| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/25/2007 02:34:04 PM · #1 |
yes, a new post haha
what lenses? I'm getting mixed reviews from everywhere so I'm pulling my hair out at the moment.
So now I'm browsing around at different pictures in DPC to see how uses what lens for what pictures- quite helpful really.
I want a lens for landscapes and wildlife- nothing fancy, but something clear. I like shooting birds, flowers, scenery, ect.
I need a lens for portrait work- both inside and out. I do all of my work outside at the moment but want to have something I can use inside as well.
MAYBE a macro though I can live without that as I have for 2 years now.
external flash
after all the replies in my other thread I'm thinking I'd rather spend the money on what I really want, instead of what I don't need- thank you for whoever brought that up. I have cold meds and a 6yo on the brain at the moment so I'm a little foggy.
This is what I have written down from BHphoto
camera body-875 Nikon D80
Tamron 28-75mm 380
Nikon 50mm 1.8 115
Nikon 70-300 295
and one that I noticed a lot of people use
Nikon 60mm F2.8AF macro- 370
I can't go above 2200 and would still need to add memory to that.
What lenses would be a MUST. I want an honest, unbiased reply here lol. Yes I know, that's asking a lot.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2007 02:58:35 PM · #2 |
I shoot Canon, but I'll give you my $.02 :-P
For landscapes, you want wide angle. I use the Tokina 12-24, it's great, and has a good width.
For wildlife/birds, you need telephoto range. 300mm is a good start, but if you really get into that kind of shooting, you'll want more eventually. The Canon 70-300, which I assume is a lot like the Nikon, judging from the similar prices, is good for starters, but is slow to focus, and pretty much stinks in low light. You'll be wanting a good, fast telephoto, like a 70-200 f/2.8 before too long. So maybe the 70-300 for starters, and start saving for something faster.
I don't know anything about the Nikon bodies, so I'll leave that to someone else. I do have the Tamron 28-75 and love it, it is an excellent piece of glass. However, enjoying landscapes myself, I find that it is not wide enough. I've given thought to adding the Tamron 17-50 to my bag. It has excellent reviews, and is also constantf/2.8 You might want to have a look at it, as an alternative to the 28-75.
Either Tamron or the 50mm would be okay for portrait work. I've come to prefer telephoto lenses, as I think they look better for portraits, but there are other schools of thought on this, and the 50mm is great for low-light situations. On the other hand, either of the Tamron lenses is going to cover 50mm, and with nearly as wide an aperture - so it's kind of a duplication.
Macro is a lot of fun, but if you can hold off, I'd save the money. The 28-75 has semi-macro abilities, and does okay.
So the bottom line, IMO, based on what you've told us is this:
Nikon body
Tamron 28-75 or 17-55
Nikon 70-300 (The Sigma version is supposed to be good, and has a macro mode - and I think is cheaper than $295)
Hold off on the other stuff for a while, until you see how this works for you.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2007 03:09:20 PM · #3 |
I have both the Nikon 50mm/1.8 and the 105mm, and I LOVE them both. the 105mm is a macro lens, and its amazing for macro and portraits. Ursula uses it, I believe.
I also have the sigma 10-20mm WA, which I'm still learning to use, but really like as well. |
|
|
|
09/25/2007 03:10:32 PM · #4 |
If you're into landscapes, 28mm is nowhere near wide enough. You need one of the Ultrawide zooms, like the aforementioned Tokina 12-24mm. That dovetails nicely with the Tamron 28-75mm which, since it has 1:2 near-macro capability and a constant f/2.8, is a very versatile lens. Bearing in mind that the Nikon sensor is a 1.5 crop factor, the 75mm becomes, effectively, a 110mm lens. In 35mm days, 100mm was a very-much preferred focal length for head-and-shoulders portraiture, so that's a decent portrait lens.
To do birds and wildlife, 300mm is really about your minimum acceptable reach (it's the equivalent of a 450mm on your camera), so I'd be trying to work in something with at least that much reach.
R.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2007 03:39:25 PM · #5 |
For landscapes and just all around use, this lens has come in quite handy and I recommend it highly:
Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED
For portraits and macros, I have this one and recommend it highly for both portraits and macro:
Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D.......(I think  Librodo has this one too but unfortunately mine didn't come with his talent...:-(...)
The 105mm maybe a better choice for macro as well (I don't have that one...yet...hehe).
Good Luck!
|
|
|
|
09/25/2007 03:47:42 PM · #6 |
The 18-135 kit lens isn't too shabby for landscapes. I was coveting a pro's lens on Sunday, I think it was an 18-200. That would be really awesome for landscapes and wildlife.
If you want a really big sweeping landscape, the Tokina 12-24 is good, but I find myself using the 18-135 more often. It's not very good for conveying any sort of sense of intimacy with your subject, but rocked this weekend when I was shooting up into trees. Notice how small the San Juans and the dunes look in this shot:
Everyone will say the 50mm f/1.8 for portrait work, but it's much more versatile than that. It's by far the sharpest lens I own and also the most fun since the depth of field you can achieve with it is completely awesome. I have used it for landscapes, too, but find it a little more awkward for that.
