 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / May 2008A good walking arround Zoom for Nikon
Me again. I am leaning heavily toward the D300 for my first DSLR. I went to a camera store and did a more complete side-by-side comparison of the D300 and 5D. I liked the 5D more than I remembered, but the side of the screen on the D300, sensor cleaning, and weather resistance pointed me back to the Nikon. I still plan to buy at the end of the summer/beginning of fall, assuming no full frame announcements, But am trying to figure what my final budget needs to be. I still plan to get a full frame in the future so I don't want any DX lenses. I figure I won't be able to afford any of the lenses I really want until the next year (will need to save a bit), but I obviously want something to use while walking around and hiking. I want a full-frame lens that I won't feel the need to replace if.when I get a full frame DSLR in a few years. I really want a wide zoom and a tele-zoom so I figure I need something in the middle range. Any recommendations for a less expensive prime or zoom in the standard range? Steve > Me again. > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Any recommendations for a less expensive prime or zoom in the standard > range? Fast normal like a 35mm f/1.4 manual or f/2 AF? Full format fast wide zooms will be big & expensive: not practical on APS.  SignaturePaul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam > Me again. > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Steve Nikkor 18-200mm VR. >> Me again. >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >Nikkor 18-200mm VR. The OP stated "I still plan to get a full frame in the future so I don't want any DX lenses". So why recommend a DX lens? >>> Me again. >>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > The OP stated "I still plan to get a full frame in the future so I don't > want any DX lenses". So why recommend a DX lens? Its OK, if the best affordable lens is a DX and there really isn't a good full frame alternative I will definitely look at a DX, but it will hit ebay when I finally get my FF camera :) Doing a little digging I am looking at the Nikon 24-120mm the price seems reasonable at BH or do you think the range is too small. Steve >Its OK, if the best affordable lens is a DX and there really isn't a good >full frame alternative I will definitely look at a DX, but it will hit >ebay when I finally get my FF camera :) > >Doing a little digging I am looking at the Nikon 24-120mm the price seems >reasonable at BH or do you think the range is too small. Earlier versions of this lens had very bad distortion, plus issues with light fall off and lack of sharpness. Thom Hogan suggests this version is better but still not a great optic. "I was prepared to be very disappointed with this lens. The previous 24-120mm is one of my least favorite recent lenses, with substantive compromises all over the place, and barely adequate performance at the extremes. Fortunately, this new version manages to crawl over that low hurdle and provide some reasonable, if not outstanding, performance. So I'm not disappointed, but I'm also not overly impressed." Not exactly a strong recommendation, but do read the whole review: http://www.bythom.com/24120ens.htm As for whether the range is too small, only you can decide, but in my opinion there are very few lenses with a zoom range of 4X or more that are worth considering. Personally, I would not even consider an 18-200mm optic, regardless of how cheap and "convenient" it might appear. The 11x zoom range means that major optical compromises have had to be made. If you cannot make the effort to change between two shorter range and therefore optically better zooms, you shouldn't be buying a DSLR. >> Its OK, if the best affordable lens is a DX and there really isn't a good >> full frame alternative I will definitely look at a DX, but it will hit [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > If you cannot make the effort to change between two shorter range and > therefore optically better zooms, you shouldn't be buying a DSLR. Why post a Thom Hogan review on the 24-120 that is negative, then diss the 18-200 yourself, but not bother to post the highly positive Thom Hogan review on it? http://www.bythom.com/18200lens.htm "let's cut to the chase: on almost every performance parameter this is an excellent lens. Not perfect, but quite good at almost everything." Snobbery helps nobody. >Why post a Thom Hogan review on the 24-120 that is negative, then diss >the 18-200 yourself, but not bother to post the highly positive Thom >Hogan review on it? Because I hadn't read the 18-200 review. As Thom says, "Superzooms shouldn't be this good." And I don't believe it is that good - at least not yet. Nikon has a history of introducing new lenses that have had excellent early reviews, but which do not perform anything like as well in practice, or suffer from significant sample variation, with only a small proportion of the lenses produced giving satisfactory results. I agree, Thom Hogan's review was surprisingly good. It almost makes me wish I was a Nikon user. Almost. > >Why post a Thom Hogan review on the 24-120 that is negative, then diss > >the 18-200 yourself, but not bother to post the highly positive Thom [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > or suffer from significant sample variation, with only a small > proportion of the lenses produced giving satisfactory results. I've got one... It *is* that good. At 200mm *I* much prefer my 70-200mm f2.8 VR. But for walking around, non low-light conditions it is a fine addition to my growing lens