[tsk1979]

Don't get the 75-300 USM III lens its not very good(though ultra cheap).
the 70-300 IS from canon(little expensive) and the 70-300 from sigma are better.

[reignofchaos]

^^Err was that for me? I have the new EF-S 55-250 IS which has better sharpness than the 70-300 IS. Planning to upgrade to a 70-200 f/2.8 IS and a 2x teleconverter very soon.

[highwayblaze]

Nikon D40 digital SLR (18-55 AF-S Lens). Just go it recently and hoping to hone my non existent skills taking pictures!

[StarScream]

Originally Posted by highwayblaze

Nikon D40 digital SLR (18-55 AF-S Lens). Just go it recently and hoping to hone my non existent skills taking pictures!

Welcome to the Nikon system Highwayblaze. Hope you take many nice pictures with it. A Nikon 55-200mm AF-S DX VR lens will complete your kit and cover the most used focal lenghts. Be aware of the compatibility issues with the D40 though. See my earlier post on this. Have fun.

[StarScream]

Originally Posted by navin

Remember that CCDs are not as sensitive to light as film. CDDs prefer light hitting them at right angles (perpendicular). Hence most camera manufacturers have introduced newer lenses for their DSLRs (Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olyumpus, etc..). Nikon's AF-S and Canon EF-S lenses fit into this category.

That's marketing bs Navin. Yes CCDs have different properties to film and some camera/lens manufacturers would have you believe you need different lenses for digital. That is crap, practically it makes no difference - my old film lenses produce better/sharper images at the same focal length than any of the new `made for digital' lenses I have.
Nikon, for one, has never said that their digital cameras need special digital lenses. The key reason to introduce a different line of lenses for digital is the reduced size of the APS-C sensor compared with 35mm film, which changes the angle of view. That, as I'm sure you know, is a problem with the wider focal lengths - lenses that produce an image circle for the 35mm film frame just don't get wide enough on APS-C digital. Hence most digital zooms start at 18mm to give the user a 28mm angle of view. Of course this is not a problem for longer focal lenghts, which benefit from extra reach.
The other reason for a separate line of digital lenses is because the lenses have to make a smaller image circle, they can be smaller and lighter. Nikon's 18-200mm VR is a case in point. Nikon is able to pack in a lot more into a smaller package than it could if it was designed for 35mm.
And by the way Nikon's AF-S range has nothing to do with digital. The AF-S nomenclature refers to the focusing technology in the lens - what Nikon calls silent wave technology - an internal focusing motor which is the same technology that Canon has had for years. Regular Nikon AF lenses use the old screw drive focusing system. The D40/x don't have that and hence can't focus with regular AF lenses unlike higher-end Nikon bodies.
In Nikon's case `DX' in the lens name signifies made for APS-C sensors.

Originally Posted by navin

Now using a non AFS or EFS lens with a compatible DLSR wont produce a bad image. Some even argure that there will less barrel/pincushion distortion and softness with "regular" lenses is less on APS-C sized sensors since only the center portion of the lens is used.

It has nothing to do with compatibility and everything to do with the quality of the lens. My 10 year old `made for film' 80-200mm f2.8 ED is a lot sharper than Nikon's `made for digital' 55-200mm. It blows away my digital 18-200VR at 200mm and my film 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 at 80mm. All shot stopped down to f11. The 80-200mm is just better glass and it shows.
Barrel/pincushion distortion are throughout an image and not just at the edges. An APS-C sensor will not hide the distortion of a film lens. My film 24-85mm has barrel distortion on the wide-end and its quite apparent on digital.
What an APS-C sensor does is to chop off soft corners - so yes, while using a film lens on digital you use the sharpest, central part of the image circle, which allows you to shoot wide open.
I reiterate my point that D40/x limits your lens choices and your use of older Nikon lenses, which is a key reason to be in the Nikon system.

[navin]

Originally Posted by reignofchaos

Got my 40D, an extra BP511 battery and scratch guards for both screens. Damage - 47k.

I hope you got teh BP511A not the BP511.

scratch guard for both screens. my 40D has only 1 3" LCD screen.

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Don't get the 75-300 USM III lens its not very good(though ultra cheap).
the 70-300 IS from canon(little expensive) and the 70-300 from sigma are better.

Originally Posted by reignofchaos

^^Err was that for me? I have the new EF-S 55-250 IS which has better sharpness than the 70-300 IS. Planning to upgrade to a 70-200 f/2.8 IS and a 2x teleconverter very soon.

I did not know that.

I bet the 55-250 is cheaper too given that it is a EF-S lens. That said I dont see the logic of using a $250 lens on a $1000 body but it is the output that really matters. On a 400/450D mated to the new 18-55 IS it owuld provide for a very nice & light combo.

I have used the 70-200/2.8 and it is a heavy lens. Fine for indoor work etc.. but not for travel when every ounce you carry makes a difference.

[navin]

Originally Posted by StarScream

That's marketing bs Navin.

... It blows away my digital 18-200VR at 200mm and my film 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 at 80mm. All shot stopped down to f11.

Oh I did nto know that. That was the stuff I heard from Oly and Pentax (4/3rd system guys).

