Lenses for the D100

[vince123123]

Sometimes i find it difficult to understand why people flame other pple for getting a "power body" + "consumer zoom" combo as opposed to a "not so power body" + "power lens" combo.

The thing abt the people in the first category is that they are looking for a long term investment, dont have enough $$$ but yet want to be able to start out as early as possible.

Assuming that the end game is power body + power lens:

If you get a power body + consumer zoom, u can always get more lenses later on, e.g. ur 2.8 or AFS variations. Your only loss would be the price of the superzoom, which is n't a total loss cos superzooms are really userful in travel or tours where u usually want to bring only one lens along for everything.

Second, if you get the not so power body + power lens, ur 'wastage" outlay is essnetially higher should u wish to upgrade, as you have wasted the price of a 'not so power' body, which is definitely going to be higher than a superzoom lens. and most people dont use two bodies (or waste money selling it 2nd hand), whereas most people would use more than one lens (ie superzoom + f2.8 monsters for differing situations).

third, superzooms are not without its merit. its wide focal length allows one to be able to catch shots without having to shift lenses. As a goer of many stage shows and fashion catwalk shows, usually it is my opinion that a superzoom for the job is more handy, as i can take full length of models close, or far, or closeups of models close or far...all without having to swithc lenses and miss that moment, which is fleeting. Of course it wont be as sharp as the f2.8 monsters...but getting the not so sharp shot is better than getting no shot in a fast pace enviroment.

basically, everyone has their uses, some prefer not so power body with super lens, some vice versa. at the end of the day its just ur needs, although IMHO, the power body + lens gives a greater upgradiong capability at an earlier chance to use your eqpt.

just my opinions

Cheers

 

[binbeto]

Originally posted by vince123123
Sometimes i find it difficult to understand why people flame other pple for getting a "power body" + "consumer zoom" combo as opposed to a "not so power body" + "power lens" combo.

I dun think there is any flaming going on, at least not in this thread.

Most are just giving their advise/opinion. It's the buyer $$ afterall.

I am those that pro "cheap body-good les" person. My thinking is that the lens is what that make the picture. The body is just a light-proof box to hold the film/ccd.

Most of the time, the one with "so-so" body but good lens will provide better pic than the one with good body and "so-so" lens(in term of details, clarity, contrast etc)

Of course, everyone will want to own a good lens with good body. However, if $$ is the limiting factor, my advise is always to spend more on lens follow by film.

 

[ckiang]

Originally posted by vince123123
Sometimes i find it difficult to understand why people flame other pple for getting a "power body" + "consumer zoom" combo as opposed to a "not so power body" + "power lens" combo.

The thing abt the people in the first category is that they are looking for a long term investment, dont have enough $$$ but yet want to be able to start out as early as possible.

Assuming that the end game is power body + power lens:

If you get a power body + consumer zoom, u can always get more lenses later on, e.g. ur 2.8 or AFS variations. Your only loss would be the price of the superzoom, which is n't a total loss cos superzooms are really userful in travel or tours where u usually want to bring only one lens along for everything.

Second, if you get the not so power body + power lens, ur 'wastage" outlay is essnetially higher should u wish to upgrade, as you have wasted the price of a 'not so power' body, which is definitely going to be higher than a superzoom lens. and most people dont use two bodies (or waste money selling it 2nd hand), whereas most people would use more than one lens (ie superzoom + f2.8 monsters for differing situations).

third, superzooms are not without its merit. its wide focal length allows one to be able to catch shots without having to shift lenses. As a goer of many stage shows and fashion catwalk shows, usually it is my opinion that a superzoom for the job is more handy, as i can take full length of models close, or far, or closeups of models close or far...all without having to swithc lenses and miss that moment, which is fleeting. Of course it wont be as sharp as the f2.8 monsters...but getting the not so sharp shot is better than getting no shot in a fast pace enviroment.

basically, everyone has their uses, some prefer not so power body with super lens, some vice versa. at the end of the day its just ur needs, although IMHO, the power body + lens gives a greater upgradiong capability at an earlier chance to use your eqpt.

just my opinions

Cheers

People like me give our frank opinion and you think it's a flame? :cry:

As far as I am concerned, getting a bad shot is equivalent to not getting a shot at all. And if you get a so-so body with a great lens, you will probably be more happy with your shots. Go the other way, and you might just be disappointed at having spent so much money and still end up with crappy pics.



Regards
CK

 

[vince123123]

Ok i retract the word "flame" but the rest of the opinion stands. at the end of the day its the person who is using and how happy he gets i guess. finkster has already demonstrated his requirements which is different from the "lousy body power lens" profile.

and there is a difference between getting a "bad" shot vs a "not so sharp as f2.8" shot.


Cheers

 

[binbeto]

Originally posted by vince123123
Ok i retract the word "flame" but the rest of the opinion stands. at the end of the day its the person who is using and how happy he gets i guess. finkster has already demonstrated his requirements which is different from the "lousy body power lens" profile.

and there is a difference between getting a "bad" shot vs a "not so sharp as f2.8" shot, esp since finkster says he is only going 4R.


Cheers

I think most of us here are trying to give other user advises. If the person dun want to hear what others are thinking. They shouldn't ask opinion in the 1st place.

