|
Musket posted:No, let Nikon keep making lovely bridge cameras to fund FX consumer lines. If you want a fullframe compact from nikon in Fmount, get an FE and 40mm pancake or an Nikon S rangefinder. But only if that rangefinder is stamped Made in Occupied Japan, anything less is scrubtier. Just for the record I have an FE for sale if someone wants to listen to Musket. Just go check out the buy/sell thread!
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 17:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 08:15 |
|
|
Musket posted:No, let Nikon keep making lovely bridge cameras to fund FX consumer lines. If you want a fullframe compact from nikon in Fmount, get an FE and 40mm pancake or an Nikon S rangefinder. But only if that rangefinder is stamped Made in Occupied Japan, anything less is scrubtier. None of these will work with my shiny new 24-70 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 17:46
|
|
|
Thats what you get for using a G lens brah. Very little compatibility. 28-70 AF-S 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 17:54
|
|
|
You should only be putting AI primes on your film bodies anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:04
|
|
|
I only either use k-mount lenses or G lenses on my film bodies
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:05
|
|
|
That sweet f/22.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:07
|
|
|
Musket posted:That sweet f/22. N75 supremacy (even VR works)
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:09
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:N75 supremacy (even VR works) Thats right, totally forgot about that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:11
|
|
|
Musket posted:True but they are compact and FX and cheaper than going with an M6, 35mm 1.4 Summilulz
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 19:59
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:You'd be surprised, Nikon RF stuff is pretty drat expensive. They're very hard to find (especially in usable condition) and not as many repair technicians work on them. http://www.ebay.com/ctg/Nikon-S-35mm-Rangefinder-Film-Camera-Body-Only-/83185393 Cheap compared to a $5000 lens. Here is one with 50mm 1.4 http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-S-Nik...=item35c22bcd9e You are right about how hard they are to get fixed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 20:09
|
|
|
Musket posted:http://www.ebay.com/ctg/Nikon-S-35mm-Rangefinder-Film-Camera-Body-Only-/83185393 I guess what I'm saying is that Leica and Nikon RFs are almost identical price-wise for comparable models.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 21:12
|
|
|
Legitimate Pape posted:http://nikonrumors.com/2012/12/13/for-tonight-200-price-drop-on-the-d800-free-24-85mm-lens-with-the-purchase-of-the-d600.aspx/#more-50272 Just a heads up for anyone thinking about this deal, apparently it is only valid for 2 days (December 14th and 15th?)
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 01:46
|
|
|
Could I get a quick opinion on wether or not to get the service plan on a d600 and 24-85 at Best buy? I think it's like $219.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 02:03
|
|
|
Legdiian posted:Just a heads up for anyone thinking about this deal, apparently it is only valid for 2 days (December 14th and 15th?) According to the email I got directly from Nikon, it's until the 29th. quote:Offer valid December 14, 2012 at 12:00 A.M. ET until December 29, 2012 at 11:59 P.M. edit: But yeah, Amazon straight up says only available until the 15th. I think the Nikon Store is the only place to get it through the 29th. BonoMan fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Dec 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 03:15
|
|
|
Legdiian posted:Could I get a quick opinion on wether or not to get the service plan on a d600 and 24-85 at Best buy? I think it's like $219. No. If you're relying on Best Buy for good customer service then... I don't even know. Also your camera won't need 'servicing' unless it breaks (which is a warranty repair) other than maybe a sensor cleaning, which you can either do yourself or have someone else do for a drat sight less than $219.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 04:15
|
|
|
Also, don't buy Cameras at Best Buy. Support your local speciality stores.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 07:46
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:Also, don't buy Cameras at Best Buy. Support your local speciality stores.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 10:42
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:Also, don't buy Cameras at Best Buy. Support your local speciality stores. I have only gone to my local store once. I went in looking for a lens pen and the woman was trying to sell me a UV filter to protect my lens (kit lens). When I told her I wasn't interested, she pulled the "What do I know, I just work here" routine. On the other hand, my local Best Buy camera department knows me on a first name basis. YMMV and I'm sure my particular case is the exception to the rule.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 15:30
