[bigshot]

I have a D200, and it's a great camera. But if I was buying right now, I would buy a D90 and not a D200. It's a better sensor.

The lens kit I decided on are very similar to your choices there... The trick is to try to do everything in as few lenses as possible. When I go out to shoot, I never take more than two lenses with me. I want to be shooting pictures, not swapping lenses in and out.

I have the Nikon 18-200 VR for an all around lens, a cheap lightweight Nikon 18-55 f3.5-5.6 VR for bumming around, a Tokina 11-16 f2.8 ultra wide, Sigma 50mm f1.4 for low light, and a Tokina 100mm f2.8 macro for studio portraits and close up. The only other lens I think I'd like is the Sigma 30mm 1.4.

By the way, my Sigma 50mm f1.4 is sharper wide open than the Zeiss or the Nikon equivalents and it has much better contrast than either of them. You can't necessarily judge by brand names. It's all in the optical design. There are great third party lenses out there.

The main purpose of a fisheye is to stitch together Quicktime VRs. If you aren't doing that, a good ultrawide is a lot more useful and fun than a fish. You can still get wonky distortion if you point up or down, but you get good straight lines straight on. More versatile.

I'd also suggest starting with a D90 and the 18-200 VR. That will get you going. You might even find you don't need any more lenses.

One other tip... Don't underestimate the value of a point and shoot or pocket camera. A good small camera will get pictures you'll never get with a DSLR. The camera that takes the best pictures is the one that isn't at home in a camera bag in the closet.

There are some sample shots of a couple of my lenses on my personal blog Late Night Coffee Shops

See ya
Steve

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox /img/forum/go_quote.gif Quality: Zeiss ZF 50mm f/1.4

Although you might not believe it based on the low prices, the Nikkor 50mm F/1.8 AF-D has very good image quality!

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif The camera that takes the best pictures is the one that isn't at home in a camera bag in the closet.

It's funny that you keep saying that, but I don't think a lot of people have an issue with the weight of the camera and lens. I wonder...

 

[philodox]

That Nikon 18-200 VR really does seem like the perfect all-rounder/starter lense. I confess that I did gravitate to that 50mm based mainly on the Zeiss name, but also because of its focal length. Not sure if I've been reading biased opinions, but everything I've read so far seems to say that Sigma has some serious reliability issues with its lenses. I'll keep that Nikkor 50mm in mind as well. I thought the fisheye would be fun for some artsy shots from my balcony or the rooftop patio, but I guess I could do similar stuff with an ultrawide lense. I have a high interest in doing macro shots, and that manual Zeiss lense just looks pretty. Would I be able to do decent macro shots using the Nikon 18-200 VR in a pinch?

The D90 is nice, but I'm not sure I'd be able to find a used one as cheap as the D200. A better sensor is all well and good, but I'm not looking to chase megapixels. The D90 can do video, which is cool, but I'd imagine I would miss out on some of the 'pro' features of the D200?

 

[Arainach]

I would get a D90 over a D200. The D90/D300/D700/D3 are a generation above, and a HUGE step over every Nikon DSLR that came before them thanks to the addition of Active Dynamic Range and the new High ISO capabilities. They legitamitely, honest-to-goodness take better pictures inherently. I'll confess that dirt-cheap prices have made me at least think of replacing my D50 with a D200, but I'm waiting and saving for a D90 or D300 because I've shot with them, looked at the results, and they honestly are a leap ahead.

 

[milkpowder]

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm warming up to used D200 idea more and more. Going to have to save up some cash though. Was looking at newer lenses and came up with this short list so far: All-rounder: Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S VR Quality: Zeiss ZF 50mm f/1.4 Fun: Tokina 10-17mm DX f/3.5-4.5 Fisheye Zoom Dreaming: Zeiss 100mm f/2 Macro Planar Any comments or suggestions? Some old lenses would be great as well, but there are so many that it is kind of daunting.

I've done a little reading and it seems the Zeiss primes aren't as special as I thought they were. Wide-open performance will be very good, but stopped down, you'd be hard pushed to see any difference between a Nikon or Sigma 50/1.4. I'm also fighting over which prime to get at the moment and am waiting for more info re: the new AF-S 50/1.4.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach /img/forum/go_quote.gif I would get a D90 over a D200. The D90/D300/D700/D3 are a generation above, and a HUGE step over every Nikon DSLR that came before them thanks to the addition of Active Dynamic Range and the new High ISO capabilities. They legitamitely, honest-to-goodness take better pictures inherently. I'll confess that dirt-cheap prices have made me at least think of replacing my D50 with a D200, but I'm waiting and saving for a D90 or D300 because I've shot with them, looked at the results, and they honestly are a leap ahead.

The newer generation are also much easier to use. The menu/button system makes more sense. The large, high-res LCD screen is also much nicer than the previous generations'.

 

[BigSurSpoon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Although you might not believe it based on the low prices, the Nikkor 50mm F/1.8 AF-D has very good image quality!

I agree with that completely. I take a lot of my pictures with it.

 

[FrederikS|TPU]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Although you might not believe it based on the low prices, the Nikkor 50mm F/1.8 AF-D has very good image quality!