collection. > I agree, Thom Hogan's review was surprisingly good. It almost makes > me wish I was a Nikon user. Almost. Just curious, what do you use for a camera and/or lenses? - JT isn't into manufacturer bashing SignatureSee Header for Improving Usenet's Signal-To-Noise Ratio "The pendulum of the mind oscillates between sense and nonsense, not between right and wrong." - Carl Jung In message news:2008052521133075249-adm1@fastmailfm, adm <adm1@fastmail.fm> burned some brain cells writing: >>> Its OK, if the best affordable lens is a DX and there really isn't a >>> good full frame alternative I will definitely look at a DX, but it [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Snobbery helps nobody. Neither does illiteracy. The OP wants a FULL-FRAME lens. >> Why post a Thom Hogan review on the 24-120 that is negative, then diss >> the 18-200 yourself, but not bother to post the highly positive Thom [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Neither does illiteracy. The OP wants a FULL-FRAME lens. Apparently your reading comprehension isn't the best. You obviously missed this piece: > Steven Green <steven.green30@verizon.net> wrote: >> >> Its OK, if the best affordable lens is a DX and there really isn't a good >> full frame alternative I will definitely look at a DX, but it will hit >> ebay when I finally get my FF camera :) Seeing as IMHAO the best "affordable" walk-around Nikon zoom is the 18-200VR DX right now, and the OP appears happy to trade it on later, if and when he goes to a full frame body, my recommendation stands. D300 plus 18-200 VR DX. Great combo that will do 95% of what you need for 95% of all photographers. Technical Pros and gear snobs not included. For the other 5%, there are plenty of nice Nikkor primes and low-f zooms, but they are also much, much more expensive, have less range and are probably not justified unless you make your living from your gear, have lots of disposable cash or have an overriding technical need for a particular lens. BTW, my next purchase will probably be the replacement for the current 70-200 f2.8 VR to go with my 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8 and old 24-105 f2.8-??, but for now, for MY use, the 18-200 VR DX is the nicest and most used "walkaround" zoom I have, and is one I am happy to recommend to others interested in getting into Nikon DSLRs on a budget of $2-3K for body and lens. >>>> Me again. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Steve As the other poster said, try the 18-200VR, it's cheap enough that you won't really get the same range, quality and ease of use with Nikon FF lenses unless you spend a LOT more - even if you are int he market for used FF lenses. As you said, you can always eBay it later! To be honest, I wouldn't get too hung up about FF for now - just buy the D300 and the 18-200mm VR and see how you get on. The D300 is a superb camera and will do almost everything you are likely to need, the 18-200 will also cater for 95% of all your needs if you are a casual photographer. Just get this combo and go have fun. Then save your pennies for the FF body or some FF lenses later if you need to. >>>>> Me again. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > photographer. Just get this combo and go have fun. Then save your > pennies for the FF body or some FF lenses later if you need to. I also suggest not to get too hung up on Fx. The advantages are undeniable for either extreme high ISO performance or very large prints when finally high resolution Fx "D3x" is available from Nikon, but there will always be a large "system" cost premium, and a large weight premium if you're carrying kit around with good quality lenses covering a wide focal length range. > As the other poster said, try the 18-200VR, it's cheap enough that you > won't really get the same range, quality and ease of use with Nikon FF > lenses unless you spend a LOT more - even if you are int he market for > used FF lenses. The 18-200VR is a decent walk around lens with one catch. If you can get a new one for $475 you would be better off with one as a stop gap lens. Money is better spent on quality pro glass. > As you said, you can always eBay it later! Yep, buy cheap and sell for twice the price. > To be honest, I wouldn't get too hung up about FF for now - just buy > the D300 and the 18-200mm VR and see how you get on. The D300 is a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > your > pennies for the FF body or some FF lenses later if you need to. If he's on a tight budget he would be better off with good glass first and buy a used D200. Of course he would probably want the latest and greatest, but crippling the D300 with an 18-200VR isn't too bright. The OP needs to find a happy in-between ground that will allow him to buy the gear he needs. Rita > Its OK, if the best affordable lens is a DX and there really isn't a good > full frame alternative I will definitely look at a DX, but it will hit > ebay when I finally get my FF camera :) > > Doing a little digging I am looking at the Nikon 24-120mm the price seems > reasonable at BH or do you think the range is too small. At 24mm (36mm equiv.) it doesn't give a wide enough angle for many photographers. B&H (and presumably other camera shops) is offering Nikon's $150 "instant savings" for their recent 75-300VR lens if purchased with a D3 or D300. By itself it's not a "walking around" lens, but it's a pretty good lens with the latest VR implementation, and not a heavy beast like some of Nikon's fixed aperture zooms. You could add the very inexpensive and lightweight 18-55mm DX kit lens to take care of the wide angle range. It costs so little that