The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)

[M0T0XGUY]

Originally Posted by Towert7

Glad to see you are enjoying your new 50/1.8 AI. I've never used the older AI or AI-S lenses, though I have had experience with the way they feel from other companies.

You're right, the metal vs. plastic lenses have their pluses and their minuses. Bring an old lens out on a typical winter day, and you'll soon realize one plus for the new lenses (no fluids to freeze up). The new ones are lighter, the old ones are stronger in some respects.

I've been very impressed by my 35mm F/2 AF-D. Very light, focus is smooth as butter, snaps onto the camera with ease, etc etc. The 50mm F/1.8 AF-D feels cheap when I snap it onto the camera, but to be honest with you that is the only lens that I didn't like the build quality of out of all of my Nikkors (excluding the kit 18-55).

The 85mm F/1.8 AF-D has the same build quality of the 35mm AF-D, and that works like a dream too. In fact, it's some of the older lenses that I didn't like the feel of. My old 35-70mm push pull is a pain to work with, and the M-A ring on the 60mm F/2.8 is a pain.



Glad to see you are enjoying it. I've never worked with the older ones, so I don't know what you can expect from it, but the newer Nikkor primes are sharp and I wouldn't expect the AI's and AI to be far behind, if at all.
My 60mm F/2.8 makes me think I have a 5D full frame after seeing how sharp it is. For 400$, it's a steal if you want to work in 60mm!

Not that this matters much, but I actually think the 85's build quality is slightly superior to the 35's. Something about the matte finish on the 85 is a little bit more appealing, and the IF design (or pseudo-IF at least) makes the lens feel like a solid chunk regardless of the focusing distance. With that said, I'll agree that I've found few Nikon lenses (and only 1 prime - the 50 f/1.8) which feel sub par in terms of build quality. Even my consumer grade 18-135, for example, felt solid with its decent plastic construction, smooth controls and lack of zoom creep or wobbling, although I'll agree that the M/A ring on any old AF-D lens is no fun to use.

As an aside: has anyone read reviews for the new AF-S 60mm Macro? I had a chance to try out the 105 VR, and its absolutely spectacular in every respect; but I'd love to save a few bucks and go with the 60mm if the performance is near equal.

[stuartr]

You're right, the metal vs. plastic lenses have their pluses and their minuses. Bring an old lens out on a typical winter day, and you'll soon realize one plus for the new lenses (no fluids to freeze up). The new ones are lighter, the old ones are stronger in some respects.

For what it's worth, I have never had this problem. I shoot primarily with metal lenses (Leica, Hasselblad and Rollei), and none of them have ever frozen up on me. They get a bit stiffer, but still work beautifully. And I have lived in cold places...Iceland, Russia, Hokkaido, Vermont...

Metal lens:

Metal lens:

Metal lens:


I guess my point is that I don't think that is a real world issue. Also, plastic lenses still have lubricants just like metal ones. HOWEVER, metal transmits the cold a lot better than plastic so when it gets cold you need to wear gloves when using metal cameras or you will freeze the heck out of your fingers.

[Towert7]

Originally Posted by stuartr

For what it's worth, I have never had this problem. I shoot primarily with metal lenses (Leica, Hasselblad and Rollei), and none of them have ever frozen up on me. They get a bit stiffer, but still work beautifully. And I have lived in cold places...Iceland, Russia, Hokkaido, Vermont...


I guess my point is that I don't think that is a real world issue. Also, plastic lenses still have lubricants just like metal ones. HOWEVER, metal transmits the cold a lot better than plastic so when it gets cold you need to wear gloves when using metal cameras or you will freeze the heck out of your fingers.

I see. I guess that is a testament to those lenses you have used. I've heard some horror stories of older lenses becoming too stiff to use on cold days. From what I gather, people use to put their lenses in the freezer to see how they would work.

I also thought some of the new Nikon plastic lenses were free of lubricants dealing with focusing. I don't know where I got that impression from though.

[Towert7]

Originally Posted by M0T0XGUY

As an aside: has anyone read reviews for the new AF-S 60mm Macro? I had a chance to try out the 105 VR, and its absolutely spectacular in every respect; but I'd love to save a few bucks and go with the 60mm if the performance is near equal.

Just as a heads up though, despite how wonderful the nikon 60mm macro lenses are, you have to get very close to small subjects. I can certainly see where a 105mm or a 180mm would come in handy. That being said, the older AF-D is a great lens, and I wouldn't expect the new AF-S to be anything less.

