DSLR semi pros/ pros

okay, I spent the last 6 months researching what I wanted and all the specs but the new body will have to wait. I'm going to stay with Nikon with either a D750 body or a D7500 kit. But in the meantime I'm going to keep using my older D80 because it does most of what I want (and it's better than I am).

What I need in the meantime is a pretty good 300m lens. Here's the one I'm looking at:
https://www.crutchfield.com/p_05420062/Nikon-AF-P-DX-Nikkor-70-300mm-f-4-5-6-3G-ED-VR.html

My questions are should I go with the AF-P series or will a AF-S work? Really, what's the $ .50 answer to "what's the difference."
Everything I read is that either will work just fine with the older D80 and also with whichever of the two I mentioned above.
Finally, with the "F" range, what should I be looking at? (smaller range? larger? etc). I'm relearning all this shit.

I know, try a Canon. Can't, then I'd have to start again with the lens and accessories I already have and I'm just too damn cheap to do that.

I might also pick up a 35mm or 50mm just to play with as well.

 

Since we can't ever stay entirely on topic, I want to add a couple questions to this, as I was thinking about starting a thread.

For our 25th wedding anniversary and Tyler's college graduation, my wife planned a Safari vacation to Kenya and somewhere else over in Africa, I can't remember, maybe Tanzania? I tried suggesting only the two of us....so my cheap a.. could save some money...but she convinced me this may be our last family vacation since Dominique lives in Dallas now and Tyler will be starting his job in June.

She thinks we should just use our phones and an old point and shoot with a zoom for pictures. I don't actually enjoy taking pictures that much, but figure this will probably be a pretty amazing trip, so I should consider buying a DSLR, but what kind? Back in high school, I thought I wanted to be a photographer and bought myself a 35mm Pentax MX with a 1.2 lens, so I understand a little, but am no expert.

I'm actually wondering if I should buy a used decent body and one good 80-300 lens and then sell the stuff when I return? Is the white Canon stuff really for high speed action pictures?

I'm open to brand, when I was in high school I wanted Nikon but couldn't swing it. Now it seems Canon maybe better?

https://www.costco.com/CatalogSearch?dept=All&keyword=camera+special+bundles There are bundles from $500-1600 here, but I don't know enough about this stuff to make an educated decision. I understand what megapixles are, but maybe incorrectly figured anything over 5MB is way more than enough for most the stuff we would probably use?

 

I am a Canon person, but it is all the same. What are wanting to shoot? Kid playing lacrosse from the stands or sideline? You want fastest lens possible.

I shoot a variety of things and prefer 2.8 70-200 image stabilized because i can pair it w a 2x extender and go to 400 at 5.6. Nikon makes similar lens, not sure about the extender. If you want good action shots, you need a fast lens or you need to be really close. It takes $ like 2000 -2500 kind of $.

 

Kelly, where do I find the speed of the lens? Like I said, I'm relearning all this stuff. I'd love a monster high speed $2000 lens (looked at a 500mm $1500 lens) but it ain't happening right now.

Yeah, mostly kids lacrosse but I've been asked/ volunteered to do all the teams and some of the local travel teams in lacrosse and some other sports. I want to shoot some other stuff on my own but that comes second to the shit I was "volunteered" to do,

 

The f stop. F/2.8 is best for those size lens. What you are looking at is f/4.5-6.3, not bad, but not great. The lens being a zoom creates the variation. Big $ lens with low f/ and no variation in the f stop is where the $ comes in. Otherwise buy a fixed lens (called a prime) with a low f stop and just put up with it being fixed. So a fixed 300 with nice f stop - 4 or below. Just constrains you from zooming. But nice photo capability. A fixed 300 or 250 at f 2.8 would be great. $1000-1500 as a guess.

 

okay, so I want to look for a 300m with the lowest F range? Example would be a 70~300 with a range of 4.5 to 6.3 is slower than a 70~300 with 4.5 to 5.6?

 

Rob, you'll end up keeping whatever you get so if you spend a few extra bucks, it'll be money well spent. Once you start using it you'll get hooked. That's what happened to me.

