|
This post reserved for some kind of updates.
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2012 05:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 10:49 |
|
|
BonoMan posted:I actually meant to ask this question too...the quality of the included lens. If nothing else, the old 28-80 3.5-5.6 AF-D is a shockingly good lens, for like a hundred bucks usually.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2012 08:22
|
|
|
aliencowboy posted:Yeah, this is the lens I got for $35. I got a step up ring for my polarizer and it worked really well. It feels really cheap, but the optics are surprisingly good. Yeah I got it for... some small amount when I was in Sydney, and it's the one thing Ken Rockwell was right about. lovely plastic construction, aperture not that fast, but hot drat the optics are some of the best you can get for your money. Even a great lens on a crop body, which is what I use it on.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2012 09:01
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:The 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 G AF-S is good too. Is this the one that's absurdly cheap for no discernable reason? Because if so, I used to own that lens, and were it not for some financial difficulties at the time I still would. Optically it's good, if not amazing, but lightning-fast AF and generally awesome quality make it a great buy if you can find one. Am I the only one who's increasingly beginning to like old film body kit lenses on crop bodies? It's not QUITE as convenient a focal range as the traditional 18-55, but I've been finding it's nice to have the extra bit on the long end, and 24/28mm is still moderately wide on the other end. Also in response to your wrong-opinions post in the old thread, there is ONE more-expensive-kit-lens that would be a legitimate upgrade - if you have the 18-55, consider the 18-55 VR. The VR is great, it's not very expensive, and it's just a good lens for the price.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2012 19:37
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:now and forever, amen. This is a Correct Opinion in this case. The 35/1.8 isn't like "the lens everyone should have", although it's awesome and I use mine a lot and it's a great value for the money. The weather sealing is a nice bonus, mine's been hit straight-on with a 4-foot wave and didn't even care. But yeah, if you want a fast prime in that focal range, the 35/1.8 is the lens to get.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2012 03:52
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:It's a macro lens, so it focuses much closer. It's also extremely sharp. It's not long enough to give you close shots of really small things, but it will be excellent for product photos. It does pretty well with the old PK-13 extension tube, and those are cheap as hell these days.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2012 04:09
|
|
|
Mest0r posted:It depends on the camera, the D7000 allows you to shoot aperture priority with MF lenses as long as your tell it the minimum aperture of the lens. The D7000, if I recall, also has an AI metering tab, which the D5100 doesn't.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2012 22:40
|
|
|
That 70s Shirt posted:The older 80-200 f2.8 (two-ring version) is no slouch, either. Unless you absolutely need the VR you could save some money picking one of those up. I used one for years before I got my D800 and decided to go exclusively primes. Easily one of my favorite lenses I've ever used. I have this lens and owns pretty hard, especially for the money. The M/A clutch is a bit dumb but I've never been bothered by it. The limit switch can be handy (I seem to recall the limit is 8-10 feet or something).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2012 21:05
|
|
|
Doggles posted:Nice, had no idea about the 80-200 version until now. That's going into the consideration pool as well. Bearing in mind, of course, that the vibration reduction only helps with camera shake, not subject movement.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2012 00:01
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:I'd wait and at least try a Sigma 35/1.4, which comes with dazzling AUTOFOCUS. Both Nikon 35's are meh. You shut your filthy whore mouth. Although it's true that the 35 2.5 E is a soft piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2012 04:22
|
|
|
Legdiian posted:Been shooting with a D5100 for about a year and a half now and thinking about upgrading. Some of my gripes with the D5100 are : It's odd to advise someone against a full-frame body, but if you're barely getting away with 200mm on a crop body, you're gonna need 300mm on a full frame body, and at f/2.8, that's a little expensive.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2012 04:05
|
|
|
