[maverick555]

Friends
Just came back after checking out various camera bodies
Nikon D3100 with kit lens -31.5k
Nikon D5000 with kit lens -33k
Canon 550d 43k

Still confused which one to go for and should i buy
18-55 or body only with 18-200 tokina or tamron so that dont have to change lenses frequently







Nikon 18-200 VR is 40+ so way out of budget

[sbraj]

Originally Posted by shajufx

I have a Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 for sale (classifieds section), its one of the PRO quality lenses which can compete with Nikon itself. I am selling it for a 50mm 1.4 G

Why? You have 35mm f/1.8 (DX?). So, isn't this lens a better candidate to be replaced with 50mm f/1.4? Having two 'adjacent' primes - 35mm and 50mm, mean one would keep mounting them often?

p.s. Am just curious to know the reasoning behind the decision. That is all, don't misunderstand as questioning or arguments.

Originally Posted by shajufx

but Sigma has a 35mm 1.4. I get a shock checking prices of 1.4 lenses.

I think you meant Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC HSM which is priced at 34K. The shock that I am getting is due to the fact that the Nikon 35mm f/1.4 is (going to be) priced at double this price.

Anyway, I think I will go for AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G, which as per Jayesh is available at 12K. AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D is priced at 15K - very tempting indeed.

[phamilyman]

@Mav - What is your primary purpose - solo maverick flying low and clicking (enthusiast photography)? Or tied down with family/better half and clicking situational shots (travel)

If its former, buy a 17-50 f2.8 Tammy - better option since 90% of your pics will be in this focal range only.
If its latter, buy a 18-200 or 18-250 for the convenience, but be prepared the purists will call it a P&S anyways

Please bear in mind that the kit 18-55 is a compromise any which way you look at it.

[shajufx]

Originally Posted by sbraj

Why? You have 35mm f/1.8 (DX?). So, isn't this lens a better candidate to be replaced with 50mm f/1.4? .......I think you meant Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC HSM which is priced at 34K. The shock that I am getting is due to the fact that the Nikon 35mm f/1.4 is (going to be) priced at double this price.

Yes I have a 35mm 1.8 DX which I might sell anytime, purely because I have FX body in mind. Selling a high quality 18-50 f/2.8 (sigma for DX body) also is the same reason, nothing else. Buying a 50mm f/1.4 is for a life-time keeper, it works both on DX and FX bodies.

So, I wont be having 35mm and 50mm as you doubted, I want to have 12-24 f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4 for the upcoming FX body , 70-200 f/2.8 what I have is designed for FX body anyway, hope that clears the doubt. Dont show all that formalities buddy, I am a learner too, not seeing a GURU potential upto 2020..LOL.

What I meant in the previous post is Sigma 30, f/1.4 around 34k, Nikon will be double as always, no doubt about it. But I dont think there is much to talk about a quality difference of any of these similar lenses between Nikon and Sigma unless you have a microscopic eye to details.

Originally Posted by phamilyman

Please bear in mind that the kit 18-55 is a compromise any which way you look at it.

I have tried my best to convey that message to as many people as possible. You will ditch the kit lens the moment you want to do bit different from the usual clicking. Eventually one will end up in f/2.8 or f/1.8 lenses if quality satisfaction is high priority, provided budget also permits to do so.

In bright light, a kit lens will produce very good images, also in low light with tripod and long exposure. But there is a compromise everywhere, which one needs to experience and understand.

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by shajufx

Yes I have a 35mm 1.8 DX which I might sell anytime, purely because I have FX body in mind. Selling a high quality 18-50 f/2.8 (sigma for DX body) also is the same reason, nothing else. Buying a 50mm f/1.4 is for a life-time keeper, it works both on DX and FX bodies.

shajufx..what FX body are you planning on?

I have a Nikon 50mm f1.4D purchased in the US in 2002. Its a keeper alright. The 1.4 AFS G version is twice as expensive and though it is marginally better I don't believe it is worth 2x the price of the 'D'.

A suggestion all Nikon DSLR owners here is that it is better to buy FX format lenses as they work with both DX and FX. So if you upgrade to FX in the future you don't need to sell your lenses.

I waited for Nikon to introduce full frame DSLRs before going digital because of my older kit that has SLR lenses.

PS - Beginner DX DSLRs D40, D50 etc do not have the mechanism to drive older lenses (primarily non AF-S). Compatibility checking is a must before purchasing lenses.

[rajatsingh78]

I would recommend Nikon D5000 body only, and then pick the 18-200 Tamron

Originally Posted by maverick555

Friends
Just came back after checking out various camera bodies
Nikon D3100 with kit lens -31.5k
Nikon D5000 with kit lens -33k
Canon 550d 43k

Still confused which one to go for and should i buy
18-55 or body only with 18-200 tokina or tamron so that dont have to change lenses frequently







Nikon 18-200 VR is 40+ so way out of budget

[shajufx]

Originally Posted by R2D2

shajufx..what FX body are you planning on?

I don't mind having a Nikon D3X , two of my junior colleagues own it in the middle east and I am totally bowled over.
BUT, I am afraid I will have to beg, borrow, steal and even kill someone to get that in my bag, so waiting for my stars to turn brighter or some good human being to gift one. If both of it do not happen, then the only practical choice is D700.

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by shajufx

I don't mind having a Nikon D3X , two of my junior colleagues own it in the middle east and I am totally bowled over.
BUT, I am afraid I will have to beg, borrow, steal and even kill someone to get that in my bag, so waiting for my stars to turn brighter or some good human being to gift one. If both of it do not happen, then the only practical choice is D700.

