Nikon Lenses [Archive]

Genius.

14-10-2008, 10:01 AM

Its been a good couple of months since my D40. I am enjoying it remendously and photography has become an obsessive hobby.

I went into a few stores yesterday, looking for my next purchase which i figured should be a lense and i was shown a host of different lenses.

The Sigma was obviously more affordable, the cheapest being R1600. The Nikon lenses were expensive. Spoke to the sales guy and enquired if i were to buy online from the US or the UK - would it be worth my while.

He replied, that i could knock off a few thousand if i do that and thats what most guys do.

So anyway, my questions are:

What lense would you guys recommend?

I have alot of family in the UK. Can i pick up a lense there and have them send it down?

Will it really be worth my while? If i can get it really cheaper, i will do it but not if im only saving a few hundred rand.

bwana

14-10-2008, 11:00 AM

OT - but why do so many people misspell lens? :confused:

ldmelsa

14-10-2008, 11:23 AM

What lense would you guys recommend?

Nikon 18-200 VR!!!

:D:D:D

CaTcH21

14-10-2008, 11:29 AM

Nikon 18-200 VR!!!

:D:D:D

Can you post some sample pics taken with this lens ?

CaTcH21

14-10-2008, 11:30 AM

OT - but why do so many people misspell lens? :confused:

is it so difficult to correct the person ?

Genius.

14-10-2008, 11:43 AM

OT - but why do so many people misspell lens? :confused:

I guess its cos there are so many people that spell it like that and it has become acceptable.

Genius.

14-10-2008, 11:44 AM

Nikon 18-200 VR!!!

:D:D:D

How much?

bwana

14-10-2008, 11:51 AM

Nikon 18-200 VR!!!

:D:D:DWondered how long it would take for you to notice this thread. :D
is it so difficult to correct the person ?I do ;)

Wiki refers to its use as being obsolescent (that means becoming obsolete) and only one major dictionary doesnt consider it a misspelling.

SlinkyMike

14-10-2008, 12:18 PM

I have a D40 - currently waiting on delivery of my
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/247091-GREY/Nikon_2137_Normal_AF_Nikkor_50mm.html
Reputedly great for portraiture and low light, super very fast and ridonculously cheap.
Really cant think of a better way to blow a grand at this stage!

Edit: I don't 'feel' good about Tamron ans Sigma lenses, just cant bear the nagging uncertainty in the back of my head that something is amiss - futzing with settings cos I see 'something' wrong and knowing somewhere back there that it could be the budget equipment... is that snobby? (or simply stupid).

bwana

14-10-2008, 12:24 PM

SlinkyMike

14-10-2008, 12:27 PM

Sounds like the Nikon equivalent of the Canon 50mm f/1.8. If so its an awesome lens to have. :)

Yup - that's the guy.

bwana

14-10-2008, 12:29 PM

Yup - that's the guy.I keep a 50mm on one of my cameras whenever possible. Perfect lens if you have kids.

They should issue it to parents when their kids are born - save all of the rest of us from having to view many years worth pasty face kids pics :D

bennycoza

14-10-2008, 12:45 PM

How much?

The Nikon 18 - 200 VR lens is a bit pricey, you are looking at around R8500, maybe have a look at the Nikon 55-200 VR which is in the region of about R2600

stix

14-10-2008, 01:02 PM

// get a canon :D

Drunkard #1

14-10-2008, 01:15 PM

The F/1.8 50mm Nikon won't autofocus on the D40. Only AF-S lenses like the yet to be released F/1.4 50mm.

SlinkyMike

14-10-2008, 01:38 PM

The F/1.8 50mm Nikon won't autofocus on the D40. Only AF-S lenses like the yet to be released F/1.4 50mm.

Good point (I might have mentioned that in my post, thanks!) - however to clarify: the focus indicator etc. still works you simply have to turn the lens yourself - kinda negates the joy surrounding my "...super very fast" comment but I'll stand by it because in retrospect I am bummed out about one or two aspects of the D40 (neither of which is the price! :) )and I can see myself upgrading in the not too distant future, should that happen: I'll go for a body that will allow me full use of the lens(es) I have bought.

Also: manual focus is no reason to fling yourself into the traffic, they got by without it before ;)

EDIT: can some genius clarify the use of the word 'fast' in this context (funny **** as I am the one who said it right?) - I always get confused between aperture and autofocus whenever I talk to people about this. A mate who has this lens (and whose lens I spent a weekend with) was raving about the speed - I nodded sagely thinking: WTF? Assuming that he meant autofocus (something which my camera does not do with this lens).

ldmelsa

14-10-2008, 01:47 PM

Wondered how long it would take for you to notice this thread. :DI do ;)
Was I slow?

