The better of the two lens kits? (1 Viewer)

[JohnRice]

I think those are your two basic options. As far as between the two, that comes down to gadgety stuff I couldn't care less about and therefore don't know, so, your buddy Sam should be perfect to answer them.


C'mon Sam, I had to take that shot.

 

[Sam Posten]

OK, a number o things.


1. The 18-55 kit lens is OK for what it is. It's slow aperture wise but ok focusing speed on both Canon and Nikon.

2. The kits you listed yesterday DID NOT SHOW at least of kits having the equivalent 18-55

3. I have a spare 18-55VR for nikon (a $150 value) you can HAVE FOR FREE if you want if you buy a kit that does not come with one (this offer is non transferable, sorry other HTFers)

4. My experience has been that the canon and nikon 55-200 zooms are ok but not great

5. The Nikon 70-300 VR lens is FANTASTIC

6. The Canon 70-300IS lens (yes the upgraded one, not the old one) is slow to focus and has loud, clunky IS

7. The Nikon 18-200 is fantastic for what it is. I chose to go with the heavier 'pro' lenses but I still keep my 18-200 for walkabout purposes. You could probably get only the 18-200 and be happy with what you have for years, not needing another lens. I have never used the canon equivalent, sorry.


Best buy charges list price for just about everything. I understand the financing angle. You are better off buying at Costco for their extended warranty and exchange policy in addition to the cost savings if you arent financing. B&H or Adorama will have better prices and don't collect state sales tax (you are on your own for reporting it).


Also: crossposting is the debbil

 

[JohnRice]

Sam, here is a thing I was wondering about when suggesting Ron consider the 18-200. I am guessing it is better in the 18-55 range than the kit lens. That along with the fact he would most likely not need another lens for the use he has specified is why I made the suggestion.


Does the Nikon 18-55 have a plastic mount? That is one thing that makes me nervous. I understand the Nikon 18-105 has a plastic mount as well, but I expect the 18-200 doesn't. I have been wanting an all purpose lens for my D200 because I have nothing but big, heavy, full frame, short range zooms, but plastic mounts? Yeesh. The 18-105 could be good for me otherwise.

 

[JohnRice]

Ron, post #18 has the correct links being discussed for Best Buy...


The same items from OneCall are below...


Nikon d5000 w/18-55

http://www.onecall.com/product/Nikon/D5000-Kit/Digital-SLR/_/R-97343


70-300 telephoto

http://www.onecall.com/product/Nikon/70-300mm-f-4-5-5-6G-ED-IF-AF-S/Lens/_/R-34019



Canon Rebel T2i w/18-55

http://www.onecall.com/product/Canon/EOS-Rebel-T2i-Kit/Digital-SLR/_/R-103342


70-300 telephoto

http://www.onecall.com/product/Canon/EF-70-300mm-f4-5-6-IS-USM/Lens/_/R-29551

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnRice
Since Man brought up the full-frame issue, I'll let him explain it.

------------------------------------------------------

Hahaha...

Ron,

Think of fullframe as using the entire 35mm frame for the image and "
digital" crop -- actually APS size crop for these cameras -- as only using the
center 50%(?).

What would happen if you blow up both images to same size?

Of course, FF is not w/out its own issues (mainly in terms of practicality and
convenience at this point), but if PQ is of paramount concern, you will
eventually itch for that upgrade, especially as FF bodies become more
affordable.

The Canon EF-S (take note of the -S at the end) lenses are all designed
specifically for their APS size crop bodies and cannot be used on FF bodies,
whether digital or film. On the Nikon side, such lenses are marked as DX
lenses (although Nikon's design still allows them to be partially useable on
FF bodies).

If/when you use a (traditional) FF 35mm lens on a cropped body, you are
only using the center 50% of the lens, which is usually better than the
masked out side portions. However, packing in so many pixels in a smaller
image becomes an issue (as John alluded wrt the MP race), eg. you probably
won't see any actual PQ gains between the T2i's 18MP vs the D5000's 12MP
using anything less than prime lenses in optimal light.

Anyway, FF is far out of your current consideration, but I thought to mention it
in part because you'd be spending the extra $ on the T2i anyway -- it
probably makes more sense to spend the extra on better glass instead of
whatever tiny diffs between the T2i and D5000.


RE: the lenses themselves, I've never used the Canon ones, but the Nikon
70-300 VR definitely has the best rep amongst these AFAIK. Besides better
PQ (and being a FF 35mm lens), it also AFs quite fast whereas the cheaper
Nikon kit telezoom is on the slow side -- not sure about the Canon in this
regard.

RE: those 18-200 (and most any) superzooms, they are all fairly
compromised in order to achieve the all-in-one convenience. However, the
Nikon version can be pretty good as far as these things go.