I used to hear "canon for bodies, Nikon for lens" but I think that's outdated. I think it just comes down to which brand you prefer and/or you're used to. I'd switch to canon tomorrow after being a Nikon guy for decades. but I have a bunch of Nikon stuff so I'm staying with what I know. I was (and am) just a hack but I'm starting to get back into it.

 

Fixed means fixed at 300mm - not variable. So a 300mm is fixed to just that view. A 70-300 varies as in changes from being a 70mm to a 300mm and everything in between. Hence more moving parts, more expense. That's is why a low f/ in a zoom lens (eg 70-300) become so expensive.

 

O cool, ingore our fucking texts all day. But you sure got time to rub @Dave K fucking balls.

You fucking ass clown.

 

I grabbed that AF-P 70-300mm. A lot more plastic than I'd want but really, to just shoot the way I do it's a good enough option for now.

I appreciate the input, Kelly. The more you tell me know the better for the next lens and body.

Rob, the body is a bit small for my mits but this didn't look all that bad for what you want. https://www.crutchfield.com/p_0541573/Nikon-D3400-Two-Lens-Kit-Black.html?tp=9633

 

Dear me...last real camera I bought was a really expensive 35mm film camera. All the appropriate lenses too. It's all junk now. What ever you get will gather dust in 10 years, be junk in 20 and be in a museum in 100.....

 

Don't you have a mirror? Your body is shot, man.

 

No worries, lens stuff doesn't change fast, the sensors and features in the body do. The physics of light through glass aren't going to change too much more.... its the image stabilization and other features that get added are what is happening. And the sensors... :-D

 

I'll give you $100 for all of it.

I still dick around with film (when I can find actual film). My current body is over 10 years old and in many ways it's better than the newest stuff. . . it's idiot proof.

 

If you want to shoot lacrosse as the primary function get the Nikon D500 and a 70-200 2.8. 2.8 is a fast zoom and expensive, but you'll be able to shoot Lacrosse at night or indoors. The slower lens won't work as well unless it's a day game. The D500 is a small chip so the full frame lens focal length be 1.5X longer, so that 70-200 is equivalent to something like a 105-300. I have both a D750 and a D500, the D500 is my sports camera, 10FPS too, much faster than the D750.

 

That's backwards. Nikon and Sony evidently make the best sensors these days and Canon is regarded as having the best glass. Having said that, all this expensive gear is way overrated for 95% of the population. I shoot Canon and have a 7 year old Rebel and brand new full frame $2000 body as well. The image quality is virtually the same. Also have a $1700 70-200 lens and $250 55-250 lens. Again, the $250 lens is astonishingly good for the money. Yes, in low light the 2.8 70-200 kills the 55-250 lens but in outdoors it ain't that much different.

Getting long winded but my point is, if you are shooting outdoors stuff, get a basic crop sensor Nikon and zoom lens (for the kids lacrosse stuff and just start shooting. It's easy to get wrapped up in the gear hype but in the end, it's mostly hype. Oh, and while you're at it, the best $125 you can spend is getting the 50mm 1.8 lens. Fantastic lens for portraits and low light stuff. Every photographer should own one.

 

I’m no expert, but I do get paid to take pictures. My reply is to Rob. Do get a good camera and a big zoom. For me it was a trip of a lifetime. I did want a sealed body because of all the dust. I bought a d7200 package and it’s more camera than I will ever use. 300 zoom minimum. One last item, you may want to check and make sure you aren’t on a cattle boat. Have a private guide and your own vehicle for your family.

 

Sorry but NO, If your 7 year old rebel and the new full frame body have the same image quality, you got a crappy new camera. Same for the lens comparison, maybe you need a new monitor, but I'll bet I could tell the difference between them on a sunny day, contrast, sharpness, chromatic aberration, all different. The 70-200 will focus faster in all conditions, and when it gets dark you'll still be able to shoot with a faster shutter speed without cranking up the sensitivity to insane levels. It's also made much better, all metal instead of plastic.