The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)

[skyline889]

Originally Posted by M0T0XGUY

So - assuming budget isn't an issue - I should go for the Nikon? Of course, I just now realized that the lens is of DX variety; which poses a potential problem as I plan to upgrade to a full frame DSLR sometime in the future. Still, I could settle for a cropped field of view (assuming future D3 like cameras have this feature) - but are there any full frame alternatives with a similar focal lenght?

P.S. I like the feel and image quality of the 24-70, but it's a little too expensive at its current price - and I don't think 28-70 is a particularly useful range on the D200.

I don't think we will be seeing full frame sensors from Nikon in pro-sumer bodies under two grand for a while but I suppose only time will tell. If you have the money, I guess go with the Nikkor, but I don't think the 17-55mm is a particularly good buy as I know many who get results nearly as good with the Tamron 17-50. The 17-55 is built substantially better than the 17-50 however, you pay for that in bulk. It's not really a heavy lens but it is pretty big. One thing to keep in mind though, the Tamron does suffer from some pretty bad CA though, at least the one I tested did; so you'd have to use PS to edit that out. If it were me though, I'd skip the mid-range all together and go for a wide-angle.

[Towert7]

Originally Posted by bigshot

I agree with you that "more times than not" the Nikkor is the best choice. And the Nikkor 12-24 is a very good lens. If the Tokina wasn't a better lens in this case, I'd be buying the Nikkor and I'd be satisfied with it. But at the same settings (f stop and fielding) the Tokina is sharper. On top of that it's a full stop faster. It's a better quality lens than Nikkor's equivalent wide zoom, regardless of cost. Why pay more for a brand name lens that isn't as good? It pays to consider third party lenses.

See ya
Steve

Aside from your use of the word equivalent, I agree with this.
Always consider all the options, for sure!

[Towert7]

Darn Mbriant, why did you have to go and post that picture!
I've been wanting a lens that can do 1:1 macro.

800$ for that Sigma... ouch. Boy I wish I had more money.
I was looking at either the Nikon 60mm or Tokina 100mm. Both are 400$.

But as much as I want a macro lens, I would like a slightly better telephoto lens. my 70-300G just isn't cutting it.

Expensive hobbies are rough when you're dirt poor.

[skyline889]

I don't know what I was on last night but I have a D200/12-24 Nikkor/18-70 Nikkor on my way to me! The glass will probably be gone after my trip though, too rich for my blood.

[poo]

Originally Posted by skyline889

I don't think we will be seeing full frame sensors from Nikon in pro-sumer bodies under two grand for a while but I suppose only time will tell...

Less than 1 month away. It will be a little over 2G, but I doubt there will be many complaints once it is announced.

[lan]

I got me a cheap Nikon extension tube. I'm going to have a go at some flower macro shots. I don't feel like paying for a full time macro lens just yet. It looks like my 50 1.8 has a new function.

[Towert7]

Originally Posted by poo

Less than 1 month away. It will be a little over 2G, but I doubt there will be many complaints once it is announced.

Thanks for the info. If this turns out to be true, I wonder how long until we see the 5D upgrade.

[skyline889]

Originally Posted by poo

Less than 1 month away. It will be a little over 2G, but I doubt there will be many complaints once it is announced.

Where did you find this info? The Nikon D400 is fiction at best and there are no solid facts or remote release dates. Even if Nikon did come out with a pro-sumer/pro FF body to compete with the 5D, I can't imagine they'd release it at just over $2k this close after the D3 release. From a marketing perspective, I'd think they'd want to milk more out of their baby before they go mainstream.

[poo]

Originally Posted by skyline889

Where did you find this info? The Nikon D400 is fiction at best and there are no solid facts or remote release dates. Even if Nikon did come out with a pro-sumer/pro FF body to compete with the 5D, I can't imagine they'd release it at just over $2k this close after the D3 release. From a marketing perspective, I'd think they'd want to milk more out of their baby before they go mainstream.

D400 won't happen this year, but the Nikon version of the 5D will. Checked my info and it will in fact be in two months (the announcement) - sorry for the misleading 1 month I mentioned before.

D3 is not all about full frame - the new model will strengthen their range and provide an aspirational model to prosumers for whom the D3 is out of reach.

You can take this as the ignorant ramblings of another nobody with an internet connection if you choose, just thought I'd pass on what I know. Last I'll be saying on the matter.

[perplex]

Originally Posted by poo

D400 won't happen this year, but the Nikon version of the 5D will. Checked my info and it will in fact be in two months (the announcement) - sorry for the misleading 1 month I mentioned before.

D3 is not all about full frame - the new model will strengthen their range and provide an aspirational model to prosumers for whom the D3 is out of reach.

You can take this as the ignorant ramblings of another nobody with an internet connection if you choose, just thought I'd pass on what I know. Last I'll be saying on the matter.

Nooo... please tell us more . With the new D3 firmware update there have been intense rumours regarding a new body announcement near the D3 market segment, possibly higher.

Most people had the impression that there will definately not be another full-frame body this year due to lack of manufacturing capacity.

Personally what I want is a D90 using a tweaked D300 sensor but at 10MP so we can get D3 ISO performance . But the D90 will definately be around 12MP considering the 450D, so we can atleast hope for D300 ISO performance.