kriegsketten
New Member
50mm f/1.8D is not listed as a DX lens, it should be FX. Unless we're talking about a different kind of lens...
Nikon FX walk about lens
- Thread starter betta01
- Start date
50mm f/1.8D is not listed as a DX lens, it should be FX. Unless we're talking about a different kind of lens...
Hi guys,
I am a newbie trying to get a DSLR at the moment, and I think this thread would address a question of mine.
The current D90 kit 1 that is on sale at the moment offers the body + " AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm, f3.5 to 5.6G, ED VR lens." at $1688 with the freebies.
Is this lens a good one? As in, reasonable walk-around lens?
Or would you recommend that I get the body only (probably around $1360) and buy another lens?
I am a newbie trying to get a DSLR at the moment, and I think this thread would address a question of mine.
The current D90 kit 1 that is on sale at the moment offers the body + " AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm, f3.5 to 5.6G, ED VR lens." at $1688 with the freebies.
Is this lens a good one? As in, reasonable walk-around lens?
Or would you recommend that I get the body only (probably around $1360) and buy another lens?
kriegsketten
New Member
One man's poison is another man's meat. Just like camera bodies, or DSLR brands, lenses can be a very subjective topic. I'd suggest that you take your time and do a bit of research before deciding on anything:
1) http://www.photozone.de/
2) http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php
3) google Ken Rockwell.
Once you know what you're getting into, the more well read you are - the better you'll be able to narrow down what lenses you're really looking for. Look at the sample images taken from the lenses and decide for yourself. I'll tell you, there will be people who would recommend you to accept kit 1 just as there will be an equal number of people who will give you plenty of reasons to skip the kit lens. But it all boils down to what you are expecting...
Last edited:
betta01
New Member
In mine humble opinion I think a 18-105mm is excessive, you are trading convenience for image quality. I have only use a 18-50mm f2.8 or 17-55 f2-8 for all mine travelling photography needs depending on which camera I bring along. What is important is that you get a tip top quality first shoot and after which you can crop the image for better composition. F2.8 is handy too for low light situation or indoor shoots. I have never desire for a longer zoom instead at times feel the need for a wider lens. Just sharing mine personal opinion.
It really depends how you use the zoom lens. If the intention is for pure laziness, then these people are missing the point. I use an 18-200VR for most of my travel shots, the other lens is the 35/1.8DX. The versatility allows for shooting at different perspectives and allow me to choose how much background I want in my picture. The thing about travel photography is that sometimes, you don't know what you're going to get and versatility is more important unless you are prepared to lug half your dry cabinet around. ;p
The other reason for using the 18-200VR is because of the D90. The 11x zoom is exceptionally convenient for that occasional video.
You are right, shooting a bit more and cropping later is good practice but you can only crop so much, so I try not to crop as much as possible. I crop and re-frame a lot during film days, but somehow after doing that for many years, I tend to automatically compose the frame during shooting until I find that I rarely need to crop my shots in post anymore. Also, shooting landscape, you can take your time to compose, unless sunrise/sunset is part of your shot and you only have a few minutes to capture that moment.
My experience with 3rd party lenses (with the exception of ZF), however, is that the optics are not as sharp fully open as Nikkors, which entirely negates the purpose of having it 1-2 stops faster while having a shorter zoom ratio. Yes, having f/2.8 is useful for low light but it buys at most a stop or 2 (depending on the focal length compared to a f/3.5-4.5 or f/3.5-5.6 zoom). In this aspect, a fast prime eg, 35/1.8 buys 2-3.5 stops which is more worthy. At f/1.8 background is mostly thrown out of focus, so the possibility to move closer or further for composition is greater compared to a f/2.8 zoom which may not throw the background out of focus enough and can be distracting.
IMO, f/2.8 zooms, however, are great for event shots where you get a balance of convenience and a faster f/stop. When I shoot weddings or events, 17-55/2.8 is definitely one of the lenses I bring as part of my arsenal.
DrSpock
New Member
Last edited:
The 50/1.8D (or at least the version without the D) is even before the D series DSLRs. ;p
Last edited:
NineEleven
New Member
I have the 28-105 which I highly recommend, cheap, light & versatile but use with care during night shoots. Sold my 35-70 2.8 push/pull for 24-70 2.8 which is fine but suffers on the long end.