it shouldn't matter much that it won't be suitable for an FX camera such as the D3. Or you could splurge a little and get Nikon's better 18-70mm lens. The new 16-85mm VR lens is better still and could qualify by itself as a good "walking around lens" for some, but it's still a DX and twice the price of the 18-70mm version. > The new 16-85mm VR lens is better still and > could qualify by itself as a good "walking around lens" for some, > but it's still a DX and twice the price of the 18-70mm version. The 18-70 is the only DX lens that exceeds expectations and is the only one that offers pro quality for under $200. Rita SignatureStamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet Stimulus Project page. http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com On Mon, 26 May 2008 20:13:15 -0400, "Muscles" O'Berkowitz wrote: >> The new 16-85mm VR lens is better still and >> could qualify by itself as a good "walking around lens" for some, >> but it's still a DX and twice the price of the 18-70mm version. > > The 18-70 is the only DX lens that exceeds expectations and is the only one > that offers pro quality for under $200. Is the 18-70 really that good? Maybe I shouldn't have given mine to my brother last week? On second thought, I had no other option. He needed a lens to go with the D50, and since they were so fond of each other, I thought it best to not separate those Asian bits of metal and plastic . . . :) I gave him the 'new' D50 and kept my refurbished D50, but it looks like I'll have to get the refurb. a newer, younger sibling. Why, I already hear you asking? Because I bought Nikon's AH-4 hand strap yesterday, and one of the few bodies it doesn't fit is the D50. What to do? What to do? Return it? Nope, it's too nice and useful. Mill off part of the base plate or add a non-slip shim? Nope, because I'd rather keep it and wait to see if it'll fit the eagerly awaited D90, or possibly even a D300. If the latter, I'll probably need to do some of your hand and arm exercises for a couple of months even if I don't get any of Nikon's f/2.8 zooms for it. :) > I gave him the 'new' D50 and kept my refurbished D50, but it looks > like I'll have to get the refurb. a newer, younger sibling. Why, I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > probably need to do some of your hand and arm exercises for a couple > of months even if I don't get any of Nikon's f/2.8 zooms for it. :) the nikon hand strap doesn't really fit any recent nikon bodies that well. i use a thin rubber washer which keeps the mount plate from slipping or twisting. i think it cost fifty cents or something like that. >> useful. Mill off part of the base plate or add a non-slip shim? >> Nope, because I'd rather keep it and wait to see if it'll fit the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > well. i use a thin rubber washer which keeps the mount plate from > slipping or twisting. i think it cost fifty cents or something like that. That did seem like the simplest, least Rube_Goldberg-ish solution. On the plus side, it could save me hundreds or even thousands of dollars. On the other hand, my money has a mind of its own, and will soon find other ways to try to entice me towards gear photographic . . . :) Are there any other decent hand straps you're aware of? The only thing I can see about the AH-4 that looks like it may cause problems would be if it makes it more difficult to use the rear dial or any nearby buttons. Are you using one on a D50? The AH-4 doesn't slip on my D50, but a ridge on the AH-4's mounting plate keeps it from making full contact with the D50's base, and the much greater pressure on the D50 from the ridge may lead to future problems. > >> useful. Mill off part of the base plate or add a non-slip shim? > >> Nope, because I'd rather keep it and wait to see if it'll fit the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > will soon find other ways to try to entice me towards gear > photographic . . . :) apparently my money and your money share the same mind...it's a never ending outward flow... > Are there any other decent hand straps you're aware of? The only > thing I can see about the AH-4 that looks like it may cause problems [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > making full contact with the D50's base, and the much greater > pressure on the D50 from the ridge may lead to future problems. there's a few third party ones that looked promising, but i happened to luck out on a used ah-4 that someone sold to my local camera store. i tried it on a few different models, including the d50 and d300, and it's not ideal for any of them. the grip was apparently designed for thinner cameras such as the f4, so on recent cameras, it doesn't make full contact and can twist. i tried putting a small piece of rubber in the gap but that didn't work that well, so i replaced that with a washer underneath and it's almost perfect. even with the gap it stays put, but with a lot of use it might twist slightly. it's minor. the only issue i have is dealing with tripods. since the grip has its own tripod socket that's offset from the lens axis, pivoting on a tripod is no longer ideal. when i do panoramas, i remove the grip and put the quick release plate on the camera, with the grip plate hanging. otherwise, the q/r plate is on the grip. i was considering one of the third party straps before i lucked out on the nikon one. there's two in the lower right corner of this document: <http://www.hakubausa.com/documents/ca.pdf> and another here: <http://www.optech-online.co.uk/lst97.htm> since they're generic, they might be more flexible in fitting a wider variety of cameras but that's just a guess. >>>> useful. Mill off part of the base plate or add a non-slip shim? >>>> Nope, because I'd rather keep it and wait to see if it'll fit the [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > put the quick release plate on the camera, with the grip plate hanging. > otherwise, the q/r plate is on the grip. Yes. That's the main problem with it - and it's a pain in the a.s, isn't it. Great strap though. > > The new 16-85mm VR lens is better still and > > could qualify by itself as a good "walking around lens" for some, > > but it's still a DX and twice the price of the 18-70mm version. > > The 18-70 is the only DX lens that exceeds expectations and is the only one > that offers pro quality for under $200. That's the used price, I think, as I paid more than $200 for my gray market one from B&H, new. >>>> Me again. