Good/expensive equipment doesn't equal good pictures.  Some of the pictures on this site were taken with a four year old Sony point and shoot.  My first camera was a Kodak Brownie; that took great pictures.  When I show people my work, I often hear, "Boy, you must have a great camera."  Most photographers don't treat that as a compliment.  Anyone can buy a camera.  That doesn't mean they'll take good pictures with it.  Never credit a camera for a good picture.  Credit the photographer!

That said, I am often asked what I use.  I have had the opportunity through schooling and work to use a variety of brands, camera bodies, and lenses over the years.  My first 35mm SLR just happened to be one of the first such models made by Canon, complete with screw thread lens mounts and a winding lever on the bottom.  (Thanks Mom and Dad!)  In high school, I started playing with the Nikon consumer SLR's.  Later, I was able to demo a Nikon F3 pro body (Thanks, Jim!), and that was it, I was hooked on Nikon gear.

I move through camera bodies every five years or so.  With lenses, I either have them for less than a year or for ten or more.  Wherever possible, I buy used lenses - the great thing about Nikon equipment is if well cared for, it will last a lifetime.  I wouldn't hesitate buying used bodies either, but I tend towards the latest and greatest in bodies so I often opt for new. 

I buy/sell the bulk of my used equipment on eBay.  I recently sold the remainder of my 35mm equipment, and am now 100% digital.  I won't get into the debate as to whether or not film is better than digital.  It should not be a debate!  They are different.  Depending on your needs and what you want to produce, either choice could be better.  Do me a favor, and go hang out with those folks that want to argue about CD versus vinyl.  Just leave me out of it! 

Currently, I carry:

• Nikon D300  and D200 bodies
  These bodies are almost as good as their big brothers, the D2 and D3, but are less than half the cost.  In some respects, they are actually a little better (built in flash, sensor cleaner, etc.)  I have a review of the D300 posted here.  My basic plan - when then D400 comes out, sell the D200, rotating from there.  I would enjoy a D3 - if only because it is a full frame sensor vs. the DX size ones, but the quality of the images produced by the D300 make it hard to swallow the added costs.  There's no doubt in my mind that the D300 beats the D2x any way you want to measure it.  
  
  
• Nikon 12-24mm f/4G AF-S ED DX wide angle zoom
  If you own a Nikon digital SLR, this lens is a must.  It is the only true wide angle zoom for the Nikon DX sensors.  Note that these sensors alter the field of view of traditional 35mm focal lengths.  This lens would be an 18-36mm in that world.  Great for all kinds of landscape and architectural work.  This lens and a moderate zoom are all you need.  This isn't a cheap lens.  The Tokina version has gotten good reviews as well and costs about half as much as the Nikon one, but I haven't personally used it.
  
  
• Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S ED DX VR-II universal zoom
  Believe everything you hear about this lens.  It is incredible.  If you were to only own one lens, this is it.  You are better off purchasing this lens for a few dollars more than any of the two zoom lens kits offered by Nikon.  If money is a concern, buy a cheaper camera body so you can purchase this lens.  A whopping 27-300mm range in the traditional 35mm universe, this lens goes from a moderate wide angle to a nice telephoto in the flick of a wrist, and focuses close.  When I want to travel light, this is the only lens I will carry.  My only complaint, I have had a lot of softness problems at higher apertures, which is why the bulk of my hyperfocal nature photography is shot with the 12-24mm lens.  (I find myself limited to f/8 with this lens, where f/16 on the 12-24 is acceptable.)  Due to its popularity - it's the best selling Nikon lens ever - this lens was hard to find in stock for several years.
  
  
• Nikon 85mm f/1.4D AF telephoto
  I consider this a luxury purchase.  In my opinion, this is the best piece of glass Nikon has ever made.  So sharp it hurts!  I use it for sports, nature, and portraiture (people and pets).  The background blur (bokeh) is amazing.  If the bokeh of this lens was edible, it would be the smoothest sweet cream butter money could buy.  It takes extra skill to use this lens.  At f/1.4 the depth of field can be inches, making precise focusing a non-option.  Also, its sharpness can be a problem for portraits... plan to spend extra time in your digital darkroom touching up skin imperfections.  For about 1/3 the cost you can get the f/1.8 version of this lens and you'd be happy.  However, the f/1.4 has an aura about it...  the bokeh of the f/1.4 is also much better.  This is primarily due to the rounded diaphragm blades in the f/1.4 vs. the f/1.8's hexagonal ones.   
  
