If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Lens quality question
I haven't been able to find a direct and concise answer to this
anywhere, so I thought I'd ask here. I just acquired a Nikon N60 as my first SLR. I got it pretty cheaply to learn on as I save up for a new Nikon digital. I'd like to get some more lenses for it, but I don't know what to do. I'd like something like an 80-200 first. I can't afford the £600 Nikkor lens, and off brands like Quantaray are loads cheaper. Now I know full and well that a cheap lens is not anywhere near the quality of a Nikkor. But I'm a grad student saving up for a wedding and I don't have the money to spend. For the next several years, I can't imagine needing any prints bigger than a rare 8x10 and mostly needing 4x6. With a 4x6 print taken with an off brand lens will I notice a huge difference than I would with a Nikkor? I just want to know if someone who is not a professional is looking at some photos of mine, will the photos look bad, or does lens quality not mean as much when you're just talking about small prints. Thanks in advance, Isaac |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Lens quality question
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Lens quality question
i'd like to recommend the nikon 50 f/1.8. real cheap, real sharp. if you just gotta have a zoom, have you looked at sigma? they have a 70-200 f/2.8, which is not cheap, but less expensive than the nikon. they also have a lower priced 70-300 f/4-5.6. please note that i cannot attest to the quality of the sigmas, as i do not own either, but i do own a 30 f/1.4 and a 105 f/2.8, and i am happy with both. You will be much happier in the long run if you avoid both Quantary and Sigma. Quantary is a poor quality lens with zero resale value...and Sigma lenses are reverse engineered. Sigma doesn't work with Nikon when it designs the lens...it may work with your next Nikon or it may not. I buy used Nikkors...if you cannot afford the price of a new lens, I'd suggest you do the same. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Lens quality question
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Lens quality question
wrote:
I haven't been able to find a direct and concise answer to this anywhere, so I thought I'd ask here. I just acquired a Nikon N60 as my first SLR. I got it pretty cheaply to learn on as I save up for a new Nikon digital. I'd like to get some more lenses for it, but I don't know what to do. I'd like something like an 80-200 first. I can't afford the £600 Nikkor lens, and off brands like Quantaray are loads cheaper. Nikon doesn't have a monopoly on great glass by any means, but the better 3rd party offerings are not inexpensive either. If the £600 Nikkor you're looking at is an 80-200mm f/2.8D, it's well worth the money. But a lot of what you are paying for is the extra speed. But if you're willing to buy used gear here are a few alternatives. 1. A used "one-ring" 80-200mm f/2.8. This is the model I own. Instead of having separate rings for zoom and focus, you push or pull on the large focus ring to zoom. The big disadvantage of this model is the lack of a tripod mount. But you get either the same or virtually the same optics for half or less of the price of a new copy. 2. A 70-210mm f/4. This is another "one-ring" design and a full stop slower than #1. It's an older design that lacks ED glass and autofocus speed is on the slow side. But it's solidly built, easier to handhold, and will deliver fine results. For a copy in excellent condition, expect to pay around £100~£150. 3. A 70-200mm f/4~5.6. This replaced #2 in the Nikon lineup. There have been a couple of laudatory internet reviews of this thing, so it's currently selling for inflated prices in the used market. I've never used this one. 3. A 75-300mm f/4.5~5.6. In the U.S., you can still find these new occasionally. This lens has more reach than #1 or #2, but is slower still. It is sturdily build and has an acceptable tripod mount. If I didn't already have an 80-200mm, I would have seriously considered this lens. 4. A 70-300mm f/4~5.6. There are two flavors of this lens. I have the more expensive ED version, which includes one small element of extra-low disperson glass and has an aperture ring. Its light weight and relatively small size makes it my choice when I don't want to lug around an 80-200mm f/2.8. The less expensive G version which probably doesn't have the ED glass and lacks an aperture ring. With an N60, you set aperture via the camera body. These lenses compete directly with lenses from Tamron, Sigma, Quantaray and the like. One of Tamron's older offerings is so similar that there's been extensive speculation that one's a rebadged version of the other -- Nikon has formally denied that this is the case. Both lenses have a reputation for being soft at the long end which I find exaggerated. Because of the small maximum aperture, lack of a tripod mount, and long focal length people often handhold the lens. This frequently presents the user with an awkward dilemma -- do I shoot wide open where the 70-300mm is at its worst, or do I risk camera shake by choosing too slow a shutter speed for handheld shooting? I would expect the same behavior of the third-party alternatives in this class. The good news (for you) is that Nikon's announced a new 70-300mm with VR, so in a couple of months there may well be a glut of these in the used market. 