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >>>> >>>> Steve >>>Nikkor 18-200mm VR. >> The OP stated "I still plan to get a full frame in the future so I don't >> want any DX lenses". So why recommend a DX lens? > Its OK, if the best affordable lens is a DX and there really isn't a good > full frame alternative I will definitely look at a DX, but it will hit [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Steve Don't buy just by the numbers. The 24-120mm Nikkor VR may be rated for FX, but it isn't very good on FX (I tried three...). Not very wide on DX (but at the long end, the visible difference is minor compared with the above), there is the excellent 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 Nikkor, good on both formats even at its widest stops. It covers a respectable 35mm equivalent of 36mm to 127.5mm, good as a "walking around and hiking" lens, especially given its high quality and relatively modest size and price. BTW, you may find this Nikkor comparison and rating list interesting -- www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html SignatureDavid Ruether d_ruether@hotmail.com www.donferrario.com/ruether > Me again. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > needs to be. I still plan to get a full frame in the future so I don't > want any DX lenses. Why not just buy the D3 now, and be done with the whole "in the future" statement? More money than perhaps you might wish to spend!?! I really don't see Nikon offering up a full frame camera under $2K anytime soon, but I've been wrong before. IIRC, Canon offers a few choices for FF as well, but if you want to play with FF, then you've got to pay. > I figure I won't be able to afford any of the lenses I really want until > the next year (will need to save a bit), but I obviously want something > to use while walking around and hiking. I want a full-frame lens that I > won't feel the need to replace if.when I get a full frame DSLR in a few > years. I really want a wide zoom and a tele-zoom so I figure I need > something in the middle range. Get a DX lens... 18-200mm VR is a decent lens regardless of what somebody else *might* say, that doesn't own one. You can always sell it later *if* and/or *when* the dream FF becomes available. FWIW, a D300 is probably more camera than most people will ever need. > Any recommendations for a less expensive prime or zoom in the standard > range? Most decent Nikon lenses in the range you are looking at are not less expensive ($1000 - $2000 range)... You want less expensive, buy a Sigma. - JT has a D300, and the 18-200mm VR lens. SignatureSee Header for Improving Usenet's Signal-To-Noise Ratio "The pendulum of the mind oscillates between sense and nonsense, not between right and wrong." - Carl Jung > Why not just buy the D3 now, and be done with the whole "in the future" > statement? More money than perhaps you might wish to spend!?! I really > don't see Nikon offering up a full frame camera under $2K anytime soon, > but I've been wrong before. IIRC, Canon offers a few choices for FF as > well, but if you want to play with FF, then you've got to pay. Agreed, I would buy a D3 but it really comes down to time. I can save enough in a couple years but right now I can only manage 2-3K. at the high end of the range I would need to wait until January to have camera in hand. If I went with the D3 I wouldn't be able to swing any lenses for it for a while later. I am not the type to put money onto a credit card unless I could pay it off immediately. As it is I am still saving a waiting for the fall in case Canon finally unveils a 5D II. If so, depending upon features, I would reconsider it.But if they take too long, I will go with the D300 and try to buy one good lens a year until I have more wherewithal or there is a relatively inexpensive FF Nikon. Note, while older than the average college student, I have returned to school to pursue an engineering degree. This is why I save so slowly. If I were working full-time I would have a better budget. :) > Note, while older than the average college student, I have returned to > school to pursue an engineering degree. This is why I save so slowly. If > I were working full-time I would have a better budget. :) I did that -- went back for another degree eight years after graduating. I had even more fun the second time around. I should've just kept going back and going back and... :) SignatureBlinky Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project --> http://improve-usenet.org Found 5/08: a free GG-blocking news *feed* --> http://usenet4all.se >> Note, while older than the average college student, I have returned to >> school to pursue an engineering degree. This is why I save so slowly. