100-400.

Thank you all for taking time to share with me your thoughts and experiences. And once more Have a great New Year, all of you.

Pavel

[enviroguy]

Pavel! Let sanity rule here.

Instead of buying the new toy, take your wife out for a really nice dinner. It's safer and you won't jeopardize you marriage.

Besides, Your images are truly superb right now.

Best regards,

.....Dennis

(still married after 33 years)

[Pavel]

Thank you Dennis (Just a newlywed - only 19 years). Happy New Year!

[matthew]

I don't look at the rumour sites - I have a hard enough time keeping track of the camera gear that actually exists. (This is actually a sensitive issue for me - meaning that I'm resisting a rant - because for everyone who won't buy the current something because a new one will eventually be made, there's someone else who's looking for the old one because they heard that it's better.)

I've been occasionally interested in long zooms, but it frustrates me that the lens tests that I see invariably show them being weakest at their longest - which is the end that I'm most interested in. Long primes are tempting, but very `spensive. And then I remember that the only time I use something hitting 500mm-e is for the airshow. I barely take my Sigma 180/3.5 out of the house these days. The 70-300VR is a neat and very good lens, and its DX reach is something that would require a whole new camera bag with a film/fx camera. If you'd like a new camera bag, that's okay, and if it's something you'll use to define your photography, then that's awesome. Otherwise, Dennis has some great advice, even if I hardly ever follow it.

(But let's be honest, you'll get a 500mm eventually...)

[Pavel]

I promised a fisheye - here is my first attempt. It turns out that my Nikon kit 18-70 had a severe, and until now unreported pincushion distortion problem () which I have now corrected. Please go to my Flickr front page (see the link below) and tell me what you think. I think that I just got myself a fairly inexpensive (free actually) lens

[Toad]

Interesting post. What did you do to the 18-70 exactly (if anything)?

[Pavel]

I just applied a "Lens Distortion" filter in CS4 that creates barrel distortion (the hallmark of a fisheye). The filter in CS4 is probably intended to correct pincushion distortion of some telephotos. You can see the photo before the barrel distortion was applied below the distorted image. I figured this filter is cheaper than a fisheye and it zooms from 11mm to 300mm (the focal length range of my lenses). You may have noticed the photo is not quite as sharp. I would need to work some more on that. Any comments? Dennis and John (not a member here) think that it makes them queasy and they call it a Rolaids filter.

[Toad]

I dunno - the distortion is a cool effect - but it doesn't really look like a true fisheye image to me (except for the distortion). I guess it just isn't showing a wide enough view. From the position of the bush in the foreground, I can appraise how far it is away from the lens and at what angle - and using that as a reference point, it doesn't look wide enough. Might work better if the bush were much closer.

[Pavel]

It would look better with the Tokina 11-16. The posted photo was taken at 27 mm (equivalent of about 41mm - or about "normal" - range lens). My first attempt - will try with the Tokina at 11 mm. I still owe you guys the infrared - did not forget.