5. A Tokina 80-200mm f/2.8. I used the manual focus version of this lens for almost 20 years. The Nikon version is fractionally better, but the Tokina is very well built as well and no slouch optically. Like most other 3rd party lenses, it doesn't hold its value well on resale so if you're lucky, you may be able to find one of these for about £200. -- Michael Benveniste -- Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $250. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Lens quality question
wrote in message oups.com... I haven't been able to find a direct and concise answer to this anywhere, so I thought I'd ask here. I just acquired a Nikon N60 as my first SLR. I got it pretty cheaply to learn on as I save up for a new Nikon digital. I'd like to get some more lenses for it, but I don't know what to do. I'd like something like an 80-200 first. I can't afford the £600 Nikkor lens, and off brands like Quantaray are loads cheaper. Now I know full and well that a cheap lens is not anywhere near the quality of a Nikkor. But I'm a grad student saving up for a wedding and I don't have the money to spend. For the next several years, I can't imagine needing any prints bigger than a rare 8x10 and mostly needing 4x6. With a 4x6 print taken with an off brand lens will I notice a huge difference than I would with a Nikkor? I just want to know if someone who is not a professional is looking at some photos of mine, will the photos look bad, or does lens quality not mean as much when you're just talking about small prints. Thanks in advance, Isaac For general photography and printing at those sizes, yes, most lenses will give you good results. In most cases it is down to your photography skills that will make or break an image, even the best lens can give bad results in the hands of a poor photographer! (camera shake etc.) Having said that, do try to avoid the really cheap makes, and buy the best you can afford, and not the cheapest you can find! especially if you intend to use the lens on your new digital body later. look here for lens compatibility - http://xrl.us/tiw4 The main difference in image quality would be that the cheaper lenses would more than likely produce softer pictures than a more expensive one, which would be crisper, and have better contrast, but, some people prefer the softer look!! Just use some common sense when buying, and you should be happy with whatever you buy! Good luck Mick |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Lens quality question
wrote in message
Nikon N60 as my first SLR. I got it pretty cheaply to learn on I'd like to get some more lenses for it What lenses do you have already? I'd like something like an 80-200 first. That would be my last choice. I find it a pretty useless lens. It is heavy, awkward, bulky, slow focusing, small apertured and puts you too far from the subject. If, though, you take pictures in zoos or at spectator sports YMMV. off brands like Quantaray are loads cheaper. For good reason. Stay away from them and wait for a decent lens to show up on the used market. But I'm a grad student saving up for a wedding and I don't have the money to spend. At a guess in a year or so you will be taking lots of photos of a fast moving object at ground level. For this I recommend getting a 50mm f1.8 AF Nikkor: there are few better lenses when it comes to picture quality; they focus close; they focus quickly [something common AF Nikkor's aren't known for]; they take pictures indoors and in low light without a flash. The lens goes for ~$70 in the states. -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Lens quality question
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Lens quality question
"Kamal R. Prasad" wrote in message
The best way to save on lens cost is NOT to buy zoom lenses. Buy primes i.e. ones with fixed focal lengths. Some good nikkors a- 35mm f/2 approx $300 50 mm f/1.8 approx $100 50 mm f/1.4 approx $300 85 mm f/1.8 approx $400 One other advantage is that prime lenses offer some degree of insurance against failure. If all you have is a single zoom lens, and it fails, you are out of luck. If you carry 4 or 5 primes, and one of them fails, you still have the others available for use. And, in general, prime lenses have less distortion than zooms, although the gap has progressively been narrowing. But you need to be careful when buying cheap zooms, as they do not have the build quality of professional-level zooms. Personally, I'd take 5 excellent used primes over one cheap new zoom any day. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Lens quality question