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I had even more fun the second time around. I should've just kept going > back and going back and... :) Same here, you just don't realize how good you have it until you work in the corporate world for a few years. I am having more fun the second time around as well. > Why not just buy the D3 now, and be done with the whole "in the > future" statement? More money than perhaps you might wish to spend!?! > I really don't see Nikon offering up a full frame camera under $2K > anytime soon, but I've been wrong before. IIRC, Canon offers a few > choices for FF as well, but if you want to play with FF, then you've > got to pay. Because it is totally foolish to buy a D3 and put crappy lenses on it. Glass first and he'll be much happier. He'll do amazing things with a lesser body and better glass. > Get a DX lens... 18-200mm VR is a decent lens regardless of what > somebody else *might* say, that doesn't own one. You can always sell > it later *if* and/or *when* the dream FF becomes available. FWIW, a > D300 is probably more camera than most people will ever need. I agree if bought for $475 or less. While I agree the 18-200VR can be a very useful lens, it is a lens that was over hyped and overpriced. Just don't have unrealistic goals for it and you'll be OK. >> Any recommendations for a less expensive prime or zoom in the >> standard range? > > Most decent Nikon lenses in the range you are looking at are not less > expensive ($1000 - $2000 range)... You want less expensive, buy a > Sigma. OUCH! Nobody uses Sigma. Rita > > Why not just buy the D3 now, and be done with the whole "in the > > future" statement? More money than perhaps you might wish to spend!?! [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Glass first and he'll be much happier. He'll do amazing things with a > lesser body and better glass. IIRC, that fact has already been pointed out to the OP. As an example, I've recently bought the D300 w/ 18-200mm VR for about $2250 USD which was $2750 less expensive than a D3 alone. Already have a 70-200mm 2.8VR, so my next lens will be a 85mm f1.4 probably by the mid June. Glass now, better body down the road... > > Get a DX lens... 18-200mm VR is a decent lens regardless of what > > somebody else *might* say, that doesn't own one. You can always sell [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > very useful lens, it is a lens that was over hyped and overpriced. Just > don't have unrealistic goals for it and you'll be OK. *I* don't have unrealistic goals... It is what it is, a general purpose walking around lens (replaces an 18-70mm from my D70). As a shooter in low-light conditions, I use f/2.8 or less glass. > >> Any recommendations for a less expensive prime or zoom in the > >> standard range? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > OUCH! Nobody uses Sigma. Sigma does make a few very decent lenses (30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM), at a third the Nikon price. Some users are even recognized as "World Class Photographers," as always YMMV. -JT actually likes his Sigma 10-20mm ultra-wide. SignatureSee Header for Improving Usenet's Signal-To-Noise Ratio "The pendulum of the mind oscillates between sense and nonsense, not between right and wrong." - Carl Jung >> Why not just buy the D3 now, and be done with the whole "in the >> future" statement? > Because it is totally foolish to buy a D3 and put crappy lenses on it. > Glass first and he'll be much happier. He'll do amazing things with a > lesser body and better glass. Much as it pains me, Rita's completely right for once. (As the saying goes, even a blind man ...) Invest in good glass --- you'll probably upgrade the body in a couple of years anyway, but top notch glass stays so, unless damaged. OK, new versions with (better) IS may appear some year. However, do choose a body that works well with you and gives you joy to use, lest you not use your gear at all. >> Most decent Nikon lenses in the range you are looking at are not less >> expensive ($1000 - $2000 range)... You want less expensive, buy a >> Sigma. > OUCH! Nobody uses Sigma. Whew, there must be a lot of nobodies out there. Some Sigma lenses seem to compete on price, sacrificing quality and/or QA. These should probably be avoided. Others fill niches unfilled by Canon, Nikon et al. --- including the 300-800mm. Yet others are compete by reducing the feature set (a touch slower, no stabilizer) and being vastly cheaper. -Wolfgang > I am leaning heavily toward the D300 for my first DSLR. That is a good choice. > I went to a camera store and did a more complete side-by-side > comparison of the D300 and 5D. I liked the 5D more than I remembered, > but the side of the screen on the D300, sensor cleaning, and weather > resistance pointed me back to the Nikon. If you want Nikon go with the D300 and/or D3. The 5D is obsolete and you would be better off waiting for the 5D replacement if you want to go with Canon. > I still plan to buy at the end of the summer/beginning of fall, > assuming no full frame announcements, But am trying to figure what my > final budget needs to be. I still plan to get a full frame in the > future so I don't want any DX lenses. Here's where you can do really well. Keep an eye open on eBay for used 17-35/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 lenses. If you set bookmarks to search for newly listed improperly price auctions you should be able to snag them for $600-$800 for mint condition copies with boxes. Don't skimp on lenses and buy something you don't want because you can't afford it at the moment. The secret is to buy top notch Nikon lenses as they last a lifetime while bodies depreciate faster than a toilet flush. > I figure I won't be