|
|
|
Yeah that sounds terrible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 16:18
|
|
|
If your worried about your gear breaking, get loving insurance not some stupid geeksquad plan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 18:48
|
|
|
Musket posted:If your worried about your gear breaking, get loving insurance Any suggestions? What would I expect to pay for coverage that would cover accidental damage? Like dropping it on the pavement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 19:47
|
|
|
Legdiian posted:Any suggestions? What would I expect to pay for coverage that would cover accidental damage? Like dropping it on the pavement. Squaretrade comes to mind, never did much research into it though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 20:03
|
|
|
Pulled the trigger on a D600 and 50mm 1.4; upgrading from a D40. Going to sell the kit lens once the inevitable tidal wave of them clear off eBay. Here's to hoping bonus season works out well 
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 22:11
|
|
|
Legdiian posted:Any suggestions? What would I expect to pay for coverage that would cover accidental damage? Like dropping it on the pavement. Do you have renters insurance? Call your agent or you can look for an in-land marine policy if you make a most of your income off photos.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 23:53
|
|
|
geetee posted:Pulled the trigger on a D600 and 50mm 1.4; upgrading from a D40.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 01:50
|
|
|
geetee posted:Pulled the trigger on a D600 and 50mm 1.4; upgrading from a D40.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 13:07
|
|
|
I just used the Nikon cover. I put some standard tape on the edges though, so particles/sand don't sneak in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 13:15
|
|
|
Hey everyone. My girlfriend owns a D5100 with the basic kit lens (18-55mm). I would like to get her a new lens. My price range is up to $400. I would also be interested in something that can still be used on higher up bodies for Nikon as I suspect she'll eventually graduate to one of those. Most of her photography is long-distance stuff when she is hiking and such. She also likes to do photos of stuff very close (insects being her primary interest in these cases). I once saw an 18-300 lens but she mentioned a lens that went lower than 18mm and up to 300 existed but I have never found this. Would it be better to get two lenses? Thank you all so much for your suggestions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 20:41
|
|
|
Please don't buy a superzoom lens (such as 18-200 or 18-300), it is as they say: "Jack of all trades but master of none." At that price range you should probably look at something like a 70-300mm with variable aperture (typically f/4-5.6 or similar). They can be had for $150-$600 depending on brand and whether they have VR (vibration reduction). I think Sigma's 70-300/4-5.6 OS looks like the best deal, feature-wise at least. For close-up stuff you should instead go for a macro-type lens, however I'm not sure you'll find any decent in your price range.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 20:59
|
|
|
I'd recommend this 35mm lens: http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-35mm-1-8G-Digital-Cameras/dp/B001S2PPT0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1355687619&sr=8-1&keywords=nikon+35 It's a great lens - no zoom, but a useful field of view and great low light performance. It's a DX lens, so it won't cover the full sensor with full-frame cameras, but those are probably fairly far in the future for your girlfriend is this will be her first non-kit lens. For more portrait-type work, this kind of lens would be better: http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-50mm-NI...ords=nikon+50mm It's a narrower field of view, but some people like it a lot. Wider lenses, like you might want for landscapes, tend to be a little out of your price range. EDIT: Maybe I got your meaning wrong when you said long distance stuff. If she likes shooting animals and such, then something like this 70-300: http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Autofocus-Zoom-Lenses/1/sku-NA07999088447J?r=FE would be perfect. I use this exact lens to shoot birds and wildlife from my kayak, and it's a good compromise between reach, quality, and weight. a foolish pianist fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Dec 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 20:59
|
|
|
Philemon posted:Hey everyone. If you want to do a macro (close up) lens that'd also be semi-decent for portraits, have a look at the Tamron 90mm f/2.8. It'd also cover at least a bit of 'long-distance' stuff (since while not hugely long, it's still a drat sight longer than an 18-55). But yes do not get superzoom lenses (ie 18-200, 24-300, smallnumber-absurdnumber) because while some are less terrible than others they're all pretty halfassed optically (and generally pretty slow too). ...and to the best of my knowledge there does not exist a lens for Nikon mount that is both wider than 18mm and longer than 300mm. SoundMonkey fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Dec 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 21:37
