DSLR advice? What camera's and lens to consider? - Page 2

Scott Merryfield · 06-22-2007, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnRice

Canon has never made an auto focus SLR that didn't have the motor in the lens. This even goes back to their first failed attempt (the T-80, I think) in the late 70s or early 80s. I don't know if that means any EF lens is compatible with all current bodies, but all Canon AF SLR lenses have the motor integrated.

All Canon EF lenses will work on all current Canon camera bodies. Canon EF-S lenses, however, will only work on the crop sensor bodies, such as the XT, XTi, 20D, and 30D.

Man-Fai Wong · 06-22-2007, 07:54 PM

BTW, RE: the Canon lens situation, I really don't like how they added EF-S to the landscape (unlike how DX works for Nikon). While it's great to already have the option to move up to a full frame (or 1.3x crop) body w/in the system, it's bad that one has to be concerned about future compatibility issues in choosing an EF-S lens for a 1.6x crop body. And if you don't get an EF-S lens at least for wideangle use, you'll be rather limited in your choices for wideangle on a 1.6x crop body. Fortunately, there are some very nice 3rd party offerings to help fill the gap nowadays. Still...

_Man_

Chris PC · 06-22-2007, 09:46 PM

Not bothering with the D40x. Seems odd. $200 less than the D80 and many features missing including the AF motor. I think I'm going to grab a nice lens or two and a D50 body and get into it and then maybe a D80 later...depending.

Scott Merryfield · 06-22-2007, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Man-Fai Wong

BTW, RE: the Canon lens situation, I really don't like how they added EF-S to the landscape (unlike how DX works for Nikon). While it's great to already have the option to move up to a full frame (or 1.3x crop) body w/in the system, it's bad that one has to be concerned about future compatibility issues in choosing an EF-S lens for a 1.6x crop body. And if you don't get an EF-S lens at least for wideangle use, you'll be rather limited in your choices for wideangle on a 1.6x crop body. Fortunately, there are some very nice 3rd party offerings to help fill the gap nowadays. Still...

_Man_

While the EF-S lens compatibility issue is a small concern to me, I figure that if I do eventually want to migrate to a full frame body, the two EF-S lenses I own should not be that difficult to sell -- the EF-S 10-22mm and EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 are both very well regarded lenses. Right now, though, I have no plans to move away from the crop sensors. Full frame is much too expensive for this amateur, and the 1.6 crop cameras perform fine for my level of photography.

Chris PC · 06-23-2007, 09:23 AM

I went to Henrys and saw the D80 and some lens. I am still thinking of going with a used D50/70/100 to start with, probably a used D50, and a lens or two. Here are the lens that were mentioned to me at Henrys:

D80 was $1069
18-70 $330 with the D80
18-200 VR $869 with the D80

70-300 $449
70-300 VR $669

I think they are all ED glass. Any thoughts re these lens?

thanks,

P.S. Prices are in CDN

JohnRice · 06-23-2007, 11:10 AM

I would stay away from all-in-one lenses like an 18-200. Just be a man and split that over a few lenses. You're better off in the end with image quality.

Chris PC · 06-23-2007, 12:37 PM

Really? If that is the case in terms of image quality, I'm cool with that. 18-70 and the 70-300 VR with either of the D50 or D70. I wonder how the D100 compares. I like the D50's SD memory but there are features on the D70 that are missing on the D50.

DanaA · 06-23-2007, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris PC

Really? If that is the case in terms of image quality, I'm cool with that. 18-70 and the 70-300 VR with either of the D50 or D70. I wonder how the D100 compares. I like the D50's SD memory but there are features on the D70 that are missing on the D50.

Chris, I've been spending quite some time of late at forums for Nikon owners and they pretty much rave about the 70-300VR. When I was considering getting the D40, I was drooling over that lens more than the camera itself. You might, if you want, check out some online sites like Beach Cameras, as they have the lens for $489. I know that they also have free shipping on much of their stock. Still, many aren't comfortable ordering things, especially vulnerable things, online, although Beach has a pretty good reputation. If you go there, you might also want to give a looksee at to the prices of the Nikon camera bodies.

Another place you might want to check is B & H cameras, as they well might have the best reputation of any online dealer.

Man-Fai Wong · 06-23-2007, 04:52 PM

Yeah, unless you really need the all-in-one for traveling lite, etc., I'd go for "separates" for better IQ. Too bad Nikon doesn't (yet?) offer IS in one of their wider DX zooms like Canon did not long ago w/ a couple EF-S wide zooms. Would be nice to have the option of 17-55 f/2.8 VR and 18-70 VR much like Canon's 17-55 f/2.8 IS and 17-85 IS. Maybe they will do it in their next batch of lens updates. Right now, they only have the old 24-120 VR for wide zoom w/ IS -- and it's not a DX lens though I heard IQ can be iffy on it.

