|
Quick question. I have a D5100 that I've only had a few weeks, so I'm just starting to get the hang of basic stuff. My dad is visiting and brought some old Nikon stuff he had from his 35mm Nikon, including a Nikkor-P 105mm f2.5. From some googling, my understanding is that I CAN use this lens on my D5100 without any modification, right? I'm getting that in part from this chart: http://www.aiconversions.com/compatibilitytable.htm From somebody who does AI conversions. That is, the D5100 doesn't have anything that would be damaged if I just put this Nikkor lens on. It's just that it will all be totally manual, right? But no chance I damage my D5100 putting it on?
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2013 00:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 21:43 |
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Yup, you shouldn't have any issues at all. Thanks, I tried it and it works fine. It seems like it will be fun to play around with. The glass is really nice, and the whole thing just feels so solid. He also has an older Canon zoom lens, and my understanding is that I can pick up an adapter to fit Canon lenses on the Nikon body (something like this, maybe?). I can use that without any risk of having the Canon lens damage the D5100 body, right?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2013 02:20
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:You could, but it's probalby not worth it. Those adapters feature corrective optics to give you infinity focus, and it normally turns good glass into lovely glass. Thanks. I guess I should have figured that, with it being a pretty cheap piece of equipment and having something optical in there. I suppose I had at first thought it would just be some mechanical ring. Oh well. Among other older photography stuff, my dad brought some macro lenses to play around with, and was also suggesting I try out a macro bellows with my D5100. I never looked into this before, and from some quick looking around on Amazon (which is probably not enough research on this kind of thing), it seemed like there was only one bellows for use with a Nikon that had anything close to decent reviews. Anyone have any experience with these, and any particular recommendation for a model?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2013 03:08
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:It all depends on what you want to do for macro. Bellows are great for precision, studio, tripod sort of stuff. If you want to be walking around shooting bugs then you're better off with a macro lens, or extension tubes/reverse mounting. Thanks, that's helpful. Among the stuff he gave me is a macro lens with tubes, so I suppose I'm set for that at the moment, unless I want a different set of tubes. If I decide I want bellows, is that the kind of equipment where as long as the quality is decent, it doesn't really matter which one you get? I mean, fundamentally it seems like a pretty simple device -- as long as the build isn't shoddy, it would seem like brand wouldn't really matter, right?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2013 03:19
|
|
|
So I was digging through a closet and found my father-in-law's old 35mm Pentax camera (a K1000), which has an "SMC Pentax-M 50mm F2" lens on it. It also had stored with it a 28mm/2.8 and a 135mm/2.8, both of which are Sears brand, and say they are made in Korea (I dunno who actually was making these for Sears). The 135 mounts on the Pentax, but the 28mm has a slightly smaller mount and doesn't fit on the Pentax -- I'm not sure what it was used for (and the fact that it was in the same box in our closet doesn't mean much). I could use the 50mm/2 and the 135mm/2.8 on my D5100, if I used a Pentax K Lens to Nikon adapter, like this one, right? Would that be worth playing around with? I mean, in the grand scheme of camera stuff, the adapter is not a big purchase, but are the lenses likely to work well with such an adapter (assuming they're in good shape)?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2013 02:23
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:You could but honestly glass adapters suck. You could get a glassless adapter but you won't be able to focus past a certain distance. You would be better off buying an AI Nikkor 50/2 and 28/2.8 or something if you wanted to play with manual focus. Thanks. I have Nikkor 55/3.5 and 105/2.5 lenses that my dad gave me from his old 35mm Nikon, and I've been playing around with those, so I don't really have a pressing need to use the Pentax lenses (or whatever other weird Sears lens this 28mm is), but I figured if the adapters were decent it could be worthwhile. The issue with glassless adapters is you can't focus to infinity, right? And this is the 28/2.8 you're talking about, right?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
I have a D5100, and currently have the 18-55 kit lens, the 35/1.8, as well as two older manual primes (a 105/2.5 and 55/3.5 "micro"). I want an entry-level zoom that will give me more reach than the kit lens so I can take better pictures of the kids at school/sporting events. The 105 has decent reach on the D5100 body, but I think I really want a zoom so I can adjust depending on where I am in relation to the stage or whatever (if I didn't want a zoom I'd be looking at some other fast primes, I think). What I want is something so I can get decently close, or zoom out a bit, regardless of where I'm sitting at an event, and thereby avoid the scrum of parents rushing the stage, take flash photos with their iphones and what not. I'm also looking at entry-level lenses, rather than, say, the 2.8 zooms, which seem nice, but more than I can spend right now. At first I was thinking of the Tamron 70-300/4.0-5.6, which seems to be pretty well regarded as an entry-level zoom from what I can tell, and which is within my price range (particular the ln- graded ones that KEH had for about $250 last I checked). 