Legdiian posted:My comment about the 200mm was a little misleading. What I should have said is that I have never needed anything that long. I frequently use my 18-55 kit lens at 18mm to try and get some form of fisheye effect. I rented a 10mm fisheye and had a great time with it. The point being most of the stuff i'm taking pictures of is done at low speed and I can just about walk right up to the bikes. I'm sure you'd see quite an improvement, and if you enjoy shooting wide, those would be some pretty good cameras (assuming you have full-frame wide lenses or are willing to get some).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2012 04:25
|
|
|
MrStaticVoid posted:Anyone know why Nikon hasn't started adding electromagnetic diaphragms to all of their new lenses? Seems like that would solve a lot of problems around live aperture changes, and they have the technology. You shut your filthy mouth, mechanical apertures own.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2012 04:58
|
|
|
borkencode posted:I've got a D600, which of course has the dust/oil issue that seems endemic to them. What do I do about this? Will Nikon fix it under warranty? I'm over 3000 shots, so according to the internet no new spots should develop, but I have no idea what to do. Call and ask them? Worst that can happen is that they tell you to eat chain.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2012 03:35
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:doh: double post PEBKAC 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 19:53
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:True story, matrix metering is retarded and still heavily prioritizes the AF point you used to establish focus. Yet another objectively wrong post brought to you by 'evil_bunnY'. The matrix meter in my old-bullshit D200 does a pretty good job, and the matrix meter in most newer bodies is nothing short of spectacular in how often it ends up being 'correct'. I can also see the logic behind y'know, the meter paying attention to the thing you've told the camera to pay attention to.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2012 21:22
|
|
|
tijag posted:Matrix metering is horrible IMO. Everything on my D7k that I matrix meter turns out overexposed vs. spot metering. You might be doing it wrong, even if we can't get to "matrix metering is pretty loving awesome these days", it's a far cry from "horrible". This said by a guy who shoots in matrix meter like 75% of the time. Edit: Wait are you saying you leave the camera in spot metering mode for like day to day use?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 01:50
|
|
|
powderific posted:The matrix metering on my D800 seems to overexpose somewhat regularly compared to the 5dII it replaced. It's also harder for me to predict when I'll need to dial in compensation than it was on the 5D, though part of that is probably due to me being a long time Canon user still getting used to Nikon's system. I'd almost be happy about that, the D200 is so poo poo-scared of blowing a single pixel that I just leave it at +0.3 all the time.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 03:38
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:Mine is really sharp - maybe you got a particularly bad one? Or I got a particularly good one? That could easily be the case, I've just heard various similar reports from other people about how it's "a very nice 70-280mm lens". And having sold the lens long ago, didn't care to look too much deeper into it evil_bunnY posted:The Tamron 60/2 I'm talking about is 1:1. Oh ok, that makes sense then. The 90 might still be better for really small bugs, I remember using a 35mm 1:1 macro lens on Olympus (before I used "good camera systems"), and half the time I'd hit the insect with the front element trying to focus.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2012 22:32
|
|
|
Philemon posted:The 90mm looks better, more suited to be good at the one thing it does ("macro") versus the 70-300 may be better for zooming and being overall versatile but perhaps suffering a bit more from jack-of-all-trades? Is this fair? The 90mm is a macro lens, but it can do anything any other 90mm lens can do - portraits, medium-telephoto, it's still pretty versatile for a fixed focal length. The 70-300's "macro" mode is absolute bullshit (in every case) and really just means "can focus kinda close, I guess". EDIT: In terms of portraits I think both the 60 and 90 would be great, most of the portrait stuff I do is at 110-150mm, so 90 is by no means too long (you might have to step back a couple steps, as someone else said).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2012 01:21
|
|
|
Dorkopotamis posted:I just got a Nikon D600 and although I haven't had much of a chance to use it, I'm really liking it as the first DSLR I've owned. As is customary, here is a picture of my cat: Seconding the 'read the manual' people but I gotta say man, your cat looks a lot like a dog. Like some kind of crazy cat schnauzer or something.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2012 04:35
