[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkpowder /img/forum/go_quote.gif Say I have a 24-70mm and a 70-200mm. At which point do I switch from one lens to the other? Re: low F-stops Apart from being able to shoot at higher shutter speeds (because of lower possible F-stop), are than any other advantages? Would the difference still be worth the extra money, eg AF-S 24-70mm ED vs AF-S 16-85mm ED DX VR @ a third the price, especially when the 24-70mm is really only optimised for full-frame cameras?

If you want to see stuff up closer then you need to go more telephoto. Most DSLRs have a crop view and for Nikon D60 it's 1.5X so if you use 50mm lens, you'll see like looking through 75mm lens (which is telephoto). So 24-70 is behaving mostly like a little wide to telephoto.

f/2.8 lens will give brighter viewfinder and better autofocus speeds/accuracy.

24-70 maybe a full frame lens but a cropper sensor camera would use the sweet spot in the center of the lens which will yield the best resolution, edge to edge sharpness, and no/less vignetting.

A better lens is always a better lens but more lenses can be more fun and could yield you pictures you would've never else have taken for the same price as a 24-70. You could get walkaround, lower light, macro, and more telephoto lenses for the price.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkpowder /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thanks! I understand that separate lens will tend to give better results/quality. Now if you would bear with me, again . Say I have a 24-70mm and a 70-200mm. At which point do I switch from one lens to the other? If 50mm is close to what we see, do I switch to the 70-200 whenever I want to view something at closer than what I normally can see? Re: low F-stops Apart from being able to shoot at higher shutter speeds (because of lower possible F-stop), are than any other advantages? Lastly, is there any point in getting 1k+ 'pro' lens for a more modest camera like a D60? Would the difference still be worth the extra money, eg AF-S 24-70mm ED vs AF-S 16-85mm ED DX VR @ a third the price, especially when the 24-70mm is really only optimised for full-frame cameras?

All else equal, a smaller F-stop will give a tighter Depth of Field. So if you are taking a picture of someone, the background will be more blurred at F/1.8 than at F/16. There are a few more subtle things, but the main thing is shutter speed and DOF.

For switching to different focal length lenses: Think of the lens as capturing a rectangle image (which the camera does). The larger the focal length, the smaller that rectangle becomes and so the things appear bigger. The larger the focal length, the smaller the angle of view.

SO a person far away will look really small at 18mm because you have a huge angle, and in comparison to this the person is smaller. if you use a 200mm lens, the angle is much less, and so the person appears smaller.
What governs which lens you want is how big you want the rectangle (what angle of view you want to capture).

If the 24-70mm is optimized for full frame, it'll look that much better on a DX camera. The reverse is not true. If the lens is made for DX, it won't fill up a FF (full frame) camera. I have a little D50. It's not a pro camera. But the choice in lens is so important. It really will make a difference! And not just a little one. As long as the camera is decent enough that it doesn't get in the way of you taking pictures, then it's fine. Then the lenses start to make the big difference.

Other things can also help, like filters or flash units, etc.

 

[milkpowder]

Excellent stuff guys!

That should really get me started.

RYCeT, by 50mm 1.8 prime, you mean the AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D right? It's got superb reviews. I think I'll ask my dad to get one right away considering it's very reasonable price tag and then nick it from him when I get my own camera

Will it work on DSLRs without AF motors (probably what I'll end up with)?

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkpowder /img/forum/go_quote.gif Excellent stuff guys! That should really get me started. RYCeT, by 50mm 1.8 prime, you mean the AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D right? It's got superb reviews. I think I'll ask my dad to get one right away considering it's very reasonable price tag and then nick it from him when I get my own camera Will it work on DSLRs without AF motors (probably what I'll end up with)?

You'll have to manually focus, but it'll shoot fine.

 

[M0T0XGUY]

I just recieved a D200 with a grip, and I have to say, I'm enjoying it immensely. Great ISO performance, a damn solid build, fantastic image quality, and an array of programmable hardware round off the camera's niceties; not to mention the status LCD screen or second command dial. Really; I thought of the D40 as a pinnacle in overall technology, but the D200 is mind-blowingly superior in almost every aspect - I completely agree with those claiming the D200 to be more tool than toy.

As such, I thought I'd give you guys a few samples taken right after charging the batteries. Unfortunately, an admittedly consumer grade 18-135 is all I have right now, but I'm expecting the arrival of a 50 f/1.8 and an 85 f/1.8 shortly - perhaps these lenses will do the D200 more justice.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkpowder /img/forum/go_quote.gif Excellent stuff guys! That should really get me started. RYCeT, by 50mm 1.8 prime, you mean the AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D right? It's got superb reviews. I think I'll ask my dad to get one right away considering it's very reasonable price tag and then nick it from him when I get my own camera Will it work on DSLRs without AF motors (probably what I'll end up with)?