able to afford any of the lenses I really want > until the next year (will need to save a bit), but I obviously want > something to use while walking around and hiking. I want a full-frame > lens that I won't feel the need to replace if.when I get a full frame > DSLR in a few years. I really want a wide zoom and a tele-zoom so I > figure I need something in the middle range. See above: The three Holy Grail lenses are the 17-35/2.8, 28-70/2.8, and 70-200/2.8VR. Now keep in mind that the newly introduced 14-24/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 are superior lenses but the 14-24/2.8 doesn't accept filters up front and the 24-70/2.8 is optically perfect but it isn't as durable as the 28-70/2.8. > Any recommendations for a less expensive prime or zoom in the standard > range? See above and buy used lenses. Remember good glass lasts a lifetime and bodies are thrown away every 18-months. I have a D3 and love it, but I realize it will be up for sale after I get my 18-months out of it. Rita >> I am leaning heavily toward the D300 for my first DSLR. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > would be better off waiting for the 5D replacement if you want to go with > Canon. Or look at the 40d - 90% of a D300 at 60% of the price. (I have a D300 - but if I'd had Canon lenses, I would have probably bought a 40d, a 5d, or even both) >> I still plan to buy at the end of the summer/beginning of fall, >> assuming no full frame announcements, But am trying to figure what my [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > bodies > depreciate faster than a toilet flush. The 17-35 and 28 (not 24?) - 70 aren't very interesting on Dx. The former is an obsolete design with plastic "hybrid" aspherical element(s), the latter is good, heavy, and suited to jobs like professional wedding photography - probably not a great lens to hump around in a backpack when much lighter, less expensive DX lenses will do the job. Are either up to the needs of high resolution Fx bodies? I guess we'll find out soon. >> I figure I won't be able to afford any of the lenses I really want >> until the next year (will need to save a bit), but I obviously want [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > front and the 24-70/2.8 is optically perfect but it isn't as durable as the > 28-70/2.8. The 70-200 VR isn't a good landscape lens on Fx because it doesn't cover the Fx frame sharply to the edges (it is pretty bad at any aperture). It's about to be replaced by something better. It is a great lens on Dx - so it might keep value quite well, but that depends how Nikon price the replacement, and how fast they can make them. >> Any recommendations for a less expensive prime or zoom in the standard >> range? > > See above and buy used lenses. Remember good glass lasts a lifetime and > bodies are thrown away every 18-months. I have a D3 and love it, but I > realize it will be up for sale after I get my 18-months out of it. I don't believe that old paradigm will endure. The new fast zoom Fx AF-s lenses will require maintenance, they are heavy, and they are very expensive. Camera bodies - sure treat them as disposable items, but also don't expect any of the new zooms to be "investments" the way old metal manual focus Nikkors, and a few simple screw-driven AF designs have been. > The 70-200 VR isn't a good landscape lens on Fx because it doesn't > cover the Fx frame sharply to the edges (it is pretty bad at any > aperture). It's about to be replaced by something better. It is a > great lens on Dx - so it might keep value quite well, but that > depends how Nikon price the replacement, and how fast they can make > them. The 70-200 was never meant to be a "landscape" lens. Nobody shoots landscapes at 200mm anyway, so this point is moot. Plus, the parroted problems you speak of are only noticeable at 195mm and above at f/2.8. If the parroted problem really bothers you then shoot at 195mm and wider. Rita >> The 70-200 VR isn't a good landscape lens on Fx because it doesn't >> cover the Fx frame sharply to the edges (it is pretty bad at any [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > problems you speak of are only noticeable at 195mm and above at f/2.8. > If the parroted problem really bothers you then shoot at 195mm and wider. Rubbish. Perhaps the 70-200 was never meant to be a *full-frame* lens. It's very soft at the edges at 135mm on Fx, and not very good even at 70mm. 200mm *is* used for landscape photos, and for other situations where edge sharpness is important. You don't know what you're talking about. >> The 70-200 was never meant to be a "landscape" lens. Nobody shoots >> landscapes at 200mm anyway, so this point is moot. Plus, the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > where edge sharpness is important. > You don't know what you're talking about. <YAWN> Another idiot that never touched the lens and is parroting crap he reads on the internet like he remotely has a clue. Come back when you actually shot with the lens and maybe we can hold an adult discussion. Rita SignatureStamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet Stimulus Project page. http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com >>> The 70-200 was never meant to be a "landscape" lens. Nobody shoots >>> landscapes at 200mm anyway, so this point is moot. Plus, the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > the internet like he remotely has a clue. Come back when you actually shot > with the lens and maybe we can hold an adult discussion. The "crap" is written by people with credibility - something that you clearly lack. You should stamp yourself out. >>>> The 70-200 