300mm is probably more reach than I would need in most circumstances, so I figure on that end it's fine. Maybe the Nikon 55-200 would be an option I should consider along these lines, too. The problem, however, is that only going down to 70 (or 55), I'd probably need to carry a second lens around with me so I could take closer stuff of the kids, and that would be a little bit of a pain. So that led me to looking at the something like the Sigma 18-250/3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS HSM. That range from 18mm going all the way up to 250 would cover pretty much everything I might need at some event for the kids, so I wouldn't really need to carry around a second lens. That would be pretty convenient, and this lens is certainly in my price range as well. But I've also seen the advice, for instance in the Gear thread, that one should avoid the "super zooms" and just have 2 lens that cover the range you want (e.g., the 18-55 and a 70-200 or 300). So I guess two questions -- (1) any thoughts on the Sigma 18-250, and (2) should I just be thinking about a different strategy here (like two lenses) and avoid the super zooms? Maybe I'm better off using the 105/2.5 when I'm further away, and putting the same money towards replacing the kit lens with the Tamron 17-50/2.8? Anyway, any thoughts would be appreciated.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2013 02:27
|
|
|
Thanks -- I appreciate the feedback. I'm going to re-evaluate my reluctance to carry a second lens (it's really not that big a deal). And see if I can just get by with the 105 for now, and instead think about upgrading the kit lens. Plus used 55-200 Nikon lenses seems pretty inexpensive so far as that goes -- that might work just fine for my purposes for now.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2013 04:41
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:So, the Tamron 10-24 I found on Craigslist didn't pan out because the guy had already sold it. But I'm still half looking for a wide angle lens. Are there any others I should be looking for that will work with my D5100 (aka they should probably be able to auto focus). I have the Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, which I picked up a few months ago for my D5100, and have been really happy with: http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-10-20mm-4-5-6-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0007U00XK The thing is a tank -- I guess that's the deal with Sigma's EX line, it just seems really heavy duty and high quality. The AF seems to work quite well. When I was doing research for it, I was a little skeptical of the variable aperture, and was also looking at the Tokina 11-16/2.8 (and the Tamron you mention, but that's variable aperture, too). The Tokina doesn't have AF, and also was quite a bit more (I see this Sigma used on KEH for about $330). And I haven't felt limited by the 4-5.6 -- I'm mostly using the thing at like f/8 anyway -- or at least I haven't really felt the lack of being able to open it up wider than f/4. From the reviews I read, the Sigma seemed pretty well reviewed, and I've been quite happy with it, at least from the limited paces I've put it through so far.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
I have the Sigma 10-20, which I use on my D5100. I'm pretty happy with it. When I was doing my research on which wide angle to get, I was down to this Sigma or the Tokina 11-16, which also looked really good.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
I'm looking at picking up a Nikon 105/2.8 micro to use with my D5100. I expect to be using it only with manual focus, so I'm looking at used 105/2.8 AF lenses, which seem to be be in the $300s used (the new 105/2.8 with VR is not in my price range). I've noticed that AF-D versions of the lens run about $100 more used than the regular AF version. I know that neither of these will AF on my D5100 body, although they would if I upgrade to the 7100 at some point. Two questions: 1) Both these AF lenses will meter on my D5100, right? That is, I can set the camera to Aperture Priority mode and the camera will know what aperture I've set using the aperture ring on the lens, and the camera will therefore give me the proper shutter speed for a correct exposure. Is that right? I don't mind manual focus, but it would be nice to have the lens meter on my camera. 2) I'm going to be using this without a flash, at least for now. If I understand this correctly (and it's highly possible that I don't), the difference between AF and AF-D is that a lens with D reports distance back to the camera more accurately (or does the D lens report back distance and the non-D doesn't at all). Is the point of this to help the camera set the flash exposure more accurately, and so a D version of the lens doesn't provide any advantage if I'm not using a flash? Or is an AF-D version of the 105 going to be better in some way I'm not understanding (even without the flash)? Any advice would be appreciated.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
