Recommendations for my first DSLR

zybar · « **Reply #120 on:** 15 Jun 2010, 01:05 am »

Good advice JGP. That is pretty much what my friend suggested.

Here is his new lens:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_70-200_2p8_vrii_n15/

George

zybar · « **Reply #121 on:** 15 Jun 2010, 01:22 am »

Quote from: jqp on 15 Jun 2010, 12:50 am

I have had the D90 for a year now, and have 9000 shots with it. Most are with the 18-200 VR lens.

I really like that lens - it is not too bulky and covers almost every need except for low, low light (the D90 with high ISO can handle amazingly low light though - see my upcoming shots from the Naples museum with no lights!)

I personally would rather have the 18-200 VR than the 70-300 VR. I don't ever have to switch lenses for most situations, and it is an excellent lens. That can really mean not missing shots which you could miss having to switch lenses! Also, there is less need for 200-300 range than you would think. 200mm gets you pretty close!

But the 70-300 is a very good lens, not too heavy if you are going to take more than one lens. And the price of the body plus 70-300 lens is a good one. The thing is, that is not the price you will pay, as you need another lens!

The Nikon 18mm - 55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX (VR) is an excellent lens for the Nikon DX cameras. The D40 came with the non-VR version of this lens as its kit lens, and the VR just makes it better.

I have the earlier 18-55 lens, but I never use it. What came with my D90 as a kit lens was the 18-105 VR, but I never use it either! I basically gave it to my friend for her D40, and bought again (after my backpack with cameras was stolen) the more versatile 18-200 VR. Then I also use the 35mm 1.8 (less than $200 http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/35mm-f18.htm).

So my recommendation, in spite of the deal with that 70-300mm, would be to go for the 18-200mm VRII (the new one) or save a little and get the original 18-200mm VR, then also get a low-light prime lens like the 35mm or 50mm (for low light portraits, candids, etc.). This is for my style of photography - wide angle, close-up, and zoom at every outing with the one lens, less often a low light session.

Either way I highly recommend the D90.

Only challenge with your suggested approach is it pushes my initial investment to around $1700.

Guess I should have known that I was never getting into this for the original $500-800 I had in mind.

George

Wind Chaser · « **Reply #122 on:** 15 Jun 2010, 02:00 am »

If you're not planning on buy a many lenses, like who plans on that

, I'd go with jqp's advice and go for the 18~200. Kit lenses usually aren't anything special and it's nice to have at least one quality lens that can shoot reasonably wide.

SET Man · « **Reply #123 on:** 15 Jun 2010, 02:27 am »

Quote from: zybar on 15 Jun 2010, 01:05 am

Good advice JGP. That is pretty much what my friend suggested.

Here is his new lens:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_70-200_2p8_vrii_n15/

George

Hey!

C'mon zybar/George stop drooling and get yourself that zoom

Take care,
Buddy

JohnR · « **Reply #124 on:** 15 Jun 2010, 02:35 am »

Just on the lens question/s - there is more to a lens than focal length.

jman66 · « **Reply #125 on:** 15 Jun 2010, 09:18 am »

jqp · « **Reply #126 on:** 16 Jun 2010, 02:17 am »

Quote from: jman66 on 15 Jun 2010, 09:18 am

Kit lenses aren't that bad... (18-55mm Canon kit lens)
No, it's not wide @ 3.5-5.6, but it gets the job done. Don't get caught up on the hardware.

Love it

Wind Chaser · « **Reply #127 on:** 16 Jun 2010, 02:49 am »

Quote from: jman66 on 15 Jun 2010, 09:18 am

Kit lenses aren't that bad... it gets the job done. Don't get caught up on the hardware.

I never said that they were bad; I said they usually are not anything special. There's no substitute for good glass. You can spend all you want on a camera but it makes no difference with lens that merely "gets the job done" as you say. Bose speakers can get the job done, however there is a culture here where people tend to be a little more discriminating, which makes for the argument of getting caught up in the gear a good thing...

JohnR · « **Reply #128 on:** 16 Jun 2010, 04:37 am »

Great picture! I think I might just crop it off on the right slightly.

It is a good point - kit lenses these days can be pretty good and it's not necessary right away to go out and get more lenses. Nothing wrong with doing that either...

Maybe we need a thread for pictures taken with kit lenses

jman66 · « **Reply #129 on:** 16 Jun 2010, 09:09 am »

Quote from: Wind Chaser on 16 Jun 2010, 02:49 am

I never said that they were bad; I said they usually are not anything special. There's no substitute for good glass. You can spend all you want on a camera but it makes no difference with lens that merely "gets the job done" as you say. Bose speakers can get the job done, however there is a culture here where people tend to be a little more discriminating, which makes for the argument of getting caught up in the gear a good thing...

