[kaushik_s]

Originally Posted by JLS

If you already have 24-105, I seriously believe 85 1.8 is a waste of money. Unless you are a purist and want a specialized light weight lens for taking portrait, 85 1.8 does not make sense.

On the other hand, can you share your experience of 24-105.
I am tempted since long with those 45K offers for 24-105 (kit lens with 5d being sold seperately) and am looking a good excuse to shell out 45K

Thanks
JLS

Not quite true. There is a difference between using 85mm at f1.8/2 etc than 85mm at f4. To a learned/experienced user that makes a lot of difference in terms of the output.
I have been using 24-105mm and 85mm for quite sometime and I tend to reach for the 85mm whenever I'm shooting portraits. In fact, so much so that I'm considering selling the 24-105mm. No doubt, 24-105mm is a great lens and it covers a very usable focal length but the dof provided by 1.8 does trump it many times

Originally Posted by Aroy

I would never advise any one to get an inexpensive tripod. It is just a waste of money. Get a sturdy tripod preferably Manfroto or equivalent quality. Remember to get one which will bear the full load
. Ball head - 300g
. DSLR about 1kg
. Long lens 1-3kg
So min load is 2kg and max is 4.3kg. Add a factor of safety and you should get a tripod which rated for at least 4kg.

Light tripods vibrate which will negate the idea of using tripod. Then it may also topple in moderate wind. In my experience people start off with buying a relatively cheap and flimsy tripod and then realise the mistake. All the monet spend is for nothing.

Look for Manfrotto 190DB, decent tripod with for the load capacity mentioned by you. I would suggest to have a look at Benro options too, although I myself haven't used Benro but heard good things about new models. I've been using two manfrottos (190DB and 055CXPro3) and pretty happy with them. If you can increase your budget then go for a CF tripod. It has not only the weight advantage but also because carbon fiber has much more vibration damping quality than aluminum legs.
EDIT : The new model in 190 series is called MT190XPROB and it seems to be a bigger model than the older 190DB and with more load capacity. Price also seems to be on higher side though (205$ in Amazon US) http://www.manfrotto.in/product/8374...izontal_column
Regards,

[dre@ms]

Originally Posted by Aroy

I would never advise any one to get an inexpensive tripod. It is just a waste of money. Get a sturdy tripod preferably Manfroto or equivalent quality. Remember to get one which will bear the full load
. Ball head - 300g
. DSLR about 1kg
. Long lens 1-3kg
So min load is 2kg and max is 4.3kg. Add a factor of safety and you should get a tripod which rated for at least 4kg.

Light tripods vibrate which will negate the idea of using tripod. Then it may also topple in moderate wind. In my experience people start off with buying a relatively cheap and flimsy tripod and then realise the mistake. All the monet spend is for nothing.

Point noted Aroy. After seeing reviews about some cheaper options, I myself stopped getting a Tripod just to redeem points. Will definitely look a Manfroto.

[ToyotaFan]

I have a D80 (purchased in 2007) and a D5100. I have a nikkor 35mm, 50mm fixed focus lens, 18-180mm kit lens and 55-300mm zoom lens. Am an enthusiast since many years and have a trip to ladakh lined up next week. I wanted to upgrade to a full frame DSLR and lenses or filters within a budget of 2 lakhs. Can anyone advise which body and lenses or filters can give me the best compromise within the said budget. I know this is less but my cameras tend to be used only for 10-15 days an year only on holidays. Thanks in advance.

[josejoseph]

Originally Posted by ToyotaFan

I have a D80 (purchased in 2007) and a D5100. I have a nikkor 35mm, 50mm fixed focus lens, 18-180mm kit lens and 55-300mm zoom lens. Am an enthusiast since many years and have a trip to ladakh lined up next week. I wanted to upgrade to a full frame DSLR and lenses or filters within a budget of 2 lakhs. Can anyone advise which body and lenses or filters can give me the best compromise within the said budget. I know this is less but my cameras tend to be used only for 10-15 days an year only on holidays. Thanks in advance.

Well the cheapest Nikon FX camera you can get is the D600/D610 ($1600/$1900). Since your main purpose is landscape photography check the Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 AF II DG HSM Lens ($950).

