• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Nikon Lens Guide

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I haven't seen any concrete reviews of the 18-105mm AF-S VR, but until I do I would venture that it replaces the price point previously occupied by the 18-70mm and 18-135mm.
 
Thanks for the great info! As I'm looking forward to getting my first dSLR, possibly the D90, these info will be invaluable!
 
Originally posted by: soydios
I haven't seen any concrete reviews of the 18-105mm AF-S VR, but until I do I would venture that it replaces the price point previously occupied by the 18-70mm and 18-135mm.
Click to expand...

well, this could be good guide for those who wants something to compliment the 18-105mm, perhaps like the 70-300mm or 55-200mm. (I am already looking for a used 70-300mm before I even have the bugdet for the D90 itself ;p)
 
BTW soydios, I'm not sure you covered for this, but there are two versions of the push/pull 80-200mm f/2.8. There's an older AF version and a newer AF-D version. I think they're optically the same but the AF-D version autofocuses faster. It should autofocus just as fast as the two-ring version (which is also AF-D).

I've tried both the push/pull AF-D and the two-ring AF-D, and they autofocus at about the same speed (IIRC), which is reasonably fast. Not as fast as AF-S, but nothing to complain too much about unless you shoot sports. I think Ken Rockwell has said on his site that the two-ring AF-D version focuses nearly as fast as the AF-S, so take that for what it's worth.
 
Great info here, I finally sold all my DSL gear and bought a Nikon D40X, with two Kit lenses.

Now after going to the Mountain and taking really nice pictures, I realized that I will love to have a lens that will allowed to take long distance pictures, to be more precise, a telephoto.

The longest lens that I have is a 200mm, although it brings the subject closer I feel that I need a longer one.

What you guys can recommend me that it will not be a budget killer, I'm just an aficionado that take pictures every where that I go.

Best regards

Eltano
 
Originally posted by: Eltano1
Great info here, I finally sold all my DSL gear and bought a Nikon D40X, with two Kit lenses.

Now after going to the Mountain and taking really nice pictures, I realized that I will love to have a lens that will allowed to take long distance pictures, to be more precise, a telephoto.

The longest lens that I have is a 200mm, although it brings the subject closer I feel that I need a longer one.

What you guys can recommend me that it will not be a budget killer, I'm just an aficionado that take pictures every where that I go.

Best regards

Eltano
Click to expand...

70-300mm non-VR is $120 or so new and is a pretty decent lens with the exception of lacking VR. The VR version is better but also costs much more.

You could try putting a 1.4x or 2x TC on also.
 
I heard about TC add-ons, how that works?

Thanks 996GT2 for the info, tho. Where do I find that lens for $120.00?

Regards

Eltano
 
Hmm...I'll add a paragraph on teleconverters when I get the chance. Here's the short of it: you will only retain autofocus if you use the teleconverter with an AF-S lens, and the effective aperture after mounting the teleconverter is larger than f/5.6 for some bodies.
 
Originally posted by: Eltano1
I heard about TC add-ons, how that works?

Thanks 996GT2 for the info, tho. Where do I find that lens for $120.00?

Regards

Eltano
Click to expand...

I made a slight mistake on price; the Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6 G is actually $135 new from reputable stores like B&H, J&R, or Adorama.

Here is the B&H link.

If you look around used you should be able to find it for ~$100 or so, but with such a small difference in price you might as well get it new and have a 5 year factory warranty to go with it.

Be careful using it at 300mm since it does not have VR. Preferably, you'll want a monopod or tripod; if you don't have that, make sure you're shooting at fast shutter speeds of 1/250 sec or higher to prevent blur at full telephoto.

The 70-300mm f/4-5.6 VR is about $450-500, which is quite a bit to pay for just having VR. It's really getting close to the price of some of Nikon's older professional lenses, like the fast, constant-aperture AF-D 80-200mm f/2.8 for around $800-900. I'd skip it and just get the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 non VR if you just want an occasional use telephoto.
 
996GT2, many thanks for a great info, and guidance. I will go for the 70-300 without the VR, I'm just a hobbyst that loves to take pictures, and ocassionally I like to take pictures that need a lens like this one.

I will let you know.

Thank you again.

Best regards

Eltano Gus
 
Soydios, you should add the Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 EX DG to the list of third party lenses. Here is my impression of the lens after having it for a day:

Build quality is excellent; it's not quite as bombproof as the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 I used last week, but I wouldn't put it too far behind in terms of build quality. It is noticeably better than the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 in terms of build quality (a friend of mine has the Tamron).

The lens is IF and does not rotate on focus or zoom; it also has a zoom lock at 24mm as well as an aperture ring so it's compatible with older cameras and accessories like extension tubes. The lens is shortest (about 3.5") at 24mm and extends about 2 inches at full zoom (60mm).