Sorry, I should have kept my mouth shut.

Wind Chaser · « **Reply #130 on:** 16 Jun 2010, 11:25 am »

Quote from: jman66 on 16 Jun 2010, 09:09 am

Sorry, I should have kept my mouth shut.

Don't take it that way, I wasn't attacking you personally. Kit lenses are okay, for what they are, and there are even a few that are better than average, either in IQ or build quality. But on the whole they are just entry level glass made at a low price point and are not going to take advantage of the cameras full potential. If a person doesn't know how serious they are going to be about photography, they are enough to get started; but as for myself I see no point in putting the effort to pick out a high quality camera (or amplifier) only to hold it back with an entry level lens (or speakers). That's a reasonable position, no?

Sorry if my previous response (or this post) comes across as being a bit cantankerous.

Doublej · « **Reply #131 on:** 16 Jun 2010, 11:55 am »

IMHO, except for the pros and near pros, these days the limitation is overwhelmingly in the skill of the photographer, not in difference in quality between gear that is good and gear that is great.

I have seen many amazing shots from a great photographer using a simple point and shoot and equally many mediocre shots from less skilled people using expensive gear.

Wind Chaser · « **Reply #132 on:** 16 Jun 2010, 03:09 pm »

Quote from: Doublej on 16 Jun 2010, 11:55 am

...these days the limitation is overwhelmingly in the skill of the photographer, not in difference in quality between gear that is good and gear that is great.

Agreed. Great pictures are not gear dependant. The order of importance is:

1) the photographer
2) the subject
3) the light
4) the lens
5) the camera

A camera is a box upon which you hang lenses. Everything else is more critical. Having said that a great shot taken with better gear will look better than the same shot taken with modest gear.

In reference to the above, what follows are two shots taken with a very cheap ($200 - 200mm) low / poor quality zoom on a K-x.

Wind Chaser · « **Reply #133 on:** 16 Jun 2010, 03:12 pm »

For some reason I can't seem post them any larger.

They look much more impressive at 1024 X 768.

JohnR · « **Reply #134 on:** 19 Jun 2010, 02:32 pm »

Quote from: Wind Chaser on 16 Jun 2010, 03:12 pm

For some reason I can't seem post them any larger.

They look much more impressive at 1024 X 768.

The AC server resizes them to max 720 px horizontal - I forget the vertical but it's probably either 720 or 640. More worse for photographers it compresses them heavily. Sorry about that

What did zybar get? - I lost track...

zybar · « **Reply #135 on:** 19 Jun 2010, 02:41 pm »

Quote from: JohnR on 19 Jun 2010, 02:32 pm

The AC server resizes them to max 720 px horizontal - I forget the vertical but it's probably either 720 or 640. More worse for photographers it compresses them heavily. Sorry about that

What did zybar get? - I lost track...

Nothing yet...

Having two very nice cameras on loan isn't exactly pushing me to purchase.

If I see a great deal I will jump on it.

George

JohnR · « **Reply #136 on:** 19 Jun 2010, 02:46 pm »

Quote from: zybar on 19 Jun 2010, 02:41 pm

Nothing yet...

Having two very nice cameras on loan isn't exactly pushing me to purchase.

Funny

you should hold onto them (or one at least)

Wind Chaser · « **Reply #137 on:** 20 Jun 2010, 04:36 am »

Quote from: zybar on 19 Jun 2010, 02:41 pm

Nothing yet...

Having two very nice cameras on loan isn't exactly pushing me to purchase.

If I see a great deal I will jump on it.

George

Not sure and can't say for sure yet, but... I might consider selling my K-x. Reason is I just bought a K-7 and I'm seriously tempted to buy another one before the price goes up. I'll leave it to you to pitch an offer... that is if you are interested. I might even let one or two additional lenses go as I just bought two more (weather sealed) lenses last week.

WerTicus · « **Reply #138 on:** 17 Jul 2010, 08:26 am »

there will be a new Pentax at photokina - the k7 wont be going up in price only down as it will be getting replaced probably.

Wind Chaser · « **Reply #139 on:** 18 Jul 2010, 04:36 am »

Quote from: WerTicus on 17 Jul 2010, 08:26 am

there will be a new Pentax at photokina - the k7 wont be going up in price only down as it will be getting replaced probably.

Lots of rumors but Hoya has been very tight lipped. I'm going to hang on to my Kx but I did pick up a K7. That is one serious camera. Might even be tempted to buy another if the price continues to drop.