Completely agree just got it second hand from another head-fier. Great pictures especially considering the ridiculous low price

 

[M0T0XGUY]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkpowder /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've done a little reading and it seems the Zeiss primes aren't as special as I thought they were. Wide-open performance will be very good, but stopped down, you'd be hard pushed to see any difference between a Nikon or Sigma 50/1.4. I'm also fighting over which prime to get at the moment and am waiting for more info re: the new AF-S 50/1.4.

The value of a large aperture lens lies inherently in its large aperture. Ziess lenses command such a premium because they offer a more even performance than equivalent Nikon lenses wide open. Sure, at mainstream apertures like f/5.6, the differences are marginal; but you didn't buy an f/1.4 lens to stop it down constantly.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's funny that you keep saying that, but I don't think a lot of people have an issue with the weight of the camera and lens. I wonder...

It's not the weight. It's whether you have a camera with you every moment of the day or not. I have a camera in my pocket right now. If I stumble across a picture I want to take, I can take it. I don't have to plan to carry a camera, and I don't have to worry about having a couple of grand worth of gear hanging around my neck when I walk down the street.

See ya
Steve

 

[musicmaker]

Folks, I'm considering picking up a Nikon D90 and am looking for some advice. I'm just getting into DSLRs so please bear with me.

(a) Should I buy the D90 with kit 18-105 VR kit lens ?
(b) The 18-200 VR seems to be a better all-rounder lens but dpreview gave it a recommended (with reservations).
(c) What's the cheapest place to buy online ? The best prices I've been able to find are $999 for body alone or $1299 with kit 18-105mm lens.

thanks,
Manu

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox /img/forum/go_quote.gif everything I've read so far seems to say that Sigma has some serious reliability issues with its lenses. I'll keep that Nikkor 50mm in mind as well.

Don't buy a Nikon 50mm 1.4 unless you can get it dirt cheap. Nikon is releasing a new one that is supposed to be much improved. The problems you are reading about the Sigma probably deal with focusing issues on the 30mm 1.4. The truth is that there is nothing wrong with the lens. It's just hard to focus at 1.4 because the depth of field is so narrow. A lot of people who weren't used to large aperture lenses got the Sigma and complained about its ability to focus in low light when the problem was actually how they determined the focus points. There is nothing wrong with third party lenses, particularly the pro line ones... Sigma, Tokina, Tamron... they all make good lenses.

When I was into 35mm, I worried about brand names. I wanted a Nikon, not a Nikkormat. I wanted Nikkor lenses, not third party brands. I wanted all the focus rings to match. I was really stupid. When I got my D200, I decided to carefully check to see what works best for me and consider alternatives. No more brand name snob silliness for me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have a high interest in doing macro shots, and that manual Zeiss lense just looks pretty. Would I be able to do decent macro shots using the Nikon 18-200 VR in a pinch?

The 18-200 really isn't made for that. There are a lot of options for macro lenses. I have a really nice Tokina 100mm f2.8 that I use, and it doubles as a portrait lens. Sigma makes a 150mm that people say good things about. Nikon makes a good 105mm VR, but it's pricey. For a macro lens, manual focus is OK, but it should be a short tele so your lens doesn't poke the subject. It's also nice if the physical length of the lens doesn't extend when you focus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox /img/forum/go_quote.gif The D90 is nice, but I'm not sure I'd be able to find a used one as cheap as the D200.

It's worth the little extra money for the dynamic range and high ISO performance. The D90 can effectively shoot a stop and a half faster than the D200.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by musicmaker /img/forum/go_quote.gif Folks, I'm considering picking up a Nikon D90 Should I buy the D90 with kit 18-105 VR kit lens ? The 18-200 VR seems to be a better all-rounder lens but dpreview gave it a recommended (with reservations).

I would heartily recommend the 18-200, it's a great lens, but one caveat... it is heavy. I got a lightweight Nikon 18-55 VR kit lens for $120 on ebay for bumming around when I don't want to carry the 18-200.

The best places to buy online are B&H, Adorama, Ritz, J&R, Amazon, Crutchfield, etc. Be careful of places that charge too little. There are a lot of bait and switch boiler room operations online that you don't want to deal with.

hope this helps
Steve

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by musicmaker /img/forum/go_quote.gif Folks, I'm considering picking up a Nikon D90 and am looking for some advice. I'm just getting into DSLRs so please bear with me. (a) Should I buy the D90 with kit 18-105 VR kit lens ? (b) The 18-200 VR seems to be a better all-rounder lens but dpreview gave it a recommended (with reservations). (c) What's the cheapest place to buy online ? The best prices I've been able to find are $999 for body alone or $1299 with kit 18-105mm lens. thanks, Manu

(A) It'll be a great intro DSLR!
(B) If you can afford the 18-200VR, get it. If not, 18-105VR. Starting out, I think it's more important to get a range of focal lengths so you can fool around with taking many pictures.

(C) BHphotovideo.com

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's not the weight. It's whether you have a camera with you every moment of the day or not. I have a camera in my pocket right now. If I stumble across a picture I want to take, I can take it. I don't have to plan to carry a camera, and I don't have to worry about having a couple of grand worth of gear hanging around my neck when I walk down the street. See ya Steve

Ah, ok. I now see what you are referring to.