Anyway, the 18-70 is a pretty good wide zoom though it has a kind of odd wavy geometry distortion at the wide end -- not good for shooting architecture and such -- and needs to be stopped down a bit to avoid some light fall-off in the corners (mainly at the wide end). The light fall-off can be apparent or very noticeable if you're shooting a brightly and evenly lit scene that extends into the corners -- though you'd usually stop down some anyway for such situations. I forget, but I always shoot w/ the hood on, and the hood might increase the light fall-off, so maybe leaving it off for certain cases might help too -- and use of thick filters (like Polarizer) can be an issue for this as well. One other possible caveat is that this DX wide zoom will vignette throughout its entire range when used on a full-frame body, if you were thinking of ever wanting to use it on a FF body (though Nikon does not offer digital FF yet). Now, all this stuff might scare some folks off

but most of it does come w/ the territory, and I'm just giving you a heads up on it.

For a good wide zoom, some folks also opt for 3rd party offerings like the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (also an APS crop lens) instead while others go for one of the more expensive f/2.8 Nikkors, ie. 17-35 f/2.8 (full frame) or 17-55 f/2.8 (DX/APS crop lens). There are lots of ways to go w/ this as you can imagine, and you may eventually find yourself w/ some amount of overlap as you add lenses based on your "needs" -- perhaps a prime lens or three could be in your future.

It'd be good to get a solid idea of what you'll be shooting for the forseeable future so you can plan your purchases better and don't end up w/ too much unnecessary overlap -- or needing to sell off lenses as you go.

For the tele zoom, I'd stay away from the older, non-VR 70-300s -- yes, there were 2 of them one w/ ED, one w/out. The recently released 70-300 VR has been getting lots of raves, so if you don't need f/2.8 in your tele zoom, then it seems like the best way to go right now -- and most f/2.8 tele zooms are >=3lb, cost a good deal more, and stops at 200mm. If you want to save some $$$ there, a solid alternative would be a used 70-210 f/4 though it's not VR and not AF-S -- you can usually find one on eBay for <=$200US. There's also the relatively new, extra light, inexpensive 55-200 DX VR, which seems to get some very good reviews for its IQ despite being a cheap consumer (kit level) zoom. However, seems like there can be more "copy variations" (or quality control) w/ this lens than usual, so your first try at it might not yield a good one.

The only good lightweight f/2.8 tele zoom right now is the relatively new Sigma 50-150 f/2.8, which is an APS crop lens, though 150mm is a far cry from 300mm. If size/weight is not a problem (and you want to avoid the APS crop), you could also consider a used 80-200 f/2.8 or a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. There are a few different versions of the 80-200 f/2.8, including one w/ AF-S that's quite a bit more expensive. And w/ such big glass, the focus speed between AF-S (or Sigma's HSM) and not AF-S can be quite noticeable on a non-pro Nikon body -- the pro bodies have much more powerful AF motors (and hunger for battery power) to drive non-AF-S lenses. Still, the non-AF-S 80-200 f/2.8 is quite popular as an affordable f/2.8 option (in the used market) amongst Nikon folks. And then, some of us just opt for a couple tele primes to go alongside something like the 70-300 VR instead.

One thing you should note about 3rd party lenses is that Sigma lenses tend to add a soft yellow cast (and might have more quality control issues than some others) while Tamron might add a slight amber cast. Tokina seems more neutral, but might be more susceptible to CA/purple fringing.

Another prevailing trend about differences between APS crop lenses and full frame 35mm lenses is APS crop lenses tend to be sharp in the center and can quickly get softer as you approach the edges/corners of the APS size frame (and maybe even have some light fall-off like the 18-70 DX). FF 35mm lenses tend to be more even across the APS size frame though they might not always be quite as sharp in the center as the newer APS crop lenses. And if you use FF 35mm lenses on FF bodies, then you'll see more similarity to the APS lenses on APS bodies -- as many Canon folks report when they move up to FF bodies. Comes w/ the territory...

Hope this helps...

