Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Dposcorp, SpotTheCat
SpotTheCat wrote:I'm thinking the kit lens would stay on my camera until I can afford the 18-200mm, at which point I'll be good to go on almost anything I want to do. I'm fairy certain I'd rather have the camera first, the 18-200mm second, and worry about the rest later. If I swing a better body now I won't be able to afford as nice of a lens as the 18-200mm, the lens that I would use for 99% of my shooting.
SpotTheCat wrote:If I swing a better body now I won't be able to afford as nice of a lens as the 18-200mm, the lens that I would use for 99% of my shooting.
SpotTheCat wrote:Ahh. I am starting from scratch, so things are different. Other than the 18-200mm I would probably want a wide angle and a really fast normal prime.
edh wrote:Given a limited budget, my personal decision would be to purchase the new D90 as a body only and get the 18-55 AF-S Nikkor to use with it until I could afford either the 55-200 or the 16-85 and 70-300 combination. -- just my unsolicited advice....
edh wrote:The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 gets good reviews.Truly wide angle lenses are on the order of 20mm and shorter for DX format. Nikon's 12-24mm f/4 DX wide angle zoom is very good but a bit pricey. You might consider the Sigma 10-24 -- it is good and somewhat less expensive in addition to giving you a 2mm greater wide angle setting at its widest.
mattsteg wrote:SpotTheCat wrote:I'm thinking the kit lens would stay on my camera until I can afford the 18-200mm, at which point I'll be good to go on almost anything I want to do. I'm fairy certain I'd rather have the camera first, the 18-200mm second, and worry about the rest later. If I swing a better body now I won't be able to afford as nice of a lens as the 18-200mm, the lens that I would use for 99% of my shooting.
That's reasonable. The 18-200 isn't so much nice (although it's very good for an 11x zoom, it's still an 11x zoom.) as it is extremely convenient and adequate. My 18-70, which goes for about $200 used, is a bit better optically, 2/3 stop faster on the long end, and weather-sealed. It's also a bit smaller/lighter and doesn't creep. By many measures it's "better". It's also less-featured and has less reach. My old 80-200mm/2.8 1st gen glass is also "better" in many ways than the 18-200. It's a couple of stops faster where it matters. It's better optically. It's built like a tank. It also weighs like a tank, though, and obviously doesn't cover the wide end at all. Both lenses together cost me less than an 18-200 would. Both are optically superior, but lose out in convenience. Affording a lens "as nice as" the 18-200 is easy, as long as you don't ask it to do as much. Heck, the cheapest 50mm prime is "as nice as" (better than) the 18-200 where capabilities overlap.
I understand that there are a lot of superlatives flying around about the 18-200, but it's still an f/slow 11x zoom.
JustAnEngineer wrote:Have you considered the $489 Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM or the $499 Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM? The new 50mm is getting pretty good reviews.
It's a shame that Nikon doesn't offer a Nikkor autofocus lens comparable to Canon's "nifty fifty" $85 EF 50mm f/1.8 or even the $230 EF 35mm f/2.
JustAnEngineer wrote:Have you considered the $489 Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM or the $499 Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM? The new 50mm is getting pretty good reviews.
It's a shame that Nikon doesn't offer a Nikkor autofocus lens like Canon's "nifty fifty" $85 EF 50mm f/1.8 or even the $230 EF 35mm f/2.
GokuSS2 wrote:JustAnEngineer wrote:Have you considered the $489 Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM or the $499 Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM? The new 50mm is getting pretty good reviews.
It's a shame that Nikon doesn't offer a Nikkor autofocus lens comparable to Canon's "nifty fifty" $85 EF 50mm f/1.8 or even the $230 EF 35mm f/2.
Rumors are flying that a AF-S 50mm 1.4 G is coming to replace the non AF-S version soon. If so I will be buying this for my D40 till I get my D90.
SpotTheCat wrote:Yes, HSM is Sigma's verion of in-the-lens motor AF-S.You know what? That sigma f/1.4 is about as good as I'll be able to do. I'll probably get one used or something if I find I need it a lot. HSM works like an AF-S, right?