Can you post some sample pics taken with this lens ?
You don't get a better super zoom.
Mind-blowing lens.

koffiejunkie

14-10-2008, 02:14 PM

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/247091-GREY/Nikon_2137_Normal_AF_Nikkor_50mm.html

+1 And it's got an aperture ring - freakin awesome!

Drunkard #1

14-10-2008, 02:35 PM

You're weird. When was the last time you used an aperture ring? No Nikon from the past 15 years allows it.

I find that I don't use my 50mm lens much, and when I do, its hardly ever wide open. It's a great lens, but shooting on film, my wide angle gives these crazy shots that just look more interesting. I don't use my tele much either cause its not long enough. And I would never have guessed this before I got the lenses. Just my opinion, but I hardly ever take my wide angle off the camera.

On topic: I prefer the 70-300mm as a second lens for the D40/D60. You've already got 18-55, so you don't need half of what the 18-200 offers. And the 70-300's cheaper, longer and works on full frame camera's. Once full frame becomes common (5 years IMHO) your R 7 000 18-200 becomes a paperweight.

koffiejunkie

14-10-2008, 02:41 PM

You're weird. When was the last time you used an aperture ring?

Last week on my K1000. I might be weird but there's method in my madness. When you're shooting with a prime, your left hand isn't doing anything except supporting the camera - why not put it to use. I can turn the aperture ring on my SMC-M Pentax 50mm f/2 from /f2 all the way to f22 in one movement - much quicker than either wheel on the DSLR. Working with both hands just makes so much more sense.

Just my opinion, but I hardly ever take my wide angle off the camera.

I love my wide angles too. The lens that lives on my DSLR most of the time is my Sigma 10-20mm, and on my K1000 it's the 28mm f/2.8

mercurial

14-10-2008, 02:46 PM

Think twice about importing lenses now - the Rand/Dollar rate is through the roof.

Drunkard #1

14-10-2008, 03:30 PM

I'd also rather use an aperture ring, but Nikon won't let me. You say Pentax does, what about Canon? And the pro Nikons?

bwana

14-10-2008, 03:36 PM

EDIT: can some genius clarify the use of the word 'fast' in this context (funny **** as I am the one who said it right?) - I always get confused between aperture and autofocus whenever I talk to people about this. A mate who has this lens (and whose lens I spent a weekend with) was raving about the speed - I nodded sagely thinking: WTF? Assuming that he meant autofocus (something which my camera does not do with this lens).well I'm no genius but when I refer to my 50mm f/1.8 as being fast I'm talking about the aperture and not the auto focusing speed. :)

bwana

14-10-2008, 03:37 PM

+1 And it's got an aperture ring - freakin awesome!the poor guy already has to focus it himself. :D

koffiejunkie

14-10-2008, 03:46 PM

I'd also rather use an aperture ring, but Nikon won't let me. You say Pentax does, what about Canon? And the pro Nikons?

Just so I know we're talking about the same thing - the Pentax K1000 is a completely mechanical, completely manual camera. There is no other way to set aperture but with the aperture ring. I don't know how it works on the Pentax DSLR bodies. I had only two lenses to play with, the Pentax-M, and the kit lens, which doesn't have an aperture ring. Many of their lenses have a ring with an "A" setting, so I imagine it should work both ways. Canon did away with the aperture ring a long time ago, and the focus ring on some of their cheaper lenses (50mm f/1.8 for example) are so thin, it can be uncomfortable to use.

Why doesn't it work on the Nikon?

the poor guy already has to focus it himself. :D

Never killed anyone :)

SlinkyMike

14-10-2008, 04:01 PM

well I'm no genius but when I refer to my 50mm f/1.8 as being fast I'm talking about the aperture and not the auto focusing speed. :)
Got it - cheers. :)

Never killed anyone :)

Too right - when I was stuffing about with it I actually quite enjoyed being 'chucked into the deep end'... when I came out and put my kit lens back I switched it to full manual for the first time so one way or another it was quite an inspiring lens to use. :)

ldmelsa

14-10-2008, 04:09 PM

It's a great lens, but shooting on film

that's exactly why i got one - for my 35mm cam (the lens is fast - need that for my iso200)

on a crop cam it becomes 75(80 for canon)mm
now it's not a "normal" lens or a portrait lens

isn't a 30mm on a crop cam more useful as a "normal" lens?

koffiejunkie

14-10-2008, 04:10 PM

I have to say, manual focus is loads harder on today's cameras with their tiny viewfinders and clear focus screens.

koffiejunkie

14-10-2008, 04:15 PM

isn't a 30mm on a crop cam more useful as a "normal" lens?