was never meant to be a "landscape" lens. Nobody shoots >>>> landscapes at 200mm anyway, so this point is moot. Plus, the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > clearly lack. > You should stamp yourself out. Yep! The folks you speak of with "credibility" are out there shooting empty blue skies and brick walls digging for faults that aren't there or are meaningless to the majority of photographers.. The other people out there using it for everyday real world shooting aren't doing the whining, in fact they are praising it. Oh wait, your credibility is up there in the ionosphere since you don't have the 70-200VR and an FX body to shoot with and try your theory. You want another Saltine, Poly? LOL! Another idiot chokes on his crackers. BTW>I'll be doing some landscape shootin with my 500/4 and 2x TC on my D3 (FX) sensor, Baby! I'll let you know if the corners are a little soft. Rita SignatureStamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet Stimulus Project page. http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com >>>>> The 70-200 was never meant to be a "landscape" lens. Nobody shoots >>>>> landscapes at 200mm anyway, so this point is moot. Plus, the [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > empty > blue skies and brick walls digging for faults that aren't there The faults *are* there. > or are > meaningless to the majority of photographers.. Speak for yourself. Don't be so arrogant that you claim to speak for "the majority" - because you don't. <snip> >> Yep! The folks you speak of with "credibility" are out there >> shooting empty >> blue skies and brick walls digging for faults that aren't there > The faults *are* there. LOL! Go ahead and take a few snaps with your 70-200VR and D3 and show us all these "faults" you speak of. Be a good parrot and I'll give you another cracker. >> or are >> meaningless to the majority of photographers.. > > Speak for yourself. Don't be so arrogant that you claim to speak for > "the majority" - because you don't. Who cares about the majority when I got a parroting idiot to stimulate? Can you say "Obama" little Poly? Rita SignatureStamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet Stimulus Project page. http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com >>> Yep! The folks you speak of with "credibility" are out there >>> shooting empty [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > LOL! Go ahead and take a few snaps with your 70-200VR and D3 and show us > all these "faults" you speak of. Be a good parrot and I'll give you another > cracker. The 70-200 isn't very good on Fx. Get over it! There are plenty of samples / examples on the net - go find one yourself instead of your screaming nyah-nyah with your fingers stuck in your ears like a small child. >>> or are >>> meaningless to the majority of photographers.. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Can you say "Obama" little Poly? You obviously care about the majority - you moron - you are claiming to be able to speak on their behalf! >> LOL! Go ahead and take a few snaps with your 70-200VR and D3 and >> show us all these "faults" you speak of. Be a good parrot and I'll [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > yourself instead of your screaming nyah-nyah with your fingers stuck > in your ears like a small child. I was wondering when you were going to get your dumb a.s back from limbo. Anyway, Poly, how's that hands on experience with the D3 and 70-200VR going? >> Can you say "Obama" little Poly? >> > You obviously care about the majority - you moron - you are claiming > to be able to speak on their behalf! Just say "Obama" and I'll give you a Ritz cracker with a little extra kosher rock salt on it. Rita SignatureStamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet Stimulus Project page. http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com >>> LOL! Go ahead and take a few snaps with your 70-200VR and D3 and >>> show us all these "faults" you speak of. Be a good parrot and I'll [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Anyway, Poly, how's that hands on experience with the D3 and 70-200VR > going? Why should I. I can tell you that a 1985 Yugo is a piece of sh.t without having hands-on experience. I can tell a lot about you too. >>> Can you say "Obama" little Poly? >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > kosher > rock salt on it. Lol - Americans. >> The 70-200 VR isn't a good landscape lens on Fx because it doesn't >> cover the Fx frame sharply to the edges (it is pretty bad at any >> aperture). It's about to be replaced by something better. It is a >> great lens on Dx - so it might keep value quite well, but that >> depends how Nikon price the replacement, and how fast they can make >> them. > The 70-200 was never meant to be a "landscape" lens. And Rita was never meant to post in this place. > Nobody shoots landscapes at 200mm anyway, ... a couple billion nobodys more or less won't change Rita's arguments, for they are based on impeccable, abstract logic, not on facts. > so this point is moot. Translation: "frederick, you have a point there". > Plus, the parroted > problems you speak of are only noticeable at 195mm and above at f/2.8. ... because the lens never was meant to be a FX lens, Rita only looks at DX usage. > If > the parroted problem really bothers you then shoot at 195mm and wider. No, ridiculous Rita really bothers us. -Wolfgang >> I am leaning heavily toward the D300 for my first DSLR. > That is a good choice. As is any DSLR from this decade. (Rita's a very outspoke, oppinioned "Nikon only" person, so take zir with a mountain of rock salt when