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Harsher chemicals might take the printed labeling of of the lens barrels but as long as you don't soak them anything that is safe to clean plastics with is fine. Don't be to excited about the 18-35mm it's kinda meh, I used to have a 24mm AFD and it was nice though. If you can find it (which ain't that easy) Sigma of all people made a bitchin' screw-drive Nikon mount 24 2.8 (it's an older one), and shockingly, it's actually a loving awesome lens, at least on crop. For less than $100, when I bought it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2012 07:06
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Yeah that Yongnuo flash only does manual settings, no TTL of any kind, not even "flash ready" signalling. You practically have to fire the camera in manual mode. Possibly also investigate if the flash has non-TTL auto (but I doubt it).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2013 02:41
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:Between this and "Understanding Exposure" my catte photos are looking better than ever. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Yeah unless something is really broken about the lens it shouldn't damage anything. It is AI after all. (The only possibility for damage I can think of would be if the aperture lever gets stuck and breaks the mechanism in the camera. Set the lens to f/22 or whatever minimum aperture it is and check how easily the aperture lever moves.) Fun fact: that little divet in the flange? On older bodies a pin would slide into that to see if the lens was AI-S or just AI.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2013 02:36
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:haha Also get a kit lens, they're essentially free (or close enough to free), and they're pretty handy.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:Is it silly though? If you ever upgrade that lens, I'll bet you'll wish that you had bought the Nikon version. Counterpoint: the Tamron ones are like fifty dollars and don't have weird deliberate lens incompatibility issues. Although the Nikon ones are probably a bunch better.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
echobucket posted:Ha, I'm not sure where you are seeing $50 tamron TCs. The ones on Amazon are like $226. The Nikon one is $500. I seem to remember I got my Tamron 1.4x for about $50, used. The older version with the screw-drive passthrough (which is nice if you're using non-AF-S lenses). I'd look around KEH and whatnot too.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:Manual focusing is pretty bad in the tiny viewfinder, guess-and-check exposure isn't really any worse than regular manual mode (especially on a one-dial body, since the lens has an aperture ring). It is, of course, easier on a full-frame groundglass with a split prism or something, but in any but the shittiest lighting conditions, manual focus on a crop body isn't really that hard once you put in a bit of practice. ...I say this as someone who uses a D200, maybe the lower end bodies have worse viewfinders?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2013 23:41
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Lenses are hard. The older 55mm Micro AI-S is quite well regarded to this day, although if you want to get all  it's not actually a macro lens, since it can only do 1:2 without the PK-13 extension tube.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:Yeah, the entry level bodies have significantly smaller viewfinders, and they only have an on/off focus confirmation dot rather than the arrows + dot. Even the D200-range bodies don't have the arrows, when I saw that on my wife's D1H I was like  .The D1H, with its glorious 3.74 megapixels, beats the D200 in quite a few aspects actually.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2013 00:19
|
|
|
Tusen Takk posted:Thanks! My brother-in-law works for a residential/commercial garbage removal service and he found a bunch of video cameras (Sony DXC-327's with Canon PH12x7.5B's), camera cases, Manfrotto tripods, a Rosco Alpha 900 fog machine, all kinds of other TV studio-esque goodies. eBay says they're all worth craploads of money, and I know that the video camera body and lenses are worth lots, but I'm not sure what the actual demand is on them. These things get shitted up to high heaven with fog fluid residue, get ready for a god drat lot of cleaning work (and pray to god the heating element still works). Lucky page 13 snype.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2013 03:45
|
|
|
Tusen Takk posted:It actually works fabulously! He used it to fill his parent's house up with fog before a Lions game came on (~3200 ft2, so I think it works fine Theatre gear costs outlandish amounts of money. Like I'm averaging $35 per bulb in most of my lights.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2013 03:56
|
|
. Good info on that though, the cheapest one I could find used online was like $300. Is that seriously how much it's worth?
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 10:49 |
|
|
Tusen Takk posted:
PM me if you need help working out what's worth a poo poo and what's not.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2013 04:41
|
|