| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/10/2006 09:38:59 AM · #1 |
So any day now I'll be getting the D200 (as soon as B&H gets them) alongside te 18-70, the 70-300 (I can't leave without my 300mm end). But now my father's making things more difficult and saying that the 50mm 1.8 is too cheap and I should get the 50mm 1.4, I'm trying to persuade him out of that.
Now I can also get another lens but I'm really not sure what. It should be under 400bucks and could be usefull for portrait and studio work. I was thinking nikkor 60mm, or sigma 28mm, since I don't have any macros. Any advice, ideas, suggestions? Any help?
|
|
|
|
03/10/2006 09:50:49 AM · #2 |
I've heard good things about the nikkor 60mm. But if you're planning in macr's of wildlife forget it. You'll have to be close to the bug butt to have 1:1 macro. But this might be very good for portraits and still life/plants macro's. If you'll use the 28mm range I'll strongly suggest the sigma 30mm f1.4 It's just too good to live withought. My next lens for shure!
|
|
|
|
03/10/2006 10:24:26 AM · #3 |
The 30mm just goes over the price range but thanx for the idea, I'll look into that
|
|
|
|
03/10/2006 10:51:15 AM · #4 |
If you're planning on doing macro work, get the AF Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8D, which is a superb macro lens and it can be used for portraits as well.
Personally, I would be lost without mine.
You should be able do pick one up on eBay for less than $400, I did.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2006 10:56:35 AM · #5 |
I have both the 50 1.8 and the 60 micro 2.8. They are great I find that I want both the 1.8 is fast, sharp and fun. I dont believe for what I do that I could justify the expense of the 1.4. Yes the 50 1.8 is plastic but I think its the best lense ever for 75.00. The 60 2.8 is awsome just look a librodo's work for a testament to the lens.
I think most Nikon and Canon user's for that matter will tell you the 50 1.8 is the best deal going.
Good luck!
P.S. and yes the 105 micro is a must but I still need that one.
Message edited by author 2006-03-10 11:26:17. |
|
|
|
03/10/2006 11:28:06 AM · #6 |
I also have both
the 60mm is on the camera more than the 50mm
(and the 105 is on more than both combind but that is a nonissue)
but the 50mm is much more discrete ;) |
|
|
|
03/10/2006 12:26:47 PM · #7 |
I have the 50mm f/1.8, and it's a very useful lens, very sharp, too. The f/1.4 version is also fantastic from what I've read, but if I had a few hundred bucks to spare, I would not upgrade the 50 f/1.8, instead I would get the 35mm f/2, which is very small, sharp, relatively inexpensive, and closer to the "normal" lens (50mm with the crop factor) than the 50mm. In fact, I think that the 35/2 will be the next lens that I'll buy. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is also a good suggestion, but it is not as sharp as the 35/2 outside the center of the frame and is quite a bit heavier.
For macro, I would, personally, stay away from the Nikon 60 f/2.8 (I know that many will dissagree). I don't have it, but from the many samples that I've seen, the 60/2.8 is extremely sharp, but the pictures shot by it often have this lifeless technical feeling to them. If spending the same money, I would get the highly praised Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro, which has better bokeh and more reach than the 60mm Nikkor. The Tokina 100mm f/2.8 macro would also be very high on my list of possible suspects. |
|
|
|
03/10/2006 12:56:49 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
For macro, I would, personally, stay away from the Nikon 60 f/2.8 (I know that many will dissagree). I don't have it, but from the many samples that I've seen, the 60/2.8 is extremely sharp, but the pictures shot by it often have this lifeless technical feeling to them. |
Your right I disagree and this proves my point 60mm 2.8 Images from this site if these are lifeless then I need to get my eyes poked out.
Message edited by author 2006-03-10 12:59:19. |
|
|
|
03/10/2006 12:57:19 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Ennil:
The 30mm just goes over the price range but thanx for the idea, I'll look into that |
It's sold for 377 euro, including 19% sales tax, in Holland at the moment. So depending on the sales tax of the location you intend to get it from, you have an idea of what price you can bargain.
Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 should also be under 400 euro.
|
|
|
|
03/10/2006 01:18:08 PM · #10 |
I think that the 50 mm 1.8 can not be beat for the price. i don't really see the extra f stop being worth it on the 1.4. To me it seems that on the 1.8 the depth of field can get so shallow at 1.8 that it becomes difficult to use. If you just focus on an area and move the camera slighlty to recompose it is often enough to knock your focus off. (this is also a bit of a complaint on the d70 because it only has 5 focus zones instead of the 9 needed to get coverage in all the corners)
As for another lens I really don't have the experience with other lenses to say for certain but if you had a little more than $400 I would say look at the 80-200 2.8. You could also consider a fisheye (I really want one of those) or a doubler. |
|
|
|
03/10/2006 01:43:00 PM · #11 |
| For what it is worth, the Nikkor 60mm has proven to be a great lens for me. In addition to it serving as an everyday lens, I've used it for a lot of technical photography on my archaeological excavation and I've been thrilled with the results. However, part of my love of the lens is due to the fact that I lucked out and bought it used for $100. The cost out of the box might make it a little less attractive. |
|
|
|
03/10/2006 02:12:25 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Your right I disagree and this proves my point 60mm 2.8 Images from this site if these are lifeless then I need to get my eyes poked out. |
Perhaps "lifeless" was the wrong word. It's hard to describe. There are awesome pictures at the above link, but which of them *really* demonstrate subtlety of the lens, rather than the photographer's skills?
I saw a few forum threads from people who have the 60mm and other macro lenses, and, from the pictures I saw, some other lenses from the same price range (particularly the Tamron 90/2.8 and the old manual focus Tokina 90mm f/2.8) have just as much sharpness and contrast, *plus* nicer out-of-focus rendering than the 60mm, and, maybe, something else which is hard to quantify or describe, which some choose to call the character of the lens.
Don't get me wrong, I would be mad to call the 60mm f/2.8 a bad lens: it's a *great* lens with superb sharpness and contrast, and, I hear, very little optical distortions. All I was saying is that for the same money there are other choices of macro lenses that appeal more to me personally: I would definitely choose the Tamron 90/2.8 macro or Tokina 100/2.8 macro over the Nikon 60/2.8 macro. |
|
|
|
03/10/2006 02:33:01 PM · #13 |
| why are you switching to Nikon!? |
|
|
|
03/10/2006 02:57:45 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Tom_Robbrecht:
If you're planning on doing macro work, get the AF Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8D, which is a superb macro lens and it can be used for portraits as well.
Personally, I would be lost without mine.
You should be able do pick one up on eBay for less than $400, I did. |
This lens is awesome! I agree with Tom. I have the Sigma equivalent and its just as good as the Nikon, but considerably cheaper.
Message edited by author 2006-03-10 15:02:02. |
|
|
|
03/10/2006 03:42:29 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by agenkin:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Your right I disagree and this proves my point 60mm 2.8 Images from this site if these are lifeless then I need to get my eyes poked out. |
Perhaps "lifeless" was the wrong word. It's hard to describe. There are awesome pictures at the above link, but which of them *really* demonstrate subtlety of the lens, rather than the photographer's skills?
I saw a few forum threads from people who have the 60mm and other macro lenses, and, from the pictures I saw, some other lenses from the same price range (particularly the Tamron 90/2.8 and the old manual focus Tokina 90mm f/2.8) have just as much sharpness and contrast, *plus* nicer out-of-focus rendering than the 60mm, and, maybe, something else which is hard to quantify or describe, which some choose to call the character of the lens.
Don't get me wrong, I would be mad to call the 60mm f/2.8 a bad lens: it's a *great* lens with superb sharpness and contrast, and, I hear, very little optical distortions. All I was saying is that for the same money there are other choices of macro lenses that appeal more to me personally: I would definitely choose the Tamron 90/2.8 macro or Tokina 100/2.8 macro over the Nikon 60/2.8 macro. |
Yeah to each his own!
I just perfer fast Nikon glass whenever I can afford it.(The only non nikon glass I have is the 12-24 tokina its very nice)
Plus with the 60mm I got a screamin deal on it and the main reason I got it was being inspired by Librodo & Gringo. I am very happy with the 60mm abilities for my needs. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 06:39:44 AM EDT.