nielsm posted:No, you set the aperture ring to smallest aperture (probably f/22) and lock it in place, then you control the aperture on the camera body. All lenses with CPU, which includes all AF lenses, use on-camera aperture control. (At least on models produced after 1996 or there about.) Thanks for the information. About the aperture ring, so I would just put the lens on my camera, set it to F/22 on the ring, and then forget about the ring and merely use the lens like I do any regular Nikon G lens, where I'm using the control dial to change aperture? When would you ever actually use the aperture ring on such lenses -- when you put them on tubes or bellows and therefore have no electrical connection to the camera?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Yeah, when you use a "dead" extension tube, or when you use the lens with an old camera body. Thanks. I don't know why -- I guess I just assumed the ring would function for these CPU lenses like the ring on a old, fully manual lens, except sending aperture data back to the body. Sounds like basically using the 105/2.8 AF/AF-D will end up being just like using, say, the Tamron 90 that doesn't have a ring, in terms of I'll just be using the body to control aperture anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:Nikon D7200 has been officially announced: Neat. I wonder how much that will push down D7100 prices.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:I don't think we're alone in that boat. Unless you were someone who didn't want a 7100 due to the frame buffer problems, there doesn't seem to be a *huge* amount on first inspection to grab a 7200 at full price rather than a heavily discounted or second hand 7100, or am I missing something? That's my initial reaction on a quick read of the dpreview article. I don't imagine feeling greatly limited by the buffer in the D7100, and the other stuff all seems like incremental upgrades that would be nice, but not nice enough to make me consider a $1200 camera if I could get a nice, used or refurbed D7100 for about half that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 14:46
|
|
|
Nice. I'm eagerly awaiting the flood of cheap 7100s, too. But hmmm -- that makes a 7200 seem appealing. I wonder how much I would notice the better ability to focus in lower light of the 7200.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:
KEH is in Georgia. Anything I've ordered from them, with regular shipping, takes just a couple days to get to Northern Virginia. The last order I placed there was a used lens I ordered on the 17th and it was delivered on the 19th. I'd imagine it would be at least that fast to Florida, if not faster.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
Thoren posted:How is this different from the 17-50mm? I believe that's the older version -- Sigma made that before they came out with this one.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
Digital Jesus posted:I can get a D5200 single lens kit for what I believe to be a reasonable price. I haven't owned a DSLR for a while and never owned a Nikon. Is this still a decent body to pick up? I thought about a 7100/7200 but they are considerably more expensive, as is the D5500. What's the price? I have a D5100 and am happy with it in many respects, but if I had to do it over, I would have spent more to get the 7100 so I could have the screw drive and use AF with some older lenses.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
Digital Jesus posted:I ended up getting the D5200 with 18-55 and I really like it. I need more reach though. I've heard really good things about the 55-200, but how does the 55-300 compare? I have only the 55-200, and so can't give you a comparison based on personal experience, but I will say that lots of folks seem to like the Tamron 70-300 -- might be worth checking that out as well.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:Yeah I wish it was the 85 and 105 they decided to put out first. The 35 and 50 are cheap enough as it is. It is known that they're going to make versions of the 85 and 105?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
So I just upgraded to a D7100 from a D5100. Should I worry about a screen protector for screen? Nikon doesn't seem to make some kind of plastic cover for it, so I guess the only options are covers that adhere like for a smartphone, right?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:The lack of VC, even in a wide angle, kills me. (I forgot that Nikon doesn't have VR too, I knew there was something). I'm rarely with stabilisation and I know I wouldn't have gotten shots from floor hundred-and-something at the Burj Khalifa with car streams that are tolerable to me from a sharpness POV if I wasn't able to crank it down to 1/4 or so. Without VR and my caffeine riddled body, it probably would've been awful. I should've done some tests just to find out! How about the Sigma 17-50/2.8 EX DC OS HSM? That'll give you VC and the constant 2.8 and they seem to run around or under $400 used. I haven't used the Tamron 17-50, but I've got that Sigma for my D7100, and it seems pretty solid and sharp to me, and the VC (rather, OS) can be handy.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2015 13:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 21:43 |
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:That sounds pretty perfect, losing the 50-70mm doesn't really bother me all that much and I'm not one for thinking I need a set of lenses to cover every possible focal length. Is this a harder to come by lens? My usual stockist doesn't have any (MPB, they cover a sizeable selection) and eBay brought up nothing in the UK but one seller in Germany for £200 or so. I'm afraid I'm not sure. I got my lens last year from KEH (which is my go to for used gear), at which time they had only one copy (so I would have said "yes" then), but checking their website this morning, I see they have 4 copies for sale. But I realize KEH's current stock may not really be informative or helpful for you. Adorama and B&H Photo both appear to have new copies of the lens in stock as well.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2015 14:22
|
|