  
• Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G AF-S ED DX standard zoom
  Now that Sarah uses the 18-200 more frequently, I revisited adding a standard range f/2.8 zoom to my lineup.  While I looked at Nikon's latest and greatest, the 24-70mm, and the Tamron 17-55, I settled on a DX classic, the Nikon 17-55.  (Honestly, I seriously considered adding a second 18-200 to the list, as I just love that lens, but in low light, even with VR, I find it lacking at times for my style of shooting.)  The 24-70 is an interesting choice as it would work with FX cameras should I ever decide to upgrade, but on a DX camera, 24mm is just not wide enough for me, and I would likely find myself swapping with the 12-24 lens frequently.  That coupled with the $1700 price tag, ruled it out quickly.  The Tamron is 1/3 the cost of the Nikon, smaller, lighter, and by all accounts 95% as good optically as the Nikon version.  Having owned Tamron products in the past, I have had no complaints with the optics.  But, there are two things that killed it for me.  One, it is mechanically focused via the screw connection from the camera body - it is not AF-S.  Translation - slow and noisy.  Once you've tasted AF-S, it's really hard to go back.  Second, it's plastic.  On the D200/D300 if feels cheap compared to the body, it doesn't balance well, and I just know it won't hold up as well, nor keep its value.  Thus, after much pinning, I ordered the Nikon version.
  
  I've only had the 17-55 for a few days, and I am 200 or so images into it as of this writing.  Overall, it feels great to hold, much like the 70-200 - rock solid, and responsive.  It will take me time to get used to the zoom ring.  It is small and really close to the mount.  It's also stiff.  I go on this rant a lot, and I know the pros out there disagree, but I prefer the zoom ring on the outside.  I use that ring more often than the focus override (which is where I differ from the pros on this topic, I am sure) and having my left hand farther down the barrel helps me hold the camera more securely.  I'm sure I will get used to it, just like I did with the 70-200.  The images are very sharp and the focus is as fast and as accurate as one would expect.  The only optical issue, the lens seems prone to flare - but then all my zooms are to one degree or another. You can see this in some of the pictures in a small gallery of test images I have taken with this lens to date.  Like the 70-200, I'll be using the hood all the time.  (Interestingly enough, the one lens I have that doesn't seem to flare a lot is the one you think would do so, the 18-200.  I can't say it enough... it's the best consumer zoom on the planet.)  I'm sure I will revise this commentary over the next few weeks of shooting.
  
  
• Nikon 300mm f/2.8n AF-IF ED super-telephoto
  The 300 2.8 is a legend in the photojournalist community.  You see it and its even larger siblings on the sideline of every NFL game.  I came across my precious quite accidentally.  The individual selling it either didn't know what he had or needed to liquidate it quickly.  Either way, he was selling it for several hundred dollars less than it was worth.  I purchased it immediately with the intent of taking it to a trade show in Chicago to flip it for a profit.  I made the mistake of shooting a few rolls of film with it, however, and was bound to it.  It is a great outdoor sports and wildlife lens.  It is almost as sharp as the 85mm, it is super fast, and nearly 100% distortion free.  As I was upgrading to digital, I was looking at selling it and upgrading to a more modern telephoto zoom, but I just can't sell it... it's freaky that way.  I still use it frequently.  On the D200, it behaves like a 450mm.  Slap on a 1.4x teleconverter, and I've got a 630mm f/4!  That's pretty cool!  This lens does have two disadvantages.  One, it is huge.  You can't take it anywhere without people pestering you.  Two, on the D200, the focal length magnification makes it impossible to hand-hold.  It is always on a tripod or monopod.  
  
  
• Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G AF-S ED VR telephoto zoom
  Simply the best f/2.8 telephoto lens I have ever had the pleasure of using.  It focuses ridiculously fast, images are tack sharp wide open, and the effective range of 105-300mm on my D200 makes it ideal for indoor low light work where a flash isn't an option.  Maybe the best indoor sports lens of all time.  It doesn't focus all that close on its own, unlike the 18-200 will, but when paired with a Canon 500D diopter, it also works wonderfully in close up settings.  In contrast to other reviews which almost always award 5 stars, I only give this lens 4 stars in ergonomics.  Nikon really should figure out a way to interchange the locations of the focus and zoom rings.  Based on the mechanics, this probably isn't possible without enlarging the lens... not a good thing considering how big it already is.  It does drive me nuts though as the remainder of my zooms have these two rings flipped in position.  The zoom really should be on the end of the lens.  You use that ring more often than the focus ring, and the lens would balance much better if the zoom ring was on the outside. 
  