LOL! Yeah..who won't love to have a top end pro Nikon body in their camera bag. The D3X would've been ideal for me too, as I am told slide film resolution approaches 25MP and the D3X is 24.3 or thereabouts. But the BIG problem is $$!

The D4 expected next year is predicted to be about 35-36MP and the pros predict that's where MP will plateau as it approaches the limitation of 35mm lens resolution. After hitting the mid 30s they expect Nikon/Canon to drop the MP race and concentrate on low light sensitivity, low noise dynamic range, contrast and overall picture quality.

If you're thinking about a D700 wait till next year when a D700s or D700x @ 16+ MP is expected. I just love my D700; its low light sensitivity is great and build quality is amazing just like the F5 (sold) and F100 that I use. I just love holding Nikon DSLRs/SLRs in my hand.

[rkbharat]

Originally Posted by shajufx

Yes I have a 35mm 1.8 DX which I might sell anytime

Please let me know when selling, I plan to buy one, is this AF-S?

[sbraj]

Originally Posted by R2D2

A suggestion all Nikon DSLR owners here is that it is better to buy FX format lenses as they work with both DX and FX. So if you upgrade to FX in the future you don't need to sell your lenses.

I have been thinking about this topic for a while. Mainly because of my dilemma of 35mm vs 50mm.

As an example, let us take 50mm 1.4/1.8 options. Cheapest 35mm (effective 50mm) lens for D90 is a DX lens (AF-S 35mm f/1.8 DX). Other option is AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G which is not a DX but quite expensive. But at this point in time, I am not sure how deep I would go into photography to spend double the D90 body price on a lens.

Hence I think your suggestion is more applicable to zoom lenses than to prime lenses. What say?

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by sbraj

I have been thinking about this topic for a while. Mainly because of my dilemma of 35mm vs 50mm.

As an example, let us take 50mm 1.4/1.8 options. Cheapest 35mm (effective 50mm) lens for D90 is a DX lens (AF-S 35mm f/1.8 DX). Other option is AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.4G which is not a DX but quite expensive. But at this point in time, I am not sure how deep I would go into photography to spend double the D90 body price on a lens.

Hence I think your suggestion is more applicable to zoom lenses than to prime lenses. What say?

My suggestion is for both primes and zooms.

Taking your example; actually the 35mm DX lens & 50 mm 1.4/1.8 are in the US $150 to 300 range. They are a fraction of the price of the recently introduced 35mm AF-S F1.4/G which is very expensive (US$ 1800) and targetted to professional FX cameramen. In India the 35mm DX is about Rs 13K as per Nikon's site while the newer lens' price is not published possibly because they haven't yet received any stocks from Nikon Japan.

I think being amateurs/advanced amateurs all we would need are middle of the road lenses than the top end. Of course the pro lenses are in a league of their own and on most peoples wish list, (including mine). And if the wallet permits why not? Unfortunately for me I need to wait & save up for 2-3 dream lenses.

If you must go in for a 50mm lens go in for the 50mm f/1.8 AF-D which retails at about Rs 7K. Or the 50mm 1.4 @ Rs 14K. Both are serious value for money.

Rgds,

[MileCruncher]

Has anybody bought through Smartshoppers.in?

Any feedback please.

[rkbharat]

Originally Posted by MileCruncher

Has anybody bought through Smartshoppers.in?

Any feedback please.

AB, I recently bought few stuff from them, they will never deliver to date they commit and will delay. Though they delivered at the end, and stuff was not available here in Delhi, so I am happy at the end.

[shajufx]

Originally Posted by R2D2

....The D3X would've been ideal for me too, as I am told slide film resolution approaches 25MP and the D3X is 24.3.

Megapixel fact is one thing, also I want to shoot some high quality images for larger printing and framing purpose. It could be 20x30 upwards. I really need to check and see how other FX frames handle this larger size in prints. I agree even D90 can print that size, but there is a compromise in quality.

Originally Posted by rkbharat

Please let me know when selling, I plan to buy one, is this AF-S?

Yes its AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8G, I would have advertised this week, but a team-bhpian friend who is returning from taiwan this week couldn't find even an inch of his bag free for me to carry the 50mm f/1.4. So, its matter of few days ! Another gang is already in Taiwan. Fingers crossed.

Originally Posted by sbraj

..I am not sure how deep I would go into photography to spend double the D90 body price on a lens.

I was thinking of the same until 2 months back This field is addictive and the upgrade potential is limitless ! Please don't think the quality of images go higher as we upgrade, unless we put serious efforts to make it happen.

Originally Posted by R2D2

My suggestion is for both primes and zooms....first go in for the 50mm f/1.8 AF-D which retails at about Rs 7K. Or the 50mm 1.4 @ Rs 14K. Both are serious value for money.

As a learner and even as a professional (not about me please...), primes and zooms go hand in hand. One point or other one will need a zoom for a multipurpose shooting, its not easy to keep changing primes on a body every few minutes, if one is shooting an event. I think the maximum used zoom lens among Nikon Pros is 24-70 f/2.8 as reported. Also Pros keep one body with a prime around the shoulder while shooting with another body with a zoom. I have seen that many times.

[chethan.ram]

Originally Posted by shajufx

Megapixel fact is one thing, also I want to shoot some high quality images for larger printing and framing purpose. It could be 20x30 upwards. I really need to check and see how other FX frames handle this larger size in prints. I agree even D90 can print that size, but there is a compromise in quality.

What is the max size you can print with D90 without compromising on quality?