The Nikon AF 50mm F/1.8 DOES have excellent image quality. Nice color and a really sharp lens. For 130$, it's such a great value. Any other focal lengh and you'll be spending 300$+. I have the 50mm, and my only wish is that I went with the F/1.4 instead of the F/1.8, but I did save about 150$.

Sadly, with the D40, D40x, or D60 you will not have auto focus. That for me was enough to NOT get either of those cameras. With the price of the D80, I would get that as an entry level DSLR. My parents have it, and it is similar to my D50 (in terms of weight and size), but with a few improvements.

 

[RYCeT]

Hi guys, I just got my D300 w/ 18-200 kit, I'm waiting for my tamron 17-50 2.8. I want to add another prime, I love 50 1.8 w/ my rebel xt, I'm considering nikon 50 1.4, however I also found nikon 35 2.0 within that price range. 35 2.0 w/ D300 will be a better range for me. I will get 85mm eventually so the 35mm will complement it better than the 50mm. However I wondered how's 35 2.0 bokeh, it will be used for indoor and potrait. Will the 2.0 appeture useable? Will this lens be fast enough for indoor?
Anyone got both lenses?

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RYCeT /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hi guys, I just got my D300 w/ 18-200 kit, I'm waiting for my tamron 17-50 2.8. I want to add another prime, I love 50 1.8 w/ my rebel xt, I'm considering nikon 50 1.4, however I also found nikon 35 2.0 within that price range. 35 2.0 w/ D300 will be a better range for me. I will get 85mm eventually so the 35mm will complement it better than the 50mm. However I wondered how's 35 2.0 bokeh, it will be used for indoor and potrait. Will the 2.0 appeture useable? Will this lens be fast enough for indoor? Anyone got both lenses?

I have the Nikon 85mm 1.8 and 35mm 2.0. With the 35mm, the bokeh is really very impressive when you get real close to the subject. It's a nice lens. Image quality is roughly the same as the Nikon 50mm 1.8.

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RYCeT /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hi guys, I just got my D300 w/ 18-200 kit, I'm waiting for my tamron 17-50 2.8. I want to add another prime, I love 50 1.8 w/ my rebel xt, I'm considering nikon 50 1.4, however I also found nikon 35 2.0 within that price range. 35 2.0 w/ D300 will be a better range for me. I will get 85mm eventually so the 35mm will complement it better than the 50mm. However I wondered how's 35 2.0 bokeh, it will be used for indoor and potrait. Will the 2.0 appeture useable? Will this lens be fast enough for indoor? Anyone got both lenses?

Before you buy anything, see how you like the tamron. I hardly ever use my 50 1.8. I guess it's situational of a lens for me. I just sold my Canon 50 1.4. I guess 50mm is just not for me.

I think 35mm is a great focal length. Right now I use D300 tamron 17-50, 50 1.8, and 55-200vr. I think you should get rid of 18-200VR.

All these other lenses we're talking about are better than it and cheaper.

 

[RYCeT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have the Nikon 85mm 1.8 and 35mm 2.0. With the 35mm, the bokeh is really very impressive when you get real close to the subject. It's a nice lens. Image quality is roughly the same as the Nikon 50mm 1.8.

Nice, how useable is the 2.0 stop? Does it need to be stopped down to get a sharper image?

Hi Ian, I know the 18-200 vr doesn't seem very useful for me. I got it since I bought the d300 from CC taking advantage of their financing promotion and they only offer d300 w/ 18-200 kit. I want to try it first before making any decision whether I want to sell it or not. I prefer the tamron 17-50 2.8 and nikon 70-300 vr combination. Obviously I hope I can afford the 70-200 vr, not for now though, I'm saving my money for 85 1.4.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RYCeT /img/forum/go_quote.gif Nice, how useable is the 2.0 stop? Does it need to be stopped down to get a sharper image?

I haven't done a side by side test, so I can't comment on that really....
All I can say is that I have not taken a picture with it where I thought it could have been sharper.

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

I also have the 35 F2, and I find it very usable wide open, and really sharp from 2.8 onwards. It is mostly the borders that are a bit less sharp at F2, but not to the point that they detract from the picture, IMO. I'd only be concerned about that kind of degradation for landscape pics, which I'm usually not taking at F2 anyway.

I really like this lens a lot. The close-focus ability really makes it useful in a lot of settings, and it is so small and light, it's like having no lens on the camera at all. I just wish I could get a prime in the 14-18mm range with similar characteristics!

 

[M0T0XGUY]

That's good to hear, Iron Dreamer. I've been on the fence about buying a wide-angle prime lens, since so few seem to receive glowing reviews, but I think I'll give the 35 f/2 a try, along with an 85 f/1.8 for general photography.

What do you guys think of some longer telephoto primes; say, in the upper-100mm's?

 

[perplex]

With a crop sensor body a 50mm prime isn't 50mm. It's ok if the room is big and of course the f1.4 is great indoors. But just be aware that it'll be 75mm.

 

[RYCeT]

Thank's for the input guys, it made my decision easier.