Yes. That's why I bought the 35mm f/2. I'm still looking, might get myself one of the 24mm primes. 35mm is still to narrow for my tastes. The 28mm and 35mm on the film body is just right for me. So that's in the 18-22mm range on crop. The only problem is, primes in that range that are faster than f/2.8, costs loads.

Drunkard #1

14-10-2008, 04:19 PM

The newer Nikons won't shoot unless the aperture ring is set to min (f/22 or f/16 or whatever), most even have a lock at that setting. You have to set the aperture on the body. It's that way on my 4004, which must be 15 years old at least.

ldmelsa

14-10-2008, 04:22 PM

Yes. That's why I bought the 35mm f/2. I'm still looking, might get myself one of the 24mm primes. 35mm is still to narrow for my tastes. The 28mm and 35mm on the film body is just right for me. So that's in the 18-22mm range on crop. The only problem is, primes in that range that are faster than f/2.8, costs loads.

just use your digital
the 40d is great & velvia is to expensive :p

bwana

14-10-2008, 04:24 PM

Yes. That's why I bought the 35mm f/2. I'm still looking, might get myself one of the 24mm primes. 35mm is still to narrow for my tastes. The 28mm and 35mm on the film body is just right for me. So that's in the 18-22mm range on crop. The only problem is, primes in that range that are faster than f/2.8, costs loads.even though I've been using my 16-35mm f2.8 aplenty I can't say I'm particularly fond of it. Maybe it still needs to grow on me.

koffiejunkie

14-10-2008, 04:27 PM

One of these (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3280&navigator=4) two (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3281&navigator=4) might do nicely.

ldmelsa

14-10-2008, 04:32 PM

even though I've been using my 16-35mm f2.8 aplenty I can't say I'm particularly fond of it. Maybe it still needs to grow on me.

dude!
that's a full frame lens for ultra wide (pointless on 1.6x)
just stick it on an FF cam
you didn't buy it for the 400d, did you?
get a 5d - that lens will rock ;)

One of these (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3280&navigator=4) two (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3281&navigator=4) might do nicely.

canon 17-40 ;)

rabbiddog

14-10-2008, 04:42 PM

I have the Nikon 70-300 F/4 which is good for game drives etc. and a 170-500 F/5 which is good for sport

bwana

14-10-2008, 04:51 PM

dude!
that's a full frame lens for ultra wide (pointless on 1.6x)
just stick it on an FF cam
you didn't buy it for the 400d, did you?
get a 5d - that lens will rock ;)

canon 17-40 ;)How is it pointless? :confused: It gave me what I needed at the time - ie a fast, slightly wider than the kit lens, without the distortion and it will be great on a fullframe down the line.

I'm not saying its a bad lens - it isnt - but shooting recreationally with wide angle doesn't do it for me.

ldmelsa

14-10-2008, 05:01 PM

How is it pointless?
for crop factor because it's many times the price of an EFs lens that will do the job

awesome for full frame, though :)

Drunkard #1

14-10-2008, 05:05 PM

Before you say wide angle isn't for you, have you tried your lens full frame. I used to say tele isn't for me, but once I tried my 200mm on a digital (300mm equivalent) I saw that it just wasn't long enough, now i use it more often (and want a 400mm for film).

koffiejunkie

14-10-2008, 05:08 PM

canon 17-40 ;)

That's f/4 - I thought we were talking about crop body replacements for a fast 50mm?

That said, I am seriously perving over the 17-40 f/4. I almost bought it in Hong Kong, and I might just get it before the end of the year (depending, of course, on what Steve Jobs has to say today) :)

I have the Nikon 70-300 F/1.4 which is good for game drives etc. and a 170-500 F/1.5 which is good for sport

70-3000 f/1.4 ??? :eek:

Don't you mean f/4?

ldmelsa

14-10-2008, 05:10 PM

That's f/4 - I thought we were talking about crop body replacements for a fast 50mm?

oh sorry
thought you were talking about ff lenses

bwana

14-10-2008, 05:13 PM

for crop factor because it's many times the price of an EFs lens that will do the job

awesome for full frame, though :)again, hardly a pointless purchase.