Also consider getting a good tripod along with the filters like neutral density and polarizing filters. Sorry, I don't know the availability of these in India.

Are you sure the kit lens is 18-180mm? I'm not aware of such a model. If you move to FX, then there is no point in keeping your existing lenses except the 50mm because the rest all are DX lenses. May be you can sell the rest of them and save money on the new gear.

[condor]

@Toyota fan,

Can you help us understand exactly WHY would you need a FX ?

I would suggest a cheaper alternative - Get a good Ultra wide angle lens to complement what you have. You will shoot far more in the normal view, than at ultra wide.

The FX & DX will do lot of the same things. Major difference is the crop factor - 1.5 or 1.6. So if you can plan to have good coverage from Ultra wide to tele-photo, you will be covered.

Check the Ladakh pics that fellow members have posted. How many are FX ? Or how may are Ultra-wide ?

You have a 24MP D5100 - that will cover a lot. Esp with that 35mm & may be 50mm

Yes, do get a good, sturdy - but Light tripod. May be a Manfrotto Carbon fibre , with ball head

[ToyotaFan]

Originally Posted by josejoseph

Are you sure the kit lens is 18-180mm? I'm not aware of such a model. If you move to FX, then there is no point in keeping your existing lenses except the 50mm because the rest all are DX lenses. May be you can sell the rest of them and save money on the new gear.

My bad. My lens is 18-135mm that came with D80. I was also looking at D610 and it comes within the budget. My 35mm lens is also labelled as an Fx format lens so would that also be useful? Sigma lenses work well with Nikon or should I only go for nikon?



@condor- Thanks for the help.
I am not sure if 35mm and 50mm lenses will be good for landscapes? Can 18-135mm might be what I will have to use. I have a tripod and a SB 600 Nikon flashlight. Should I go in for any specific filters? Was confused seeing the variety of filters available. Help will be greatly appreciated.

[ampere]

Originally Posted by ToyotaFan

I am not sure if 35mm and 50mm lenses will be good for landscapes?

Oh yes they can be! Many a time we always associate landscapes with wide angle. Wide angle is not necessarily about soaking it all into the frame. To me wide is more about a perspective of depth of what is close and what is far, in the same frame. Thats where the real power of wide angle comes into play.

As regards to 50mm or mid range-telephoto lenses, they give you amazing landscape shots, because with these lenses you can filter out the perspective that you want to capture. That may not be possible with a wide-angle.

[condor]

@ToyotaFan,
Try it ! Which lens to use will depend on what you want to capture. There is a reason for popularity of prime lenses.

One big argument against you going for a FX is your usage, which you have stated. I am not sure how can we justify the cost vs Image quality vs usage of the FX - especially when compared to the DX that you have. Your d5100 is good for a few more years. The other change I could suggest is a mirror-less camera to go with the D5100.

Also, you are too close to the travel date to sit down & decide which body + which lens would be suitable. Your query is heading towards buying what others suggest, rather than buying what you would be happy with. To add to that, an un-familiar camera on an important trip

Of the equipment you have, the weakest link I see is the D80, because it's an older body / sensor. The 18-135 will also give you fairly wide coverage.

Originally Posted by ToyotaFan

Sigma lenses work well with Nikon or should I only go for nikon?

After my recent experience with third party lenses, I would suggest Nikon over Sigma. What ever the ratings the third party lenses have, the dont seem consistent in Image quality. Hence it is mostly a hit & miss scenario. The particular lens that you pick may have good or not-so-good image qualtiy. Hence see if you can get a good Nikkor 10-24 or 12-24, this will complement the 18-135.

One suggestion: You could however, keep the 18-135 on the D80 at all times & use the D5100 with the other lenses.

[Dry Ice]

Originally Posted by ToyotaFan

My bad. My lens is 18-135mm that came with D80. I was also looking at D610 and it comes within the budget. My 35mm lens is also labelled as an Fx format lens so would that also be useful? Sigma lenses work well with Nikon or should I only go for nikon?



@condor- Thanks for the help.
I am not sure if 35mm and 50mm lenses will be good for landscapes? Can 18-135mm might be what I will have to use. I have a tripod and a SB 600 Nikon flashlight. Should I go in for any specific filters? Was confused seeing the variety of filters available. Help will be greatly appreciated.

