[haibane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ilikemonkeys /img/forum/go_quote.gif Geez.....now all the Canon guys come out of the woodwork.....thanks. I"ll take my Leica M5 with a Sumicron 35/2 over any Nikor though. (just had to throw that in)

Can I borrow 10g please? Lol those lenses cost too much and btw I looked at the M5 intently, but MF is the killer for me. To Ilikemonkeys, I would start with a zoom before I would get a prime as a zoom is easier to shoot with and primes have much better optics and IMO are more of a professional lens than zooms.

 

[JaZZ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HardHeadCase /img/forum/go_quote.gif Oh no....Tamron makes better lenses than Nikor,,,,,,bunch of Donkeys.

Impossible or what? Whom are you addressing as Donkeys? The lens testers in the photographic magazines?

I still prefer to trust data than some unfounded beliefs.
.

 

[haibane]

There are a fair amount of photography magazines that post a load of crap. I could do a test for you, but I don't own the lenses.

 

[wakeride74]

Ok - i don't want to spend the extra to move up to the D80 unless I can get a better deal on the type of lens I'm looking for. I really like the D40 and it has been very easy to use for someone like me who really just wants to point an shoot.

So given what I am looking for in the $350-$400 range is the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 HSM lens the way to go???

 

[HardHeadCase]

Go for it. Its got to be better than the one I recommended that Nikon doesnt make for your camera....LOL. A good Bounce flash like one of the speedlights would be great for indoor stuff as well.

 

[dj_mocok]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozz /img/forum/go_quote.gif i was sorta under impression that nikor was some of the finest lens available not that others were inferior.

Nikon is finest? Wait til you see stuff like Kinoptik or Leica Noctilux. I tend not to look at them because it hurts me how beautiful those lenses can produce and how much I can't afford them.

Jazz, don't bother convincing brand snobs, waste of time really, In the mean time let people like us who know where the real value is enjoy this so called 'inferior third party lenses'. Most of the time those people don't know what they're talking about anyway.

By the way, here is the link with sample pictures from the lens I lust. I can't read chinese, so I don't know what they're talking about.

 

[HardHeadCase]

So DJ, tell us how much for the Kinoptik lens used to take the pictures in the link you provided.

 

[Rico-San]

For a good zoom, see if you can find the 80-200mm f/2.8 with VR (vibration reduction). A friend of mine just got that lens for her D80, and apparently the name for it in Chinese translates to "little bamboo shooter" (she's Chinese). I thought that was kinda cute. Also, the "nifty fifty" as some call it (or "thrifty fifty"), the 50mm f/1.8, makes for a good walk-around lens. 80-200mm is the sweet spot for zooms, but the lower aperture can cost a pretty penny. Supposedly, the VR (or IS in my case) can bring the aperture down three effective stops, but in practice I usually can get two stops. Again, it varies with your lighting conditions. If you have the budget, the 80-200mm f/2.8 goes for around $500 and the 50mm goes for around $70.

(I shoot Canon personally, and Nikon at work.)

 

[Eagle_Driver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rico-San /img/forum/go_quote.gif For a good zoom, see if you can find the 80-200mm f/2.8 with VR (vibration reduction). A friend of mine just got that lens for her D80, and apparently the name for it in Chinese translates to "little bamboo shooter" (she's Chinese). I thought that was kinda cute. Also, the "nifty fifty" as some call it (or "thrifty fifty"), the 50mm f/1.8, makes for a good walk-around lens. 80-200mm is the sweet spot for zooms, but the lower aperture can cost a pretty penny. Supposedly, the VR (or IS in my case) can bring the aperture down three effective stops, but in practice I usually can get two stops. Again, it varies with your lighting conditions. If you have the budget, the 80-200mm f/2.8 goes for around $500 and the 50mm goes for around $70. (I shoot Canon personally, and Nikon at work.)

Actually, there is no 80-200mm f/2.8 Nikkor zoom lens with the VR feature. There is, however, a 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S Zoom-Nikkor with the VR feature -- but that lens costs at least $1,500. The sub-$1,000 80-200mm has neither VR nor the AF-S feature, and so requires manual focusing when used with the D40(x). This is because the D40(x) does not have an autofocus motor in the body, and the 80-200 does not have an autofocus motor in the lens.

 

[haibane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eagle_Driver /img/forum/go_quote.gif Actually, there is no 80-200mm f/2.8 Nikkor zoom lens with the VR feature. There is, however, a 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S Zoom-Nikkor with the VR feature -- but that lens costs at least $1,500. The sub-$1,000 80-200mm has neither VR nor the AF-S feature, and so requires manual focusing when used with the D40(x). This is because the D40(x) does not have an autofocus motor in the body, and the 80-200 does not have an autofocus motor in the lens.

and this is a huge reason why i would trade that camera in since there aren't a ton of budget AFS lenses.

 

[jmmtn4aj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haibane /img/forum/go_quote.gif and this is a huge reason why i would trade that camera in since there aren't a ton of budget AFS lenses.

I wouldn't actually consider the 80-200 to be a budget lens TBH. It's size and price are indicative of a pro model. In fact, the budget zooms (18-55 (vr), 55-200 (vr), 70-300 (vr) and 18-70) all have AF motors inside. If you want budget 2.8 constant zooms, brands like Sigma, Tokina and Tamron have proper budget models. The 80-200 does not go for 500 by the way. The lowest used price I've seen is around 600-700

 

[haibane]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmmtn4aj /img/forum/go_quote.gif I wouldn't actually consider the 80-200 to be a budget lens TBH. It's size and price are indicative of a pro model. In fact, the budget zooms (18-55 (vr), 55-200 (vr), 70-300 (vr) and 18-70) all have AF motors inside. If you want budget 2.8 constant zooms, brands like Sigma, Tokina and Tamron have proper budget models. The 80-200 does not go for 500 by the way. The lowest used price I've seen is around 600-700

While its somewhat budget, its out of his...

 

[artizen65]

Well unfortunitaly I must agree with a previous poster. I think a good tripod and a flash are the way to go in your case. With indoor shots incandesant light may or may not be the best choice.

With a swivel head both L/R and up you have many lighting options for your subject by bouncing the light off the ceiling or wall.

Not to get into the lens debate but in the 70's and 80's Nikon made two classes of lenses Nikon and Nkkor. Nikkor was considered to be some of the best glass in the industry. Tamron in the 80's made execelent glass also. Tokina was started by Nikkor optics engineers.

IMHO invest in a good flash for now and when you are ready upgrade the body to a D80 or even farther up the food chain. I think you will find the higher pixel resolution will make a big difference even with your current lens.

 

[haibane]

You can buy a ton of flash units. There are cheap options too. Off camera is the best way for flash. Check out Strobist

 

[Eagle_Driver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmmtn4aj /img/forum/go_quote.gif I wouldn't actually consider the 80-200 to be a budget lens TBH. It's size and price are indicative of a pro model. In fact, the budget zooms (18-55 (vr), 55-200 (vr), 70-300 (vr) and 18-70) all have AF motors inside. If you want budget 2.8 constant zooms, brands like Sigma, Tokina and Tamron have proper budget models. The 80-200 does not go for 500 by the way. The lowest used price I've seen is around 600-700

Addendum:

I wouldn't actually consider the AF-S 70-300 VR to be a "budget" model: It retails for $600 -- and even discounted, you won't find that lens for much less than $500 new. The other 70-300, which is inexpensive, has neither VR nor an autofocus motor, and thus is limited to manual focus only when used on the D40(x).