  On an interesting side note, the 70-200 could spell the death of my precious 300 2.8.  The 300 is awesome, but it focuses slow compared to the 70-200.  Not to mention the 70-200 is half the size of the 300 - one of its major drawbacks (the 70-200 even fits in my shoulder bag... a bag my 300 laughs at in disgust).  We'll see.  I will probably get the 1.7x teleconverter for the 70-200, giving me a 340 4.8 at the long end.  Not quite what the 300 will do aperture wise, but for the speed and size advantages, how far will I lug the 300 from the car?  The only question will be image quality... if the 70-200 is as sharp with the 1.7x as the 300 is on its own (at standard print sizes), game over.  More to come...  
  
  
• Nikon SB-800 and two Nikon SB-600 electronic flash units
  I have never been a fan of flash photography.  In fact, I've hated it - only turning to it as a last resort.  When I first jumped into digital photography, I bought the barebones flash unit, and actually wrote the following... "I love electronic flash photography.  Nothing is more fulfilling than drawing attention to yourself by blowing people out with a big shot of hard cold light.  Bring on the red eye, hard shadows, and shiny skin.  Yum!  In fact, I wish they'd bring back flash powder!  They took all the fun out of flash when they took away the risk of blowing yourself up.  Just kidding... I HATE FLASH PHOTOGRAPHY."  Since then, I discovered the wonderful ability of the D200/D300 to trigger flashes wirelessly, taking full advantage of the Nikon iTTL balanced fill flash system.  While I still prefer natural light, I have to admit that I am stunned by the quality this system offers - especially in light of the ease of use and nearly foolproof operation.  My solitary SB-600 has grown into two of those plus an SB-800.  The SB-600 is a better flash for the money, but is missing one feature - it can't trigger other flashes remotely in iTTL mode.  If you need a stronger on-camera flash (than the built in unit) that will trigger other units in iTTL mode, you'll need at least one SB-800.  As I discover more about these flashes, I hope to post some how-to articles.  Again, I still prefer natural light, but this system has changed my mind about flash photography in general.
  
  When you do use flash, I continue to advocate the following - use some type of diffuser or reflector.  Of all the diffusers I have used, the model offered by Gary Fong is my favorite.  However, the Lumiquest models also work well.  You can even make one out of cardboard and a plastic bottle!  Just use one!  The SB-800 comes with a pretty good diffusion dome as well.  
  
  
• Bogen 3221 series tripod with 490RC4 ball head
  A good, sturdy tripod is essential to good nature/landscape photography.  You can't handhold and get consistently great shots, even with vibration reduction lenses.  This tripod has been great, but it is heavy.  For as much as it weighs, I wish it were a tad sturdier at its maximum height.  But, I don't regret the purchase!  I'd love a carbon fiber Gitzo, but doubt I'll purchase one.  Don't go cheap on your tripod.  It really matters.  When I want to travel light, I use a Silk Pro 614 CF with a Bogen 486RC2 ball head.  It isn't as sturdy as the 3221, but works most of the time - more than adequate for the D300 (minus the grip) and the 12-24 or 18-200.  On the plus side, it weighs half of the 3221 setup.  

I keep UV filters on all lenses - mostly as protection - 90% of the time.  Other than polarizers and diopters, I don't use creative filters much.  Most of what I need to do I can accomplish via software.  I keep light reflectors nearby, along with a light stand or two.  A cable release, spare 'film' and batteries, couple of lens cloths and a lens pen, extension tubes, vertical grips, and a multi-tool round out the bulk of the gear.  I flip-flop between one of four bags, depending on the shoot.  My standard bag usually has the D300 with grip, 12-24, 17-55, and 70-200 lenses, an SB-800 flash, remote release, polarizer, and diopter.  If I want to travel light, I take the D300 minus the grip and just the 18-200 in either a LowePro CompuDaypack (if I want to bring the laptop) or a Tenba waist pack (if not).

Version History:

• 3/30/2008 - Updated some info on the 18-200 and D300, dropped the 35 f/2 (sold), added the 17-55mm.

Thom Hogan offers very good information on these and several other Nikon items.  Well worth the read.  Ken Rockwell also has extensive equipment reviews on his site - if you can take his style.  

 

Site content and all images copyright © 2006-2008 Daniel J. Vomastek
dan@lakeshoreclick.com