Usually, a couple issues w/ such superzooms are the kind of geometry
distortions and some light fall-off you get at the wide end -- that would be
besides any other PQ compromises like sharpness, etc. If the extra
convenience is not a big deal to you, you'll probably want to avoid the
superzooms.


Finally, yeah, if the subject will be spot-lit on stage, you *might* be able to
get decent enough results near the 300mm end -- not all spot lighting are
created equal and it'll probably also depend on whether ISO1600-3200 (
w/ stage lighting) is acceptable to you. I'd recommend bringing a decent
monopod to help out unless you have a very steady camera hold. Even so,
you should know that no amount of "image stabilization" can actually stop
the motion of a moving subject.

OTOH, I guess you're probably allowed to fire your speedlight in many of
those situations covering conventions and such though I'm not sure the lower
powered 420ex will be enough to help -- depends on exactly how far you'll
be.

_Man_

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

I should clarify that when I say Nikon's DX lenses are "partially useable on FF bodies" I mean that in a very literal sense -- and you may never actually want to do that.


Also, I should probably reiterate John's point that the person using the tools is going to make the most diff in the grand scheme of things.

For instance, is it really not feasible to do some of your "zooming" by foot? There really is no substitute (w/ a longer lens) for actually getting closer to the "action". I would never want to just rely on the longer reach of a lens, if getting closer is actually doable.

So yeah, don't sweat too much over this purchase and then forget what will actually matter most afterward. If you've never taking any kind of photography course (whether a basic online tutorial or two or a "live" one in person), I'd strongly recommend doing so to go along w/ the purchase. It's never too late to learn, but it'll be all up to you.

_Man_

 

[JohnRice]

I'll add a little to that. A year or so ago I was asking here about a new DSLR. In all these years, I have to admit, I've never fully accepted digital, mainly because I think it has prompted such a tremendous step backward in the ART of photography. Recent comments made by Jack Briggs (in another thread) regarding his perceived decline in the creativity and growing "coldness" of graphic design is a similar phenomena. it is no actually the fault of the technology, but in how it is perceived and most certainly in how it is used. Anyway, I received some extensive responses regarding why I would prefer the newer, more "amateur" camera verses the older, more "Professional" camera. My thought, after reading the many technological advances between the two was, "Why the HELL would I want all that crap?"


I think all the smoke and mirrors increasingly built into cameras not only does NOT improve the results in many cases, it actually discourages the user from understanding what he is doing. So, get a camera (personally I would probably go Nikon and then forget about it) and then LEARN, as Man suggested. It is a gratifying and enjoyable hobby, and no matter how long you spend with it, there is always more to learn. Some people are put off by that. I find it challenging. Plus, you have no idea how much of an expert you have at your disposal.

 

[Sam Posten]

Originally Posted by JohnRice

Sam, here is a thing I was wondering about when suggesting Ron consider the 18-200. I am guessing it is better in the 18-55 range than the kit lens. That along with the fact he would most likely not need another lens for the use he has specified is why I made the suggestion.


Does the Nikon 18-55 have a plastic mount? That is one thing that makes me nervous. I understand the Nikon 18-105 has a plastic mount as well, but I expect the 18-200 doesn't. I have been wanting an all purpose lens for my D200 because I have nothing but big, heavy, full frame, short range zooms, but plastic mounts? Yeesh. The 18-105 could be good for me otherwise.

The 18-200 has a full metal mount. The shell is plastic tho, so it's very comfortable at its size. Not sure on the 18-55vr, it's never been out of the box. I wouldn't care about the mount on that, it's light as a feather and wouldn't stress anything on the body.

I wish they made an official D5000 and 18-200 kit, I would recommend that to ron in an instant.

 

[Sam Posten]

Originally Posted by JohnRice /forum/thread/302471/the-better-of-the-two-lens-kits#post_3713354

I continue to disagree. I think that even the low end DSLRs continue to make the MAS modes available for people who know what they are doing to get the most out of a camera, the noise at high iso today is incredibly clean (and you can add more back in if that's your bag), and the ability to learn from specific results on the camera seconds after a shot is truly invaluable.


Of course, for the lazy, the bells and whistles do continue to encourage laziness. But for those who want to learn it's all there. I recommended in his last thread that Ron not go down the DSLR route just yet and I continue to be pessimistic that unless he is willing to learn about the fundamentals of photography that he won't be satisfied with his purchase, but he seems intent on it this time so I'll do what I can to provide the input I can without, as you say, totally confusing him.

 

[JohnRice]

Originally Posted by Sam Posten


Of course, for the lazy, the bells and whistles do continue to encourage laziness. But for those who want to learn it's all there.