However as far as I'm concerned buying an efs with the certain knowledge that I will be going fullframe eventually would be. ;)

BigAl-sa

14-10-2008, 05:20 PM

I have the Nikon 70-300 F/1.4 which is good for game drives etc. and a 170-500 F/1.5 which is good for sport

70-3000 f/1.4 ???

Don't you mean f/4?

Don't forget about the 170-500 F/1.5. Would weigh more than the Sigma 200-500 f/2.8 (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3349&navigator=3) at F/1.5 :D

ldmelsa

14-10-2008, 05:21 PM

However as far as I'm concerned buying an efs with the certain knowledge that I will be going fullframe eventually would be. ;)

well then, there we go - it's for full frame

koffiejunkie

14-10-2008, 05:27 PM

Don't forget about the 170-500 F/1.5. Would weigh more than the Sigma 200-500 f/2.8 (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3349&navigator=3) at F/1.5 :D

I know. My brain just refused to deal with that part of the sentence :D

koffiejunkie

14-10-2008, 05:29 PM

Isn't this typical. We're fighting over Canon lenses one a thread called "Nikon Lenses"

koffiejunkie

14-10-2008, 05:34 PM

Genius, to reply to your questions. At which end of the kit lens do you find yourself shooting more often - long or short? What are the lenses you looked at in the shop?

The R1600 Sigma sounds very much like the 70-300 non-APO, which is not a great lens at all. The APO one is much better (for not much more money) but still not fantastic - quite soft at the long end. Very sharp on the short end though.

I have alot of family in the UK. Can i pick up a lense there and have them send it down?

Where in the UK are they? In London there are a handful of good shops. If your family post/courier it, you'll probably end up paying customs and VAT, which will probably make it less than worth while (especially considering the current exchange rate). If someone is coming over and happy to stick it in their suitcase, that's a different matter.

bwana

14-10-2008, 06:52 PM

well then, there we go - it's for full frameNo - its for my 400D - well actually it lives on my XTi but that's close enough. :)

Isn't this typical. We're fighting over Canon lenses one a thread called "Nikon Lenses"Yeah, you're right.

Nikon - are they going to me much cheaper in the UK as opposed to here? I didnt think canon were when I looked. Then again I wouldnt think that lens prices would remain at their current levels here for much longer.

rabbiddog

14-10-2008, 10:15 PM

70-3000 f/1.4 ??? :eek:

Don't you mean f/4?

not 3000 but 300

Not unless Nikon lies (that's what's printed on the lens) . They stuffed the price by more than R4k when I bought the kit. It cost less than the cost that a dealer could get it at.

bwana

14-10-2008, 10:20 PM

not 3000 but 300

Not unless Nikon lies (that's what's printed on the lens) . They stuffed the price by more than R4k when I bought the kit. It cost less than the cost that a dealer could get it at.Have you got a link people can have a look at? f/1.5 seems like an improbable size to me.

koffiejunkie

15-10-2008, 02:34 AM

70-3000 f/1.4 ??? :eek:

Don't you mean f/4?not 3000 but 300

Typo, sorry.

Not unless Nikon lies (that's what's printed on the lens) . They stuffed the price by more than R4k when I bought the kit. It cost less than the cost that a dealer could get it at.

Must be 1:4 (the other notation) - maybe the one dot is missing. A 70-300 f/1.4 lens would cost more like R500k + one of your kidneys, and then you're getting a bargain.

ldmelsa

15-10-2008, 11:24 AM

Must be 1:4 (the other notation) - maybe the one dot is missing.

that's it

rabbiddog

15-10-2008, 01:45 PM

Typo, sorry.

Must be 1:4 (the other notation) - maybe the one dot is missing. A 70-300 f/1.4 lens would cost more like R500k + one of your kidneys, and then you're getting a bargain.

Had a look again and you are correct.

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/zoom/af_zoom70-300mmf_4-56g/
and the other one as well

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3276&navigator=3

koffiejunkie

15-10-2008, 04:28 PM

Aah, right. I see this mistake often made on eBay. Sometimes I think it's deliberate. I see 50mm f/2 lenses advertised as 50mm f/1.2 and going for huge amounts.

rabbiddog

15-10-2008, 04:32 PM

Stupid question - why would it show 1.4 on the actual lens?

bwana

15-10-2008, 04:36 PM

Stupid question - why would it show 1.4 on the actual lens?f/1.4 would be the maximum aperture.

koffiejunkie

15-10-2008, 05:40 PM

Stupid question - why would it show 1.4 on the actual lens?

You mean on one of those two you linked? It shouldn't. Take a pic and show us - that might clear things up.

d7e7r7

31-08-2009, 11:09 PM