Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 23, 2002, 9:47 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 610
Default

When Nikon released the new D100, they degsined the new Nikon AF 24-85mm F/3.5-4.5 with the silent wave technology built in to the lens for this camera. This is a very light weight , fast AF and the AF_S works great. You also get very good pictures out of this lens too, the cost is very reasonable, about $350 at Sammy's camera. I love to carry this lens on a long trip for casual shooting and leave my AF-S 28-70mm F/2.8 at home. The lens comes with its custom flower shape lenshood, filter size is 67mm, but who care? cheaper than the 77mm any way, just make sure you get the multi-coated filter, not the mono coated filter. Cheers....

[Edited on 8-23-2002 by [email protected]]
tuanokc@hotmail.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 29, 2002, 9:50 PM   #12
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 30
Default D100 lenses

First, thanks to Steve for this amazing web site. I just bought the D100 after using the Olympus E10 for a year. I needed the extra zoom. The dealer suggested the Sigma 28-300 and advised not to spend extra for the Tamrom 38-300. I just need good shots of kids playing sports. i would appreciate any advice in this area.
Lenow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 12, 2002, 10:48 PM   #13
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 30
Default Tamron 28-300 XR

I have been using the new Tamron 28-300 XR Ultra lens after using the Sigma 28-300. The tamron is a much nicer lens to use. It is lighter, smaller and has a smoother feel when you zoom in and out. i know it is not like using the great lenses that other posts recommend, but for $400, and after shelling out $2000 for the D100, i was tapped out. I have been happy with the full zoom for sports events and the portrait shots have been great also. I imagine in a few months, or more, i might get a better prime lens, but I am not a pro and the convenience of the tamron lens is great. (i also checked with local camera repair shops who all recommended Tamron as a non manufacturer substitute.)
Lenow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 13, 2002, 9:32 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 610
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Lenow
The tamron is a much nicer lens to use. It is lighter, smaller and has a smoother feel when you zoom in and out. I have been happy with the full zoom for sports events and the portrait shots have been great also.
Are you sure about the lens is great to shoot the sport events, at its longest focal length at 300mm, it's a much slower lens than others and you still be able to achieve good autofocus? and do you still have plenty of options to use faster shutter speed to compensate for the handheld operation? What is the point of carry a compact lens and then you have to carry other heavy duty gears to support it. Sound like to me, if you use this lens a lot, you will have no choice but to carry along a tripod or at least the monopod, but then you still have the issue of limitted maximum openning of the lens on the telephoto range. Cheers

[Edited on 9-13-2002 by [email protected]]
tuanokc@hotmail.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 3, 2002, 10:01 PM   #15
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

If you mean you're beginning and want to start out simple, the Nikkor 50mm f1.8 seems to be the concensus best bet/best deal.

If you mean, you want to buy one to cover just about all your needs, I'd recommend the 24-85D.

If you want one and only one for everything some folks suggest the 28-300mm Tamron RX something (it's the newest one). It's supposedly pretty good and since you'll be using the center 2/3rds you 'll get the best part of it and not use the edges (where the less expensive lenses have problems).

Rich
  Reply With Quote
Old Oct 4, 2002, 5:26 PM   #16
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2
Default

Hi Luby,

I'm assuming based on the fact that you don't
already own thousands of dollars worth of
Nikon (or Canon) lenses that you're not a
professional photographer, but just someone
who's moving up to an SLR for the first time.
I'm kinda in the same boat, as I just moved
up from several Coolpix models to a D100.
Perhaps my experience so far would be helpful.

Like most (non-pro) people, in spending $2000
on the camera, I couldn't dump another 5K on
lenses to figure out which one was best, so
I started off with two $100 lenses: the
Nikon 50mm f1.8 prime & Nikon 28-80mm f3.3-5.6
G lens. Both were very good starters.

The 50 prine is great because it works really
well in low light, it's extremely fast focusing
and the optics are excellent. If you'll have
unlimited freedom to move closer & farther
away from your subject on foot, this is a
great choice. OTOH, for most photo situations
you're much better off having a zoom.

The Nikon 28-80 is pretty fast focusing, has
good optics and also takes excellent photos.
Also, both of these lenses are very light,
which is nice, as the camera is pretty heavy
if what you're used to is a coolpix or other
smaller digital camera.

The main thing I shoot pictures of is bands
playing in nightclubs (you can see most of
the pix at http://www.perry.com/concerts/),
so I decided I needed a longer zoom range.
I don't really want to change lenses in a
smoky club, so I decided to go for one of the
(non-Nikon GASP!) super-zooms.

I still couldn't afford to throw down $1000+
for the lens, so I narrowed it down to the
Tamron 28-200 and the Tokina 24-200. They
both had good reviews (from everyone but
the snooty pros who think anything non-Nikon
is garbage), so I eventually decided on the
Tokina for the extra zoom on the wide end.

So far I've been very happy with the Tokina.
The zoom ring isn't quite as smooth as the
Nikon (a bit tighter), but autofocus is
equally fast and it still takes some
excellent photos. It's heavier than either
of the other lenses, but that's the tradeoff
you pay for more zoom.

I would love to get one of the f2.8 Nikon
zooms (the 35-70 or 80-200), but they're much
bigger and heavier than the Tokina & they
don't have it's total zoom range.

So the answer to your question is:

If you're a pro, and need the one best lens
for a variety of situations, probably spend
the $1400 and get a Nikon 35-70 f2.8 and
suffer through the weight & get the best
quality photos. If you're an amateur like
me, then either the Nikon 28-80 or the
Tokina 24-200 is a good compromise.

John
JohnPerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2002, 2:01 AM   #17
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 3
Default First lens?

If you only want one lens to start with (and not a zoom) I would suggest the 20mm 2.8 Nikkor :lol:
pete biro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 19, 2002, 7:17 PM   #18
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 5
Default

Dont fool yourself. anyone who claims they get better results from sigma optics probably is in denial because they are to stingy/cheap to pay for nikkor. It is like night and day. Nikon is an OPTICS MANUFACTURER.Figure it out.
MizzleJizzle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 3, 2002, 6:27 PM   #19
Member
 
Pilaar39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 50
Default 50mm for DSLR?

This may sound like a bit of a stupid question..

but I have read several recommendations here to go with a 50mm lens. Not owning a DSLR yet (hope to soon!), I believe the effective focal length of a 50mm lens when used on a DLSR is about 75mm. If that is the case, it no longer is a 'standard' 50mm lens strictly speaking, but effectively becomes a short telephoto lens, right?

So, would it not be better to go with a 35mm lens on a DSLR, which would make it effectively a 50mm lens? If that is the case, why is Nikon not making faster 35mm lenses? I have seen 1.2, 14. and 1.8 50mm lenses, but only a 2.0 35mm lens.

maybe I have it all wrong.. please correct me. :-)
Pilaar39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2002, 12:40 PM   #20
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 33
Default Re: 50mm for DSLR?

If that is the case, why is Nikon not making faster 35mm lenses? I have seen 1.2, 14. and 1.8 50mm lenses, but only a 2.0 35mm lens.

maybe I have it all wrong.. please correct me. :-)[/quote]


I am using my old Nikkor AIS 35mm f 1.4 lens on a D100! It is big and fast. Also use a Nikkor AIS 50mm f 1.2.

the S part of the the AIS means the lens was built with a groove cut into the rear lens mount so the camera body's feeler/probe would know which lens was mounted...pre lenses with chips.
geyer is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:07 PM.