The thing is Sam, you say you disagree, but the first statement above then agrees with the essence of what I am saying. The first group you describe above is almost all there is left. The second group is almost non-existant, due (I believe) to the things causing the first group to grow like weeds. I even talked to a local camera club a while back. Beforehand I emphasized that I am not interested in discussing gadgets and digital tweeks, but would love to discuss photography. The response I got back was, "Great, we are in agreement then. We are all about photography." I sat through their "critique" before I spoke and all I heard was technobabble. Photoshop modes and filters, largely meaningless file modes and so on. I've been in a LOT of critiques in my life, back in school anyway and this was the first one with not one word about anything resembling a creative process, what they were trying to convey or accomplish. It was all buttons and dials. In fact, "creativity" has become so much about that, very few people realize that is not creativity at all.


End of (yet another) rant. I would promise, but instead I'll promise to do my best....



And, thanks for the info Sam.

 

[Sam Posten]

You bet. I make no bones about the fact that I personally come to photography with a large technology monkey on my back and a serious artistic deficit. I think where we differ is that both the tech and art excite me but I can grok the tech stuff easily while I have to really change my whole consciousness to try to appreciate the things that a real artist takes for granted. And it's clear that it's easy to overuse the geeky stuff as a crutch for the lack of vision, but I assure you there are those of us who legitimately try...

 

[Ronald Epstein]

So, it looks like through all this John Rice has put together

my two choices:



Nikon d5000 w/18-55

http://www.onecall.com/product/Nikon/D5000-Kit/Digital-SLR/_/R-97343


70-300 telephoto

http://www.onecall.com/product/Nikon/70-300mm-f-4-5-5-6G-ED-IF-AF-S/Lens/_/R-34019



Canon Rebel T2i w/18-55

http://www.onecall.com/product/Canon/EOS-Rebel-T2i-Kit/Digital-SLR/_/R-103342


70-300 telephoto

http://www.onecall.com/product/Canon/EF-70-300mm-f4-5-6-IS-USM/Lens/_/R-29551


...and it comes with Sam Posten's blessings I believe.


Will order one or the other tomorrow. One Call seems ideal as I will probably

not have to pay tax.

 

[JohnRice]

After the feedback from both Man and Sam regarding the 70-300s, Nikon sounds like the better option. Get a second battery for the camera, at least. Memory cards are really cheap from places like Meritline.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Thanks for the opinion.


I was just about ready to order the Canon Rebel

Package from One Call (though they are out of stock

for the moment).


Really...go for the Nikon?


If you insist...should I get this lens cover?


http://www.onecall.com/product/ProMaster/52mm-UV-Haze/Filter/_/R-6176


Also, any major difference between these two

speedlights?


http://www.onecall.com/product/Nikon/SB-400/Flash-Unit/_/R-83358


http://www.onecall.com/product/Nikon/SB-600/Flash-Unit/_/R-24337

 

[JohnRice]

Unless I recall incorrectly, the consensus seemed to be that the Nikon 70-300 is significantly better.


A UV filter is a good idea. Get one for both lenses and be certain to get the right size. Put it on and leave it on. Put the lens cap over it when not using the lens.


I think you probably want to go with the SB-600. You want to have enough power and the bounce feature is very useful.



Maybe Man and Sam want to chime in on the brand choice.

 

[Neil Middlemiss]

Ron - you remember just how far back we were for the Stan Lee panel. Here are two shots taken with the Nikon VR 55-200 lense (which came in a kit).


The first has Stan revealing his name on his jacket before taking it off (to cheers) and the second has moderator Todd McFarlane

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Neil,


What were the settings for those shots? There's no EXIF data on those posted pics -- maybe the Huddler software stripped(?) them.



Anyway, I tried doing a quick google to get a better sense of the Canon telezoom, and apparently, it's a tad better than I thought PQ-wise anyway. The Nikon seems somewhat better from 70-200mm, but is probably noticeably worse around the edges at 300mm (unless you stop it down some) -- the Canon seems to not lose as much PQ-wise going from 200mm to 300mm (though it also has a bit less to lose in the first place). The Nikon is probably better in various mechanical respects, eg. having full-time manual focus capability (though this might not matter to Ron), probably somewhat better IS engine, maybe moderately better build quality and somewhat faster AF, etc.


For those who want to see the lab tests and such from photozone.de, here are the relevant links -- please don't shoot the messenger though about measurebating:


http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/250-nikkor-af-s-70-300mm-f45-56-g-if-ed-vr-review--test-report


http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/200-canon-ef-70-300mm-f4-56-usm-is-test-report--review


My own experience w/ my copy of the Nikon 70-300VR (as w/ most other folks who comment about it) would agree w/ the findings about the PQ getting noticeably worse from 200mm to 300mm -- and I had thought the Canon's PQ would degrade similarly, but the photozone tests shows somewhat differently.