|
|
|
I'd get a 90mm macro lens too. The Tamron SM mentions is cheap and great.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 21:47
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:If you want to do a macro (close up) lens that'd also be semi-decent for portraits, have a look at the Tamron 90mm f/2.8. It'd also cover at least a bit of 'long-distance' stuff (since while not hugely long, it's still a drat sight longer than an 18-55). Eh I dunno I'd probably take an 28-300 if it was like $200. The problem is that their superzooms are all ridiculously expensive and for the same price you can get a good lens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 22:08
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Eh I dunno I'd probably take an 28-300 if it was like $200. The problem is that their superzooms are all ridiculously expensive and for the same price you can get a good lens. Or, more to the point, a couple good lenses, that will probably cover the same or better range that the superzoom did. I'd also like to take a moment here to bring up a very shameful and instructive chapter in Nikon's history. I'm sure you all know of the Ken Rockwell Approved 18-200 f/3.5-cocks VR. I believe they are on version two of it right now, which included such upgrades as "is no longer a laughingstock", but K-Rock was also very happy with the first version, which Nikon was pushing the hell out of. The first version of the 18-200 had barrel distortion so bad that, at the time, it was the first time that DPReview had ever run an optical test multiple times, just because they couldn't fathom that a respected lens manufacturer would even let that poo poo out the door being so shameful, much less try to sell it for like six hundred united states dollars. evil_bunnY posted:I'd get a 90mm macro lens too. The Tamron SM mentions is cheap and great. This is based on "absolutely no research" but if these are more than $250 used I'd be surprised. Just do make sure it has an internal motor, because D5100 (those don't have the screw, do they?).
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 22:14
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:I'd recommend this 35mm lens: I'd recommend the Tamron 70-300 VC over that nikon. Similar price point but all the reviews I've seen say that the Tamron preforms better. I love my 70-300 VC. http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-70-300...amron+70-300+vc
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 22:15
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:I'd recommend the Tamron 70-300 VC over that nikon. Similar price point but all the reviews I've seen say that the Tamron preforms better. I love my 70-300 VC. http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-70-300...amron+70-300+vc I was nothing but unhappy with the Nikon 70-300 VR I had (soft as poo poo) despite the features all working as advertised (reasonably fast focus, VR worked, etc). I was unhappy with it and I got it for literally $100. Think on that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 22:16
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:This is based on "absolutely no research" but if these are more than $250 used I'd be surprised. Just do make sure it has an internal motor, because D5100 (those don't have the screw, do they?).
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 22:17
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:They don't, but I'm pretty sure even the older 90/2.8 has a motor. Yeah to clarify there are two versions I think, a 90mm 2.8 and a 2.5 (maybe?), but basically anything that says "Tamron 90mm Macro" is what you want. Do check about the motor thing though, although I seem to recall the one I used in the store did have the motor. Also goddamn it I'd just managed to forget about this lens that I want that I can't afford which I'm now telling you to get. EDIT: I'd just like to point out that I started my post "To clarify...", then didn't clarify anything. That is all. SoundMonkey fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Dec 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 22:23
|
|
|
The 60/2 is also p nice on DX.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 22:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 08:15 |
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:The 60/2 is also p nice on DX. It is, I'm just a little less likely to recommend it if the subject is insects, and also it's somewhat more expensive I think. Also am I crazy, or is the Tamron 1:1, whereas the 60mm tops out at 1:2? More fun Nikon history: The reason it's "Micro-Nikkor" is because when Nikon released their first 'macro' lens, it wasn't actually a macro lens by the exact definition (it could do 1:2, but needed extension tubes to get to 1:1), and since Nikon was heavily into the microscope/looking-at-small-poo poo business, they decided they'd rather not get called out, and since then every macro lens from them has been 'Micro'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 22:28
|
|