It focuses with the camera's built in AF motor (so D40 and D60 are out), but AF is quick and accurate.

The lens is 24-60mm, which is a less useful range than 18-55mm. But...the fast aperture and great optics make it worth the tradeoff IMO. It is compatible with full frame 35mm and digital cameras.

Image quality on mine is great; sharp even at f/2.8. I posted some sample pictures in another thread, but if you want more I can upload additional ones.

It comes with a nice Sigma "EX" carrying case and lens hood, as well as 4 year warranty.

Best part: the lens only ran me $235 shipped from Cameta Camera, brand new with 4 year Sigma warranty. It even came with a Hoya 77mm UV filter, cleaning kit, free 1 year subscription to PC Photo, and 50 free prints! This is dramatically lower than Sigma's $570 MSRP, and a steal for the build and optical quality this lens offers.
 
Good article.
I got a D40 a few weeks ago and am loving it. Mostly I've been taking pics of my local Hooters girls (those chicks are camera hogs!)
It came with a basic 18-55mm lens but I think I want more.

Tried taking a picture of a hawk in my neighborhood and the little ah heck wouldnt let me get close to him. I know I need a basic telephoto lens.
I'd also like a reasonable wide-angle lens too.
 
85mm and 105mm lenses are considered portrait lenses whether they are on a DX or full frame camera. They bestow a generally accepted flattering perspective to head shots. I.e. they give a flattering perspective of your nose, cheeks, chin and forehead. A 50mm lens will give those features a bit more of a bulbous appearance. You can find examples on the net of photos taken compensating for distance and achieving the same framing for both 50mm and 85mm focal lengths where the differences in perspective of the lenses shows through. Short tele's are good portrait lenses for this reason. The focal length forcing the photographer to be further or closer to the subject isn't the real reason for these lenses being called portrait lenses.
 
Originally posted by: BullsOnParade
85mm and 105mm lenses are considered portrait lenses whether they are on a DX or full frame camera. They bestow a generally accepted flattering perspective to head shots. I.e. they give a flattering perspective of your nose, cheeks, chin and forehead. A 50mm lens will give those features a bit more of a bulbous appearance. You can find examples on the net of photos taken compensating for distance and achieving the same framing for both 50mm and 85mm focal lengths where the differences in perspective of the lenses shows through. Short tele's are good portrait lenses for this reason. The focal length forcing the photographer to be further or closer to the subject isn't the real reason for these lenses being called portrait lenses.
Click to expand...

It's actually the distance from the subject and angle of view that the lens provides that produces the classic portrait proportions. This is why a 50mm or 85mm is good for DX portraits, 85mm or 105mm is good for FX portraits, and all of the above are way too short for a large-format 4"x5" portrait.
 
Is there a "nifty fifty" equivalent yet that will auto focus on a D40?

A friend of mine wants me to play backup photographer at their wedding using their D40 camera (I have a Fuji S6000fd that I'll be taking along as a spare). The only lenses they have right now are the basic 15-55mm (non-VR) and 55-200mm (non-VR) kit lenses and neither one performs particularly well in low light in my opinion and I'd like to avoid using the built in flash as much as possible. I'd love to have a 50mm 1.8 lens for the event but since I'll be doing candid snapshots, I really need auto focus.
 
Originally posted by: Fardringle
Is there a "nifty fifty" equivalent yet that will auto focus on a D40?

A friend of mine wants me to play backup photographer at their wedding using their D40 camera (I have a Fuji S6000fd that I'll be taking along as a spare). The only lenses they have right now are the basic 15-55mm (non-VR) and 55-200mm (non-VR) kit lenses and neither one performs particularly well in low light in my opinion and I'd like to avoid using the built in flash as much as possible. I'd love to have a 50mm 1.8 lens for the event but since I'll be doing candid snapshots, I really need auto focus.
Click to expand...

There is a AF-S 1.4 50mm that runs ~$425. Im hoping the release one similar the AF 1.8 which goes for about ~$125 not.
 
What I am getting from this thread is I should buy somthing like this if I want to take portraits in a setting with relatively poor light (and dont want to spend a crapload of money).
 
Shortylickens, if you can find it cheap, please let me know.

I wil like a lens like that as well.

Regards

Eltano
 
Originally posted by: shortylickens
What I am getting from this thread is I should buy somthing like this if I want to take portraits in a setting with relatively poor light (and dont want to spend a crapload of money).
Click to expand...

no. you want the nifty fifty $100 AF 50mm f/1.8D for those shots. that f/3.5-4.5 aperture is not good for low light, nor for portraits. the 24-85mm was to film cameras what the 18-55mm is to crop-format digital: a kit lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top