[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've gotten super sharp images with my medium format Mamiya RB67, and they sell for about the price of a good P&S on ebay.

This has been a serious consideration for me for a long time, but the cost to develop the large film is not cheap.
For someone who really prefers digital vs film, this isn't really an option. The digital MF's are very pricey!

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpelg /img/forum/go_quote.gif The most interesting photograph's I've seen had little to do with whether they were tack-sharp or not.

I'll agree with this, and yet I still strive for sharp images. It's just what makes me happy.

 

[chews89]

Hi Nikon-users,

I recently won an auction on ebay for my first every DSLR, a D200! Now I'm starting to look at lenses. Can anyone suggest some cheap decent lenses to start off with? I've been looking at lenses like the Nikkor 50mm f1.8, Nikkor 18-55mm, and even then 18-200mm although that will probably cost quite a bit.

Cheers

 

[choka]

The 50/1.8 is a no-brainer. It is the sharpest lens in nikon lineup although its bokeh can be bad sometimes, depending on the situation. If you don't like it you can sell it without much loss. Personally I am a prime lens user so I'd rather not comment on the zooms or super zooms you are mentioning.

 

[skyline889]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chews89 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hi Nikon-users, I recently won an auction on ebay for my first every DSLR, a D200! Now I'm starting to look at lenses. Can anyone suggest some cheap decent lenses to start off with? I've been looking at lenses like the Nikkor 50mm f1.8, Nikkor 18-55mm, and even then 18-200mm although that will probably cost quite a bit. Cheers

If you're looking for dirt cheap versatility there are three lenses you should be looking at:

Nikon 18-55mm or 18-55mm VR
Nikon 50mm f/1.8
Nikon 55-200mm VR

You can get all three for around $350-400 total (used) and for that price, you can't beat the performance. Step up to the 35mm f/1.8 or the 70-300mm VR if you have a bigger budget and you'll be set for a while. If you mostly shoot wide, instead pick up a Tokina 12-24mm f/4 and the 50mm and you'll be good to go for less than $450.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chews89 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hi Nikon-users, I recently won an auction on ebay for my first every DSLR, a D200! Now I'm starting to look at lenses. Can anyone suggest some cheap decent lenses to start off with? I've been looking at lenses like the Nikkor 50mm f1.8, Nikkor 18-55mm, and even then 18-200mm although that will probably cost quite a bit. Cheers

Similar to what skyline889 said:

You can pick up a nice 50mm F/1.8 (125$). Great Value!
For a zoom, you can pick up something like a used 18-55mm for less than 100$ and something like the most basic 70-300mm for less than 150$.

That'll give you amazing flexibility to start learning with, and the 50mm will give you a taste of what some of nikon's best lenses are like.

Hope this helps.

PS: since you have a D200, don't be afraid to check out ebay for some old lenses since your camera will still meter with them.
You can get some real gems for under 60$, such as the 80-200 F4.5n AIk, 70-210mm, 75-150mm E, etc.

 

[chews89]

Thanks for the help guys.

Yeah it seems the 50mm f1.8 is an incredibly popular lens, and so affordable too! I'll definitely have to get myself one of them.

To be honest I'm still having difficulty with understanding focal lengths and such. For example what will be the difference between a 55-200mm and 18-200mm? I guess I have to do more reading but if someone could give me a simple answer, that would be awesome.

Also, I've just realised VR lenses are a lot more expensive than non-VR lenses. Does VR make a huge difference? Is it still Ok to go with the non-VRs?

Ohyeah I have a feeling I'll mainly be shooting portraits and some scenery.

 

[choka]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chews89 /img/forum/go_quote.gif To be honest I'm still having difficulty with understanding focal lengths and such. For example what will be the difference between a 55-200mm and 18-200mm? I guess I have to do more reading but if someone could give me a simple answer, that would be awesome.

The smaller the number, the wider it goes, the bigger the closer. Do you have a point and shoot camera? You can probabaly get an idea by zooming on that.

18-200 is considered to be a lens that can almost sit on your camera forever because it covers most of the zoom range you will ever need.

VR does make a difference. I have 70-300 VR and honestly, I do not think I can take useful pictures with that if there is no VR, unless I take along a tripod with me everytime I use that lens. (read: you don't need VR if you have tripod)

The longer the focal length, the more you want to have VR.

A rule of thumb is, your slowest shutter speed would be 1/focal length. When you are at 18mm you can be as slow as something like 1/15s which is doable for a lot of situations; but when you are at 300mm you have to shoot at 1/300s or faster, you needs lots of light and that does not happen all the time. With VR I can get to 1/60s or sometimes even less and I still get a sharp picture.

happy shooting

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chews89 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I recently won an auction on ebay for my first every DSLR, a D200! Now I'm starting to look at lenses. Can anyone suggest some cheap decent lenses to start off with? I've been looking at lenses like the Nikkor 50mm f1.8, Nikkor 18-55mm, and even then 18-200mm although that will probably cost quite a bit.