Message edited by author 2007-09-25 15:52:06.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2007 03:51:20 PM · #7 |
If you're going to be keeping your Olympus gear then you should know that Oly is coming out with a 70-300 lens of their own. That'll take you all the way to 600mm FL for birding and any other tele needs you require. Add the very sharp TC-1.4 teleconverter and you've got yourself an 840mm FL, albeit with a stop of light loss. In addition, it's got close focusing capabilities, up to about 3 feet minimum close focusing distance. 7" length and very light weight (620g). Cost will be about $400 and will be out mid October '07.
For a macro/portrait lens you can't beat the Olympus 50mm/2.0. Very sharp and most people use it as a portrait lens. This lens can be got for $400.
Wide angle in the Oly line right now would be the 11-22 but that's $700. They will be coming out with an ultra wide angle consumer grade lens some time in 2008. |
|
|
|
09/25/2007 03:51:53 PM · #8 |
There are always places to read about lenses.
Heres another I like.
Anything that is 2.8 and under that you can afford would be a good bet!
This is a good one Tamron 17-50mm 2.8
and a Nikon 80-200mm 2.8
Depending on which you think you will do more of or enjoy/use more is where I would put my money. I have a Nikon 70-300mm that rarely comes out. I still need to look into selling the 70-300mm and upgrading my 18-70mm (since that is what I usually shoot with)
|
|
|
|
09/25/2007 03:57:31 PM · #9 |
| I'll sell you my 70-300ED. Make me an offer if you'd like |
|
|
|
09/25/2007 04:05:38 PM · #10 |
landscapes: You need to go down to at least 18mm. The Tokina 12-24 is very nice for the price, but too short to use as a normal lens. With your price constraints, a Nikon 18-135 or 18-70 is probably better, because it can double as a walking around lens.
wildlife: You need to get up to at least 300mm for wildlife or birds. Given your price limits, the only one I would really consider is the Nikon 70-300 VR. I have not tried this lens, but I've heard some good things about it. At least it seems to be better than the others. I never found anything but heartache in this price range. Unless you *really* have to shoot wildlife now, you might forgo a long zoom for awhile until you have more money, and get an 80-200 f/2.8 with a teleconverter or two. (Actually, I have an older 80-200 for sale right now for $600 if you're interested. PM me.)
portrait: Nikon 50mm f/1.8 and 60mm f/2.8 macro are both reasonably priced portrait lenses. The 60 is more expensive, but doubles as a short macro. Or you could buy extension tubes or close up filters for the 50.
If it were me....I'd get the 18-135, and the 50mm f/1.8. Then I'd keep an eye open for the others, and buy them as I found good deals and had the money. |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 07:27:12 PM · #11 |
| Why switch camera brands when you already have a E500? You haven't upgraded to the good stuff Olympus offers for lenses. Serously, the 14-54mm lens is a Great portrait lens. Telephoto 50-200mm also a great lens. For macro stuff the 35mm is awesome. Yeah the lenses cost money but its because good glass costs good cash:) Besides why learn a new system when you already own one that is fully capable? |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 07:34:40 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by MQuinn:
Why switch camera brands when you already have a E500? You haven't upgraded to the good stuff Olympus offers for lenses. Serously, the 14-54mm lens is a Great portrait lens. Telephoto 50-200mm also a great lens. For macro stuff the 35mm is awesome. Yeah the lenses cost money but its because good glass costs good cash:) Besides why learn a new system when you already own one that is fully capable? |
Nikon was my first choice when I bought my Olympus. I couldn't afford it then. I can now. I'm a traitor lol, what can I say? |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 07:37:11 PM · #13 |
| I bought mine because I liked it the best after much review, knowing I was going to get some of the best glass down the road. Good luck on your switch! |
|
|
|
09/29/2007 07:50:54 PM · #14 |
Well after everything I've read I don't consider it the best. But getting into dSLR's, you really can't go wrong at this point.
I have no qualms about switching. |
|
|
|
10/17/2007 04:24:26 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by annpatt:
...an 80-200 f/2.8 with a teleconverter or two. |
I'm just looking into teleconverters....(can't afford the bigger glass) Have a 70-300mm...
What brand should I look for for my Nikon D50? I see a few option on ebay i.e. 2x Kenko, etc...
any suggestions, and what do I need to know when looking (my basic info is it will double the focal length).... |
|
|
|
10/17/2007 04:34:22 PM · #16 |
Keeping the 2200 you mentioned in mind
D80 + 18-200 VR (for landscape and everything to carry around) + 50mm f/1.8 (for portraits) + card
you can add 10-20mm Sigma / Tokin 12-24mm later, and a Sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro (both combined another 1k)
other option
D80 + 18-135mm kit lens (it has some nice reviews, really sharp lens) + Nikon 75-300mm + 50mm f/1.8 + add if you can 105mm f/2.8
Edit : Add a SB-600 external flash, will work as a slave with your d80!
Message edited by author 2007-10-17 16:39:23. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/30/2025 06:55:56 AM EST.