I used to be on the Nikon film system before moving to Canon. I gave away my lenses (28-105, 70-300 ED, 20/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.4, 300/4) thinking that they would not ideal for CCDs. Ouch!!!

Besides after I got married and had kids I did not want to fool around with primes. Too much work, but they are sharper, much sharper.

[Torqy]

Originally Posted by navin

Oh I did nto know that. That was the stuff I heard from Oly and Pentax (4/3rd system guys).

Pentax is not 4/3....Olympus & Panasonic are.

[StarScream]

Originally Posted by navin

Oh I did nto know that. That was the stuff I heard from Oly and Pentax (4/3rd system guys).

I used to be on the Nikon film system before moving to Canon. I gave away my lenses (28-105, 70-300 ED, 20/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.4, 300/4) thinking that they would not ideal for CCDs. Ouch!!!

Besides after I got married and had kids I did not want to fool around with primes. Too much work, but they are sharper, much sharper.

Ouch is right - that was a nice collection of glass Navin! 35mm f2 would have made a fantastic normal lens on digital. Personally, if I was you I'd have got rid of most and replaced them with zooms but I would have kept the 85mm f1.4 and 300mm f4. One thing I've learnt over the years is not to get rid off lenses, you always regret it later. I sold film bodies, 70-300 ED and 85mm f1.8 to buy my wife's wedding ring. The only advantage that has come out of it is that she doesn't crib when I splurge on glass today.
BTW going back to my point that film lenses work great on digital, before I went digital I went completely retro with a film FM3A body and a bunch of classic manual Nikkors. I sold that kit to go digital but kept one lens - 45mm f2.8P - the `kit' lens with the FM3A. It's a manual focus, Tessar design lens with a chip to meter with modern bodies. That lens makes some fantastic images on my D70s with beautiful bokeh and color. Images have a very unNikon-like quality to them - that is the best way I can describe it.

[reignofchaos]

Originally Posted by navin

I hope you got teh BP511A not the BP511.

scratch guard for both screens. my 40D has only 1 3" LCD screen.

Yup its a 511A... oversight on my part.

I did not know that.

I bet the 55-250 is cheaper too given that it is a EF-S lens. That said I dont see the logic of using a $250 lens on a $1000 body but it is the output that really matters. On a 400/450D mated to the new 18-55 IS it owuld provide for a very nice & light combo.

I have used the 70-200/2.8 and it is a heavy lens. Fine for indoor work etc.. but not for travel when every ounce you carry makes a difference.

Yup the 55-250 is cheaper but it is very very sharp for the price one pays for it. When I bought it, I had gone to get the 70-300 IS but comparing both, it was a no contest. the 55-250 was way sharper and costed less than half of what the 70-300 costs. The 18-55 IS is good for the price but not that sharp. I use a tokina 19-35 and its way way sharper. Infact the results I get out of that are pretty close to the 50 1.4 in terms of sharpness.

The 70-200 is one heavy piece of equipment but then the results it gives are absolutely stunning.

[StarScream]

Originally Posted by navin

I have used the 70-200/2.8 and it is a heavy lens. Fine for indoor work etc.. but not for travel when every ounce you carry makes a difference.

Very true. Those 2.8s are a b!tch to travel with. I trecked with my Nikon 80-200/2.8 and two other lenses all over Canada last year and it wasn't a pleasant experience. I went and bought the 18-200 VR to reduce weight while traveling. The Canon 70-200/2.8 is a very nice lens but buy it only if you really need it.

[kaushik_s]

Originally Posted by reignofchaos

I use a tokina 19-35 and its way way sharper. Infact the results I get out of that are pretty close to the 50 1.4 in terms of sharpness.

The 70-200 is one heavy piece of equipment but then the results it gives are absolutely stunning.

Nice to see another Tokina 19-35 user, but I didn't find mine to be that sharp to have a go at 50mm 1.4, it's good but not that good.But it's good VFM. Many of my recent Goa trip are from that lens.
And 70-200mm, oh I love this lens, on my last trip I've used that lens almost 80% of the time.But I got the f4 IS one. As I didn't want to lug that heavy 2.8 and for my use f4 is good enough (mostly for landscapes and occasional candids)

[Gill]

Where in delhi can i buy Canon S3?If possible Plz provide me the name and add of the retailer and what price it commands?I have to buy it by Tom evening.

[navin]

Originally Posted by StarScream

The Canon 70-200/2.8 is a very nice lens but buy it only if you really need it.

I dont own one. I borrow it from my niece usually for my son's school programs. It serves a greater purpose other than being really fast. Since I am old and carry this lens on a tripod once "they" see me coming with this big white monster and a tripod even the "pro" photograhers hired to take the official shots make room for me. Both the offical school photograhers use Nikon so I dont have to get into who owns the lens with them. The other lens I borrow is her 16-35/2.8 (this lens is sharper and lighter than my 17-55). My neice jokes that the reason I switched to Canon was so that I cold borrow her lenses! :-) she may be right.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by Gill

Where in delhi can i buy Canon S3?If possible Plz provide me the name and add of the retailer and what price it commands?I have to buy it by Tom evening.

Gill you can check Pritam Cameras, chandni chowk. Best rates, and he can get you any camera you want
Photography Arts Association of India / View topic - Where to buy Camera/Equipment in Delhi?