All of those are great lenses... However the 50mm has a much narrower use. On the D200, it's a short telephoto suited for portrait work. Not much use for general low light use. I'd recommend the 18-200 VR and the 35 1.8. That is a two lens kit that has a great deal of versatility.

 

[choka]

having a prime lens helps in your photography skills in general. You are limited in focal length, makes you think about the composition, color, etc. The large aperture also gives you a lot more creative freedom.

before i bought my 35/2, i use my 50/1.8 a lot.

but, after i bought my 50/1.2, i haven't been using my 35/2. Sharpest 50mm when stopped down to f/1.4 and a silky smooth bokeh? I'm sold, even when it is MF only.

It is true that 35mm is probably a more useful focal length than 50mm on DX format, however, it ultimately depends on what you shoot. If you shoot a lot of portraits, 50mm is gonna be more useful to you than 35mm. Moreover 50mm is very affordable. You can take great pictures with it. I sometimes go out with just a 50mm lens when I feel lazy and I can shoot a lot of good stuff. On the other hand, I sometimes go out with just a 90mm...

The 35/1.8 is a DX lens, so if you plan on eventually upgrading to FX, you might want to think about whether you want to build a DX lens collection or not. I shoot DX in digital and I actually like the 1.5x crop factor. I am sticking to FX lenses only because I also shoot film.

 

[bigshot]

Having fewer options doesn't make you more creative. It just gives you a more narrow range of options to focus on. A setup with all manual and a prime lens is great for a beginning photographer, because it keeps them focused on all the steps it takes to visualize and capture a picture. I shot with an F2 and a 55mm 2.8 lens for years back when I was learning. It was great training. As I've progressed all those decisions have become second nature, and a more versatile and flexible setup is better for me, because I can get where I want to be quicker. Now I want a a kit that's like a Swiss Army Knife so I can deal with any situation I come across, and not have the equipment dictating the kind of shots I'm taking.

My recommendation is to always buy the equipment that works for you today. Don't make any compromises to make them work with any theoretical camera you might own in the future. The best bargain is the lens you get the most use out of, not the one that works better in some theoretical future.

Very few people actually need FX cameras... wedding photographers, photojournalists, sports photographers... that's about it. FX cameras are not sharper and they don't produce more colorful images. The image quality is pretty much identical to DX. The advantages of FX cameras are that they have larger and brighter viewfinders and they can shoot at higher shutter speeds in low light. For most photographers, it is more advantageous to have a DX camera with a faster lens than to have an FX camera with a 2.8 pro zoom.

I have three primes, a Sigma 30 1.4, a Sigma 50 1.4 and a Tokina 100mm 2.8 macro. I use the 30 quite a bit. I use the 50 just for portraits. I haven't really had a use for the 100 yet. The lenses in my bag that I use the most are the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and the Nikon 18-200 VR. Those cover 80% of what I need to shoot. Most people probably wouldn't need both of those. Either one of those and a 35 1.8 would probably cover it for most folks.

 

[choka]

well, someone here doesn't like Primes. Are you a Decepticon?

i love them. i haven't picked up the 18-70 kit lens since i got the 50mm, and i never looked back.

 

[trevorlane]

anybody in this thread know when the 24 1.4 is finally getting released? nikon seems to be taking their sweet time with the release and i really wanna get it on the D3

 

[choka]

Quote:

Originally Posted by trevorlane /img/forum/go_quote.gif anybody in this thread know when the 24 1.4 is finally getting released? nikon seems to be taking their sweet time with the release and i really wanna get it on the D3

I have no idea, but I tried that earlier this month at the Nikon booth at WPPI. Since then I've been lusting over it.

 

[skyline889]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Having fewer options doesn't make you more creative. It just gives you a more narrow range of options to focus on.

Too true. I would never choose a 50mm for my sole lens. It's just too limiting, especially on a crop body. People always just say, "well, step back" if you want more in the shot. 99% of the time stepping back isn't enough for me and to that point, there's usually a limited amount of room to "step back." Take an auto show for example, you step back just one foot and you now have 100 people blocking the subject, it just doesn't work.

I, too, started shooting only with primes (a 50mm f/1.4 and a 135mm f/2.8) and a full manual F2. Heck, since I got rid of the D200 combo, I was manually metering and focusing a 30 year old N-AI converted 28mm on my D50 until I got my new 18-55mm VR. Yes, it made me focus more on composition but once you have the basics down, it just becomes a hassle and a limitation. Missing shots is not creativity.