Wide angle is a big plus in a setting like Ladakh where there is so much variation in terrain. It helps you convey a sense of vastness. You can use a 18 or 35, and use tripod and image stitching to get the same effect but requires a lot more effort in post. I have been using a Sigma 10-20 for a couple of years and it is almost indispensable for any trips in the mountains!

About filters, you can look to invest in good neutral density 3-stop/6-stop graduated ones - they will help you achieve a uniform exposure without blowing out the sky when you meter for the ground below. A 10-stop ND filter is another fun thing to have - lets you capture long exposures in the middle of the day! Lastly, a polariser on any of the other lenses (don't use it on a UWA) will give you deeper skies and clearer water.

PS: I recently upgraded to a FF and sold all my DX gear - have the WA remaining. PM me if you are interested.

[condor]

Originally Posted by Dry Ice

Wide angle is a big plus in a setting like Ladakh where there is so much variation in terrain. It helps you convey a sense of vastness. You can use a 18 or 35, and use tripod and image stitching to get the same effect but requires a lot more effort in post. I have been using a Sigma 10-20 for a couple of years and it is almost indispensable for any trips in the mountains!

@Dry Ice, can you share stats of how many pics you have taken with the 10-20 vs other lenses ? And for good measure, even if approximate, how many pics do you see in the other threads here which are with UWA' vs other lenses ? You could even select pics by only those who have UWA & other lenses

I do agree with you that a UWA is very useful up there. But there will be more opportunities for pics with other lenses. The 35 mm, the 50mm & lower half of the 70-300 (that ToyotaFan has) can get used much more. Just that, Mountains are not only about UWA's.

[ToyotaFan]

Originally Posted by condor

I do agree with you that a UWA is very useful up there. But there will be more opportunities for pics with other lenses. The 35 mm, the 50mm & lower half of the 70-300 (that ToyotaFan has) can get used much more. Just that, Mountains are not only about UWA's.

Ultra wide angle lenses do cost a lot. I mean if they are not compatible if FX format then investing as much as the camera itself might be difficult.

I took landscapes with my 18-135mm lens last time I was there. That was the only lens i had at the time. Though the results were good they were no where near what I see in the travelogues now a days. I wanted to take better pictures so if you can 1 lens that might be useful or even a filter if it is useful I will be highly obliged.

[condor]

Originally Posted by ToyotaFan

I took landscapes with my 18-135mm lens last time I was there. That was the only lens i had at the time. Though the results were good they were no where near what I see in the travelogues now a days. I wanted to take better pictures so if you can 1 lens that might be useful or even a filter if it is useful I will be highly obliged.

@TF, it is not just about a lens, but the body also. You are comparing pics from a D80 / D5100, with pics taken from newer body / lens combinations.

Having said that, I would suggest what I had said earlier:
1) D5100 with the two primes & may be a 70-200 or, one UWA (pls check earlier posts) at the very least, the 70-300 VR (I think you have this)

2) Mirrorless with WA ( along with D5100).

[ToyotaFan]

Originally Posted by condor

@TF, it is not just about a lens, but the body also. You are comparing pics from a D80 / D5100, with pics taken from newer body / lens combinations.

Having said that, I would suggest what I had said earlier:
1) D5100 with the two primes & may be a 70-200 or, one UWA (pls check earlier posts) at the very least, the 70-300 VR (I think you have this)

2) Mirrorless with WA ( along with D5100).

Thanks condor. Looks like I will buy a wide angle lens and upgrade the body after a few years. I have been buying lenses from flipkart and have been reasonably satisfied.

[ashwin.terminat]

Help required for an amateur getting his first DSLR.

I'm confused between the Canon 600D and the Nikon D5200.

The guys at Chroma were suggesting Nikon D5200.

But I'd rather hear from the experienced chaps here.

600D or the D5200?

[girimajiananth]

Originally Posted by ashwin.terminat

Help required for an amateur getting his first DSLR.
600D or the D5200?

If you are a first timer , there is not a lot of difference between the two. Most people suggest what they have been using. I have been using Nikon and I find the ergonomics comfortable.Just find out which one offers a better ISO range and has lesser noise at higher ISO. Less noise at higher ISO is always better.