Please do note though that such tests have their limitations as there can often be lens copy variations w/ such things although Nikon lenses tend to vary less near as I can tell.


Overall, the Nikon telezoom still seems better w/ a caveat about shooting in the 250mm-plus range -- the tests don't give details between 200-300mm, but I suspect the crossover point between the two would be somewhere around 250mm (and the last 50mm is not a lot once you get that far into the tele range). Personally, I'd just recommend staying away from 300mm as much as possible for reasons other than just the absolute PQ issue (as I've pointed out before) -- and if you have enough light, stopping down some on the Nikon would offset the diff as well.



RE: the speedlight, yeah, the SB600 would be comparable to the 420ex in flash power. Beyond the flash power itself, the SB600 would be the more advanced speedlight and also allows manual adjustments, etc., which may not matter to you until/unless you start using it creatively (like as a slave in a wireless setup and/or as a 2ndary light source like hair light). For straightforward on-camera shooting, you probably won't notice any real diff although Nikon claims to have more advanced flash metering for use w/ the SB600 that the 420ex wouldn't support (on Canon's equiv) -- I'm really unsure how much of this is real vs mere marketing hype myself.


_Man_

 

[Ronald Epstein]

A UV filter is a good idea. Get one for both lenses and be certain to get the right size.




I am guessing that this will fit the 18-55mm lens


http://www.onecall.com/product/ProMaster/52mm-UV-Haze/Filter/_/R-6176


And there are two different ones that I am guessing are for the 70-300mm lens.

Which one do I get?


http://www.onecall.com/product/ProMaster/67mm-UV-Haze-Multicoated/Filter/_/R-19586


http://www.onecall.com/product/ProMaster/67mm-UV-Haze/Filter/_/R-6180


(There is a $10 difference between the two)



Finally, is ONE CALL the type of place that if I buy $1400 worth of camera

equipment from them today that I can talk them into throwing in a bag? I am

interested in this starter kit for $50:


http://www.onecall.com/product/Nikon/DSLR-Starter-Pack/Photo-Video-Bags/_/R-101483

 

[Scott Merryfield]

Personally, I am not a fan of using UV filters, and only put them on to protect the lens when I am shooting in harsh environmental conditions (such as in the sulfur gas geyser areas of Yellowstone or the salt sea air along the ocean). The filter can only decrease the quality of the lens, and I just do not see the sense in putting a $50 filter in front of a $1,000 lens.


Instead, I use the lens hood religiously to help protect the front of the lens, as well as to help reduce lens flare and increase contrast. In general, I only use filters for effects -- such as circular polarizers and split neutral density filters.


Regarding Nikon versus Canon, I would suggest trying each brand out at the store if you can. Both systems will provide top-notch results, but the camera bodies do handle somewhat differently. In general, Nikon has a better flash system and slightly better auto focus system (although Canon has improved considerably in the latter), while Canon lenses are a little more affordable than Nikon equivalents (although there are exceptions). Also, if you are going to be shooting indoors without a flash in the future, Canon has a better prime lens lineup than Nikon -- and you will need the faster prime lenses for lower light indoor shooting.


The most important item, as we have mentioned numerous times, is to learn at least the basic principles of photography so you can shoot in the manual modes. Whenever we travel, I see most dSLR owners shooting in the "green box" auto mode all the time. While this will work under simple shooting conditions, you will not be able to get quality results under more challenging shooting situations.


I was reminded of this once again last week. We were in Niagara Falls, and I watched most dSLR owners trying to get night time pictures of the lighted Falls in auto mode. It just isn't going to work! Many of those folks probably think their fancy new, expensive camera is no better than their old point & shoot because their night time shots did not turn out well, when the problem is not the camera -- but instead the person operating it.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

As a last minute reprieve I am being taken to task on the Nikon choice based squarely on lens reviews. Seems the Cannon was rated better. I may now go Canon.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS (Tested) (http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1114/cat/11)
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS (http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/404-canon_1855_3556is_50d)

*Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (Tested)* (http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/253/cat/11)
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS (http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/200-canon-ef-70-300mm-f4-56-usm-is-test-report--review)

... versus ...

*Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX VR Nikkor (Tested)* (http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1154/cat/13)

*Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S VR Nikkor (Tested)* (http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/992/cat/13)
Nikkor AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G IF-ED VR (http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/250-nikkor-af-s-70-300mm-f45-56-g-if-ed-vr-review--test-report)