JustAnEngineer wrote:It's a shame that Nikon doesn't offer a Nikkor autofocus lens comparable to Canon's "nifty fifty" $85 EF 50mm f/1.8 or even the $230 EF 35mm f/2.
mattsteg wrote:JustAnEngineer wrote:It's a shame that Nikon doesn't offer a Nikkor autofocus lens comparable to Canon's "nifty fifty" $85 EF 50mm f/1.8 or even the $230 EF 35mm f/2.
Considering that they have both a (better than canon's) 50/1.8 and a 35/2, I'm not sure what your "shame" is.
titan wrote:mattsteg wrote:JustAnEngineer wrote:It's a shame that Nikon doesn't offer a Nikkor autofocus lens comparable to Canon's "nifty fifty" $85 EF 50mm f/1.8 or even the $230 EF 35mm f/2.
Considering that they have both a (better than canon's) 50/1.8 and a 35/2, I'm not sure what your "shame" is.
Indeed! There's the AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4D, the AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8D, and the AF NIKKOR 35mm f/2D. Canon does have some lenses that are faster though, like the EF 50mm f/1.2 USM and the EF 35mm f/1.4L USM.
titan wrote:mattsteg wrote:JustAnEngineer wrote:Have you considered the $489 Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM or the $499 Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM? The new 50mm is getting pretty good reviews.
It's a shame that Nikon doesn't offer a Nikkor autofocus lens comparable to Canon's "nifty fifty" $85 EF 50mm f/1.8 or even the $230 EF 35mm f/2.
Considering that they have both a (better than canon's) 50/1.8 and a 35/2, I'm not sure what your "shame" is.
Indeed! There's the AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4D, the AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8D, and the AF NIKKOR 35mm f/2D. Canon does have some lenses that are faster though, like the EF 50mm f/1.2 USM and the EF 35mm f/1.4L USM.
JustAnEngineer wrote:titan wrote:mattsteg wrote:Considering that they have both a (better than canon's) 50/1.8 and a 35/2, I'm not sure what your "shame" is.
Indeed! There's the AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4D, the AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8D, and the AF NIKKOR 35mm f/2D. Canon does have some lenses that are faster though, like the EF 50mm f/1.2 USM and the EF 35mm f/1.4L USM.
None of those Nikkor lenses has autofocus when mounted an entry-level Nikon camera. You have to go to the more expensive Sigma lenses that I linked (or Tokina) or buy a much more expensive camera body to get autofocus.
SpotTheCat wrote:ding ding ding ding ding. They really don't have a full array of lenses for their low-end cameras.
edh wrote:SpotTheCat wrote:ding ding ding ding ding. They really don't have a full array of lenses for their low-end cameras.
Depends on how one defines a full array
Usacomp2k3 wrote:$12,132 away from being debt-free
JustAnEngineer wrote:None of those Nikkor lenses has autofocus when mounted on an entry-level Nikon camera. You have to go to the more expensive Sigma lenses that I linked (or the $460 Tokina 35mm f/2.8) or buy a much more expensive Nikon camera body to get autofocus. It's a real shame when you compare that to the ready availability of the inexpensive "nifty fifty" lens for all Canon cameras, even the cheapest Rebel XS model.
SpotTheCat wrote:well, there isn't anything faster than f/3.5 in the consumer price range that works on the D40. I would define that as not having a full array of lenses.
edh wrote:Get a body -- any body -- and a lens -- any lens -- and go take pictures. That's the object of the game.
edh wrote:Get a body -- any body -- and a lens -- any lens -- and go take pictures. That's the object of the game.
JustAnEngineer wrote:None of those Nikkor lenses has autofocus when mounted on an entry-level Nikon camera. You have to go to the more expensive Sigma lenses that I linked (or the $460 Tokina 35mm f/2.8) or buy a much more expensive Nikon camera body to get autofocus. It's a real shame when you compare that to the ready availability of the inexpensive "nifty fifty" lens for all Canon cameras, even the cheapest Rebel XS model.