I had this as well. Very good lens for what it is & takes 77mm filter. Just sold it for the new 16-35 F4 which I kinda regret. The latter being heavier, larger, decent pics but distortion can be quite bad @ 16 & it's over 100% in price! :think:
A 50mm prime is fine for city streets (but sometimes you need that extra reach) & either 1.8 or 1.4D is OK, remember that you don't open wide all the time too. I always keep one in the pocket since it's so small & light. So, plan ahead
betta01
New Member
Thanks bros for great suggestions, anyone using the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 IF on a FX NIkon before. The are many good comments on the image quality from users and internet reviews however there are also criticism about its slow focusing. Any bro with actual experience with regard to this focusing issue to share?? Is the problem serious enough to disrupt the enjoyment of a photo shoot? Trying to get mine choice right, I am currently station in Maldives will be difficult for me if I bring along the wrong lens from Spore coz mine next return trip is only in mid October this year.
If you are intent on getting a constant f2.8 zoom in that range, then you can also consider the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 HSM. It is shorter than the Nikon version, but still quite heavy (I don't think that you can run away from this fact if you want a pro lense with an internal focusing motor). I am using one, and while it can be slightly soft wide open in low light environments, it is very sharp otherwise. Having said that, the picture quality of primes cannot be beat, but you lose the versatility of a zoom.
kriegsketten
New Member
DrSpock
New Member
Affirmative Captain! Need more Vulcan mind probe I guess:bsmilie:No worries Spock! Live long and prosper!
Going back to TS question, if it were me logically I'll still go out with my 17-35 & 50mm, always
marios_pittas
Senior Member
Different walks / moods set of different lens selections! I sometimes I take the 35mm f/2 AI and the 105mm f/2.5 AI (I love it for portraits) - you can keep either of them in large pockets. Other times just the 20-35mm...
-- marios
Hi Kriegsketten, thank you so much!
Just one more question, I keep reading about DX and FX for Nikon, what do they mean?
Just one more question, I keep reading about DX and FX for Nikon, what do they mean?
DX - is a sensor size smaller than 35mm film size.
FX - is a sensor size that is equal or very close to 35mm film size.
[For Nikon, everything but the D3X,D3s, D3 and D700 have DX sized sensors]
the impact is that DX sensors do not see all of the image circle that FX/full frame/35mm lenses offer, and that FX sensors see a bit too much of the outside of DX lenses - leading to vignetting - sometimes harsh, sometimes not too noticeable, ymmv]
before i got my D700 [FX size], my main camera was my D2X [DX size].
for DX the main lens was Sigma 30/1.4, Nikkor 35/2 and Tamron 17-50/2.8 or Sigma 18-50/2.8. i had the Tamron 28-70/2.8 too.
for FX, my Sigma 30/1.4 is still a main lens [i can ignore the extreme vignetting!], and other mains are Nikkor 35-70/2.8 [old but gold] and a Sigma 20-40/2.8 [cant afford Nikkor 14-24/2.8 yet but that would replace this]
[i feel the Nikkor 35-70/2.8 is superior enough to the Tamron for me to not mind losing the extra mm of the latter]
Last edited:
Jerry Chan
Member
18-35mm
24-85mm af-s
50mm af-d f1.4
24-85mm af-s
50mm af-d f1.4
die Blende
New Member
24-120 AFD (not the AFS VR)
cheap good and not as heavy as the AFS24-70/28-70
have to compromise on the IQ (but then we are talking about walk about lens so can spice up quality abit during PP)
i have this lens carried over from film days.. sometimes i use it on general walk about on the D700... not bad for me
my personal opinion
cheers
cheap good and not as heavy as the AFS24-70/28-70
have to compromise on the IQ (but then we are talking about walk about lens so can spice up quality abit during PP)
i have this lens carried over from film days.. sometimes i use it on general walk about on the D700... not bad for me
my personal opinion
cheers
Genie In A Lightbox
Senior Member
Just stick to nikkor lenses. Come to think if it, dx body with dx zoom lens eg d300 and 18-200vr is the ideal setup. This is because you bring along a lighter body compared to fx and you get the "cream of the image" of whatever lens you are using from the cropped sensor. With digital, wide angle shot can be created with composites of several shots from a standard lens or telephoto lens so I will not place wide angle as my priority. Try doing telephoto shots with a wide angle for that matter! See how much detail you can get from that cropping! With FX camera, why would one place so much emphasis on fast lens for low light shooting? The high iso capability of a d700 is a cheaper alternative to fast zooms or primes and you already paid for this capability when you bought the camera so why not use it? And you say you prefer to use the low iso to get noise free images then a dx body would suffice in the first place.
Similar threads