it comes to Canon vs. Nikon.) > The 5D is obsolete A successor is expected soon(ish) by many people, true --- but the 5D is exactly as good as it was when it was newly presented to the world. > and you would be better off waiting for the 5D replacement if you want > to go with Canon. Or buy the 5D after the price dropped once the "6D" is out, unless you really need something the 6D offers, but the 5D does not. But base your choice of Nikon or Canon or something else on: - does the glass you need and the glass you want later exist? - does the camera fit your hands? (Don't forget to try a battery grip!) - do the controls, if not "intuitive'[1], work sensible for you? - does the body have all the features you *need* and enough of the features you *want*? - is it fun to use the camera? - do you have any lenses worth keeping for some system? > Here's where you can do really well. Keep an eye open on eBay for used > 17-35/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 lenses. If you set bookmarks to search for newly > listed improperly price auctions you should be able to snag them for > $600-$800 for mint condition copies with boxes. Beware that you can get hurt with ebay. Don't do ebay to save a mere 10 or 20% --- the risk to get hurt is too high. (This may not apply to respectable, well known brick-and-mortar shops' ebay offers.) Think about whom you can talk to if you need a repair or the lens dies. > The > secret is to buy top notch Nikon lenses as they last a lifetime while bodies > depreciate faster than a toilet flush. See above: Rita firmly believes only Nikon can make lenses, and that swapping bodies after 18 months (even if you swap with your buddy for the exactly same model) is the best way to handle depreciation. Personally, I'd use the body up (I earn my bucks well outside photography). If it dies (and repair is not viable), replace it. If a new camera comes up with features which you really need (maybe every 3-6 generations), use the old one as a backup. After all, you know it's quirks by then and can get the best out of it. Rita probably is an upgrade junkie. > See above: The three Holy Grail lenses are the 17-35/2.8, 28-70/2.8, and > 70-200/2.8VR. The latter really is good on full frame --- oops, sorry, that was the IS for Canon, the VR is optimized for DX, and it shows. > See above and buy used lenses. Remember good glass lasts a lifetime and > bodies are thrown away every 18-months. Not by me. I'll rather buy another lens. > I have a D3 and love it, but I > realize it will be up for sale after I get my 18-months out of it. See? -Wolfgang [1] The only intuitive interface is the human breast --- and even that isn't: a third of the babies must *learn* it. > Rita probably is an upgrade junkie. No, just learned long ago how to maximize my returns. Rita SignatureStamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet Stimulus Project page. http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com >> Rita probably is an upgrade junkie. > No, just learned long ago how to maximize my returns. Sorry, Rita, I was wrong, you are not "probably" an upgrade junkie, you are an upgrade junkie in DeNial. (Which just isn't a river in Egypt any more.) -Wolfgang your could always wait for the nikon D400 ? Full frame etc maybe 2 grand Meanwhile I'll enjoy my D300 I have a stack of FF lens and soon to buy the a Dx lens If a FF mid price Nikon comes Out I will buy that till then enjoy. > Me again. > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Steve Thanks for all the comments. For now, but subject at change at any time, I am going to plan on getting a D300 with a 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX Nikkor Lens. I don't care that it doesn't have quite the range of an 18-200, this range would suit me. I am still using my TLR while hiking so if I am happy waiting. I may just wait until year's end and get a really nice lens as I am still hesitant spending money on a DX lens, but it is still some $500 less than The lenses I would really like to have. Now lets see if Canon releases a 6D or Sony a world beater that would screw up my planing and budget :) > For now, but subject at change at any time, I am going to plan on getting > a D300 with a 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX Nikkor Lens. I don't care > that it doesn't have quite the range of an 18-200, this range would suit > me. You're probably not giving up as much on the long end as it appears. Thom Hogan has an interesting web page where he evaluates most of Nikon's lenses and defines several different 'kits' for different needs. Here's what he has to say about one of them (and it probably won't be long before I end up with this pair too) : > 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G VR (not yet reviewed on this site) > 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > of the 16-85mm is very useful in travel circles. The 16-85mm is a better > lens optically, too. Indeed, I'd take it almost any day over the 18-200mm. http://bythom.com/rationallenses.htm You will be pleased with the D300 I too am aftera Zoom and considering the new 16-85 along with the sigma 10-20 Good luck Im sure you will be happy with the D300 . I wasa a bit aprehensive when I bought the D300 but Im glad I have bought it the high iso preformance and the ease of use of the camera is amazing . battety life is impressive too no need to buy a spare battery. B > Thanks for all the comments. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Now lets see if Canon releases a 6D or Sony a world beater that would > screw up my planing and budget :) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.