Though he has stated he want to go the "lousy body power lens" way. We, as good member of CS community, wanted him to reconsider his decision. "Buy! Buy! Buy!"

To add to my previous reply, IMO it is harder to sell a consumer lens than a cosumer body.

I think we all agreed that it's the buyer $$. Theerfore, he got the last call.

P.s. I think D100 is not a lousy body. I would be glad to adopt it.

 

[vince123123]

actually I think what you meant is that finkster has chosen to go the "power body, consumer lens" way, with a view to go "power body and power lens in the future"

a consumer lens can still be used in the future, e.g. travelling light. a consumer body would have to be sold unless u need a backup body.

 

[Minimalis]

jumping on the bandwagon...anyone has any thoughts or experience about coupling either the D100 or S2PRO with a Nikkor 80-400 VR?

 

[finkster]

Well... I really appreciate all the advice given by everyone. Since I did start this thread, maybe I should clarify my position.


The main thing I would like to know is, can I justify spending so much more money on two lenses, one wide(28-85mm) and another zoom(80-200mm) lens, compared to one lens which can cover both? Does the money spent justify the difference in photo quality? If it is barely noticeable, I'd rather choose the more affordable one. This does not mean I do not plan to have other lenses. I just need one now so I can take photos, be it near or far, at a quality that I can be proud of.

I am not pro, & I will never be one. I will not give myself illusions of grandeur, thinking that with expensive gear, i can take pics as good as the pros. I am a relative newbie to photography, having tinkered with an OM-20 about 10 years ago, but i never went in-depth at that time. Only two years ago, I got myself a digicam, rediscovered the joy of photography, & have been learning how to fully maximise it. I had the intention to upgrade almost a year back, but have been telling myself that before I spend so much money on a DSLR, I should learn to take good photos with the equipment I currently have first.

With all that said, after factoring in my personal requirements, and not to mention the great advice from my seniors, I think I will most likely still go for the 28-200mm range. Reasons are cost, convenience, portability & greater flexibility of shooting distances. As for picture quality, I would like to do a test, if possible, between a 28-85/80-200 and a 28-200, to see for myself how great is the difference.

The choices I've narrowed down, to mention again, are:
1) AF Zoom-Nikkor 28-200mm F3.5-5.6D IF
2) Tokina AT-X 242AF 24-200mm F3.5-5.6
3) Tamron AF 28-200mm F3.8-5.6 Super II Macro
4) Tamron AF 28-300mm F3.5-6.3 XR Ultra Zoom

Which lens should i choose among these four? I'd like to have your opinion, and if possible, the reasons for your choice.

I hope owning such a lens will not draw sneers & upturned noses whenever I have the chance to shoot with CSnappers or other photogs!

 

[Larry]

Originally posted by finkster
I hope owning such a lens will not draw sneers & upturned noses whenever I have the chance to shoot with CSnappers or other photogs!

of course not... i'll whack anyone who does that with my 50mm f/1.8. :bsmilie:

anyway, think i said this earlier. the Tamron AF 28-200mm F3.8-5.6 Super II Macro is a good lens among those you listed. i've had one for years and it's served me well. still use it for short holidays when i too lazy to carry more lenses. if you want, i can t/loan it to you to try out first. it's the older version though, not that current one.

 

[vince123123]

Well I never had personal experience with any of the 4 lenses u quoted. but u might want to explore the Tamron 28-200 XR rather than the Super II. the XR series is newer, and smaller...at least to the old 28-200 which i did have experience using. has zoom lock to prevent creeping as well.

long ago i heard that the nikkor 28-200 was simply a rebranded tamron one...although i am not sure on this pt...so u may be paying more for the same thing.

as for going to 300...well thats optional but depending on ur needs. I'd say a 28-200XR is a choice worth considering, and u may not want to get stuck with too much $$$ on ur beginner lens esp since u may wish to ug to the f2.8 monsters next time.
hell u may even try the 100-400 instead of a 28-300

Hope that is helpful.

Originally posted by finkster
The choices I've narrowed down, to mention again, are:
1) AF Zoom-Nikkor 28-200mm F3.5-5.6D IF
2) Tokina AT-X 242AF 24-200mm F3.5-5.6
3) Tamron AF 28-200mm F3.8-5.6 Super II Macro
4) Tamron AF 28-300mm F3.5-6.3 XR Ultra Zoom

Which lens should i choose among these four? I'd like to have your opinion, and if possible, the reasons for your choice.

I hope owning such a lens will not draw sneers & upturned noses whenever I have the chance to shoot with CSnappers or other photogs! [/B]

 

[Java_Guru]

>> 3) Tamron AF 28-200mm F3.8-5.6 Super II Macro

Get the better quality and lighter XR version. Smaller filter size of 62 only also.

 

[9v-sva]

I use an 80-400mm VR lens with my D-100 to shoot stuff, but I notice its like, even on a bloody bright day, the shots still come out a little under exposed... anybody has any idea why? I'm shooting at Program mode, using 200ISO, with no exposure compensation...

 

[vince123123]

try doing a search for "curves and D100"....it has to do with the D100 deliberately shifting its spread to the darker side to avoid blown out highlights.

 

[YellowTang]

Also with digital, manufacturers tend to meter to slight under expose. In theory, it's easier to brighten up shadows in a workflow before printing...