[Towert7]

Originally Posted by milkpowder

I considered AISs & AIs because of Bjørn Rørslett's reviews. It seems like he has a liking and at times, a preference for the older versions. Of course, the lack of support matrix metering, auto-focus, various shooting modes, etc may prove to be too basic or lmiting for some... That said, don't people tend to manually focus macros anyway?

A lot of the macro work I do is in manual focus mode.
For me, with my little D50, the viewfinder is small. This makes manual focusing a PITB. On something like a D80, D300, D3, manual focusing is much easier because you can see the subject better.

[M0T0XGUY]

Originally Posted by Towert7

Just as a heads up though, despite how wonderful the nikon 60mm macro lenses are, you have to get very close to small subjects. I can certainly see where a 105mm or a 180mm would come in handy. That being said, the older AF-D is a great lens, and I wouldn't expect the new AF-S to be anything less.

Well, my 35 f/2 can focus down to .25m and the AF-S 60 can focus down to .22m; so not the biggest difference. Still, I see your point - for some subjects its just more convenient to hold your distance (although the opposite is true in some cases).

[hembergler]

All right, I need some advice.

(First off, I'm sorry if this question has been asked thousands of times in this thread already, but at 1500 posts, there's a lot of information to sift through! And besides, I'm sure you guys are just dying to help out a newbie.)

So I finally snagged a summer job, and have enough money to buy a DSLR. Now, I've never been a hugely active photographer, but anytime I've needed to snap a photo I've always been a control freak about every changeable aspect, even on my P&S Sony DSC-W1. Furthermore, I'm going to Singapore later this summer, and I've decided that I want to archive my trip while simultaneously learn about photography.

I've almost committed entirely to the idea of a Nikon D40 + kit lens + something else? I talked with a few of my photo-savvy friends, and they all thought the D40 would serve me well. Considering the relative price, I'm rather forced to agree (while I have money, I don't have that much).

My options:
1) Buy D40+18-55mm for $450, and possibly add the 55-200mm VR later on for ~$200.
2) Buy the D40+18-55mm+55-200mm VR for ~$600 all upfront.

Options #2 saves me money in the long run, but only if I chose to add the 55-200mm in option #1.

I understand that whether or not I need/want/use a 55-200mm entirely depends on the type of photos I take, but my problem is that I simply don't know what I would like to take. I would like to be able to capture Singapore to the best of my abilities, and having never been on such a mission, I do not know what kind of photos I would need to take (if that makes any sense)! (Also, this Singapore thing is just an excuse to buy a DSLR)

So for you veterans of the photographic world, if you were given the same goal, what would you go with: spend the $600 for both lenses; or stick with one and wait it out, and if necessary, spend more in the long run? And this is also under my assumption that the 55-200mm VR would be my main secondary lens, although the 18-200mm range overall between the two seems more than adequate, and thus a relatively smart decision.

Finally, some key points: $600 is as much as my budget can possibly stretch, and I prefer buying new gear [I don't have time to hunt around craigslist/ebay, and especially for cameras I want something new]

And further-finally, I apologize for my longwinded convoluted post. To make it up to you for reading through this, here are some pretty pictures:

56 Awe Inspiring Creative Photographs
92 More Must See Creative Photographs

Thanks Nikon-Fi!
Paul

[Towert7]

Originally Posted by hembergler

Finally, some key points: $600 is as much as my budget can possibly stretch

If you MUST limit your budget to sub 600$, then the D40 is the only thing really. It'll work.
Something like this gives you the camera and 2 lenses:
Nikon | D40 SLR Digital Camera Kit with 18-55mm & | 9420

Personally, I think it would be a shame to not consider the D80....... but that's just me. There are some things that the D80 does much better than the D40/60. If I were to start photography and enter the DSLR world, the D80 would be where I would start if I was on a budget. Nice little camera.

Should be interesting to see what you end up getting. Keep me posted.

[Blueiz]

Hembergler....

First time DSLR user couldn't find a much better option than the D40 with the TWO lenses... you will want the extra range... See Ken's review at the following site... off the wall reviews, but the guy just tells it as he sees it....

KenRockwell.com

Another good review site: Digital Camera Reviews and News: Digital Photography Review: Forums, Glossary, FAQ

[Braver]

I was in the same boat, and went with just the kit so that I could figure out if I needed the longer reach. Well, what I found was that more would've been nice, but I never felt like I missed shots and probably wouldn't have changed lenses for those moments I felt I could use the 200mm. Especially when you're on the go, it makes much more sense to get a zoom that goes from 18 to as far as you need. 70, 135 or 200.
I say save the money for now, and figure out what you really need. For me that was fast glass (like a 50mm 1.4), not longer focal length.