_Man_

Chris PC · 06-23-2007, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Man-Fai Wong

Yeah, unless you really need the all-in-one for traveling lite, etc., I'd go for "separates" for better IQ. Too bad Nikon doesn't (yet?) offer IS in one of their wider DX zooms like Canon did not long ago w/ a couple EF-S wide zooms. Would be nice to have the option of 17-55 f/2.8 VR and 18-70 VR much like Canon's 17-55 f/2.8 IS and 17-85 IS. Maybe they will do it in their next batch of lens updates. Right now, they only have the old 24-120 VR for wide zoom w/ IS -- and it's not a DX lens though I heard IQ can be iffy on it.

Anyway, the 18-70 is a pretty good wide zoom though it has a kind of odd wavy geometry distortion at the wide end -- not good for shooting architecture and such -- and needs to be stopped down a bit to avoid some light fall-off in the corners (mainly at the wide end). The light fall-off can be apparent or very noticeable if you're shooting a brightly and evenly lit scene that extends into the corners -- though you'd usually stop down some anyway for such situations. I forget, but I always shoot w/ the hood on, and the hood might increase the light fall-off, so maybe leaving it off for certain cases might help too -- and use of thick filters (like Polarizer) can be an issue for this as well. One other possible caveat is that this DX wide zoom will vignette throughout its entire range when used on a full-frame body, if you were thinking of ever wanting to use it on a FF body (though Nikon does not offer digital FF yet). Now, all this stuff might scare some folks off

but most of it does come w/ the territory, and I'm just giving you a heads up on it.

For a good wide zoom, some folks also opt for 3rd party offerings like the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (also an APS crop lens) instead while others go for one of the more expensive f/2.8 Nikkors, ie. 17-35 f/2.8 (full frame) or 17-55 f/2.8 (DX/APS crop lens). There are lots of ways to go w/ this as you can imagine, and you may eventually find yourself w/ some amount of overlap as you add lenses based on your "needs" -- perhaps a prime lens or three could be in your future.

It'd be good to get a solid idea of what you'll be shooting for the forseeable future so you can plan your purchases better and don't end up w/ too much unnecessary overlap -- or needing to sell off lenses as you go.

For the tele zoom, I'd stay away from the older, non-VR 70-300s -- yes, there were 2 of them one w/ ED, one w/out. The recently released 70-300 VR has been getting lots of raves, so if you don't need f/2.8 in your tele zoom, then it seems like the best way to go right now -- and most f/2.8 tele zooms are >=3lb, cost a good deal more, and stops at 200mm. If you want to save some $$$ there, a solid alternative would be a used 70-210 f/4 though it's not VR and not AF-S -- you can usually find one on eBay for <=$200US. There's also the relatively new, extra light, inexpensive 55-200 DX VR, which seems to get some very good reviews for its IQ despite being a cheap consumer (kit level) zoom. However, seems like there can be more "copy variations" (or quality control) w/ this lens than usual, so your first try at it might not yield a good one.

The only good lightweight f/2.8 tele zoom right now is the relatively new Sigma 50-150 f/2.8, which is an APS crop lens, though 150mm is a far cry from 300mm. If size/weight is not a problem (and you want to avoid the APS crop), you could also consider a used 80-200 f/2.8 or a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. There are a few different versions of the 80-200 f/2.8, including one w/ AF-S that's quite a bit more expensive. And w/ such big glass, the focus speed between AF-S (or Sigma's HSM) and not AF-S can be quite noticeable on a non-pro Nikon body -- the pro bodies have much more powerful AF motors (and hunger for battery power) to drive non-AF-S lenses. Still, the non-AF-S 80-200 f/2.8 is quite popular as an affordable f/2.8 option (in the used market) amongst Nikon folks. And then, some of us just opt for a couple tele primes to go alongside something like the 70-300 VR instead.

One thing you should note about 3rd party lenses is that Sigma lenses tend to add a soft yellow cast (and might have more quality control issues than some others) while Tamron might add a slight amber cast. Tokina seems more neutral, but might be more susceptible to CA/purple fringing.

Another prevailing trend about differences between APS crop lenses and full frame 35mm lenses is APS crop lenses tend to be sharp in the center and can quickly get softer as you approach the edges/corners of the APS size frame (and maybe even have some light fall-off like the 18-70 DX). FF 35mm lenses tend to be more even across the APS size frame though they might not always be quite as sharp in the center as the newer APS crop lenses. And if you use FF 35mm lenses on FF bodies, then you'll see more similarity to the APS lenses on APS bodies -- as many Canon folks report when they move up to FF bodies. Comes w/ the territory...

Hope this helps...

_Man_

Wow. Helpful alright, but requires reading and thinking hard...lol... No free lunch. I guess it depends on what I'll be happy with. I would prefer no serious vignetting, and I'm not cool with chromatic abberations and softness. I like a sharp picture. If there is some barrel or pincusi