"Michael Benveniste" wrote:
Nikon doesn't have a monopoly on great glass by any means, but the better 3rd party offerings are not inexpensive either. If the £600 Nikkor you're looking at is an 80-200mm f/2.8D, it's well worth the money. But a lot of what you are paying for is the extra speed. But if you're willing to buy used gear here are a few alternatives. 1. A used "one-ring" 80-200mm f/2.8. This is the model I own. Instead of having separate rings for zoom and focus, you push or pull on the large focus ring to zoom. The big disadvantage of this model is the lack of a tripod mount. But you get either the same or virtually the same optics for half or less of the price of a new copy. I disagree about the big disadvantage. The real disadvantage is that some spares are no longer available. If someone wants to take risk on a very cheap one, that's fine. But paying good money for one then finding it will no longer work due to lack of spares would be extremely frustrating. The two-ring non-AF-S version is a much better bet. The two-ring AF-S version is better still, and it has the benefit of very fast focusing. All spares are still available for both two-ring versions. 2. A 70-210mm f/4. This is another "one-ring" design and a full stop slower than #1. It's an older design that lacks ED glass and autofocus speed is on the slow side. But it's solidly built, easier to handhold, and will deliver fine results. For a copy in excellent condition, expect to pay around £100~£150. A good recommendation. It is a fine lens. The only drawback is the narrow, hard focusing ring which makes manual focusing a chore. The earlier 70-210mm f/4 Nikon Series E has the same optics, but the coating 3. A 70-200mm f/4~5.6. This replaced #2 in the Nikon lineup. There have been a couple of laudatory internet reviews of this thing, so it's currently selling for inflated prices in the used market. I've never used this one. A hugely over-rated lens. There is a lot of sample variation, but even a good one cannot match the older f/4 version. 3. A 75-300mm f/4.5~5.6. In the U.S., you can still find these new occasionally. This lens has more reach than #1 or #2, but is slower still. It is sturdily build and has an acceptable tripod mount. If I didn't already have an 80-200mm, I would have seriously considered this lens. 4. A 70-300mm f/4~5.6. There are two flavors of this lens. I have the more expensive ED version, which includes one small element of extra-low disperson glass and has an aperture ring. Its light weight and relatively small size makes it my choice when I don't want to lug around an 80-200mm f/2.8. The less expensive G version which probably doesn't have the ED glass and lacks an aperture ring. With an N60, you set aperture via the camera body. Consider both versions as 70-200mm lenses that will extend to 300mm in an emergency. Performance beyond 200mm is poor, especially wide open, when it is dire. The 75-300 is a much better performer. These lenses compete directly with lenses from Tamron, Sigma, Quantaray and the like. One of Tamron's older offerings is so similar that there's been extensive speculation that one's a rebadged version of the other -- Nikon has formally denied that this is the case. Nikon can deny it as much as they want. Over the years, Nikon has consistently denied buying-in lenses. However, many Nikon consumer-grade zooms, including both versions of the 70-300mm, are Tamron-made. Other Nikon lenses have been made under contract by Cosina, but Nikon denied that too, as have Pentax and Canon at various times. No-one wants to admit that the lens you can buy at less than half the price came off the same production lines as the camera brand version. 5. A Tokina 80-200mm f/2.8. I used the manual focus version of this lens for almost 20 years. The Nikon version is fractionally better, but the Tokina is very well built as well and no slouch optically. Like most other 3rd party lenses, it doesn't hold its value well on resale so if you're lucky, you may be able to find one of these for about £200. Best avoided. I have only tested the AF version, and it is far inferior to the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8, especially wide open. The manual focus version might be better. I haven't tried one. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lens picture taking quality comparison question | Allan | Digital Photography | 8 | March 17th 06 12:44 AM |
An ISO Quality question | Al Dykes | Digital SLR Cameras | 34 | August 19th 05 10:41 PM |
Download quality question | Ben Rum | Digital SLR Cameras | 9 | March 22nd 05 01:07 AM |
10x Zoom Picture Quality Question Further | LitePix | Digital Photography | 37 | November 1st 04 06:31 AM |
10x Zoom picture quality Question | LitePix | Digital Photography | 21 | October 21st 04 11:33 PM |