Help with buying decision.

Paul Furman wrote:

I love wide angle but a 12-24 is going to cost another several hundred
dollars and with an 18-200 there may be little motivation to change
lenses.

One motivation for going the Canon route is that the Canon EF-s 10-22 is
a couple of hundred dollars less than the Nikon DX 12-24, and the Canon
is the better lens according to all reviews (and if Nikon aficionado Ken
Rockwell concurs with this then you know the Canon must be _really_ good.

I picked up the Canon EF-s 10-22 for $605 at a Dell sale, though it's
$635 now at Adorama. The Nikon 12-24 is $859 at Adorama.

In article , SMS
wrote:

Paul Furman wrote:

I love wide angle but a 12-24 is going to cost another several hundred
dollars and with an 18-200 there may be little motivation to change
lenses.

One motivation for going the Canon route is that the Canon EF-s 10-22 is
a couple of hundred dollars less than the Nikon DX 12-24, and the Canon
is the better lens according to all reviews (and if Nikon aficionado Ken
Rockwell concurs with this then you know the Canon must be _really_ good.

ken rockwell admits he makes up stuff.

I picked up the Canon EF-s 10-22 for $605 at a Dell sale, though it's
$635 now at Adorama. The Nikon 12-24 is $859 at Adorama.

and the tokina 12-24 is under $500 and is considered to be comparable
in quality.

SMS wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:

I love wide angle but a 12-24 is going to cost another several hundred
dollars and with an 18-200 there may be little motivation to change
lenses.

One motivation for going the Canon route is that the Canon EF-s 10-22 is
a couple of hundred dollars less than the Nikon DX 12-24, and the Canon
is the better lens according to all reviews (and if Nikon aficionado Ken
Rockwell concurs with this then you know the Canon must be _really_ good.

I picked up the Canon EF-s 10-22 for $605 at a Dell sale, though it's
$635 now at Adorama. The Nikon 12-24 is $859 at Adorama.

Yep, that's supposed to be a nice one.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 22:12:43 -0800, SMS wrote:

One motivation for going the Canon route is that the Canon EF-s 10-22 is
a couple of hundred dollars less than the Nikon DX 12-24, and the Canon
is the better lens according to all reviews (and if Nikon aficionado Ken
Rockwell concurs with this then you know the Canon must be _really_ good.

I picked up the Canon EF-s 10-22 for $605 at a Dell sale, though it's
$635 now at Adorama. The Nikon 12-24 is $859 at Adorama.

This is a case where the less expensive alternatives can be as
good or better. Sigma's 10-20mm and Tokina's 11-16mm f/2.8 are
excellent lenses. From tests I've read, Nikon's 12-24mm IQ is
surpassed in some areas by the Tokina, although it's build quality
doesn't match the Nikkor. Just above these in focal length and
price is Nikon's 14-24mm which has no peers. Its IQ is so good that
for many it has been able to replace a bag full of fixed focal
length Nikkors. This lens alone has motivated a good number of
Canon owners to switch to Nikon and some other Canon owners that
haven't switched have gladly purchased the 14-24mm with an adapter
that allows it to be used on their Canon DSLRs, despite clumsy
operation due to the loss of some features. The point here is that
Canon makes some excellent lenses as does Nikon, Pentax, Sony and
other camera manufacturers. They also make a few dogs too. The
same is true for Sigma, Tamron and Tokina, who also make very good
and bad lenses. Your credibility would be higher if you didn't
always see the world through rose colored Canon filters.

As for your comment with respect to Ken Rockwell, your logic is as
impeccable as ever. If he likes something, especially if it's made
by Canon, it must be good. Why that almost sounds like you. P&S
bad, DSLR good, especially if it's a Canon DSLR. But what about
Rockwell's infamous article that compared a $150 Canon P&S favorably
to a $5,000 DSLR? By your reckoning, those Canon Powershots must be
good. Really, really good. And you know it's true because it was
Ken Rockwell of all people that said so.

Paul Furman wrote:
ASAAR wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 01:10:46 -0800, Paul Furman wrote:

Go for the D90 with 18-200 and add one lens, a 50mm f/1.8 or
splurge on the new AF-S 50mm f/1.4G for bragging rights. A
more
practical choice might be a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 'normal' lens
but the
50 is a good portrait lens. If he gets into it he can buy
another
body but he should have at least one fast lens to play with.

The 30mm f/1.4 is very nice and was somewhat useful in NYC
in this
evening's snow, sleet and slush. But in the city's cramped
spaces
it seemed like I was using a telephoto. My much wider lenses
turned
out to be a good deal more useful.

I love wide angle but a 12-24 is going to cost another several
hundred
dollars and with an 18-200 there may be little motivation to
change
lenses. The 30mm is at least a normal lens so you can put it on
for
the day and be able to capture most anything 'normal' that used
to be
the only lens people had for their camera. The 50mm suggestion
would
be pretty specialized, just to try on for a while as a creative
experiment for a different look, kind of like the wide angle
option.
Both are fun stuff that is not available on compact cameras so
part
of the fun of getting a DSLR and it's a shame to miss that but
the OP
knows better what the recipient might enjoy. A 50mm f/1.8 is
only
$100, it's useful in low light, ideal for portraits and can
give a
very different look.

Thanks for all the replies, everybody. Most of them have been
reasoned and enlightening. And sorry about the late reply - my
ISP went down shortly after I posted my initial message and
stayed down for more than a day.

I'm leaning more and more towards the D90 as my new-found friend
is not yet ready for the D300 or a comparable Canon model. I also
don't think he's ready to keep switching lenses, hence the
18-200mm. He'll probably want to upgrade to a more advanced
camera after a year or so and possibly also to more exotic
lenses. BTW, I've used the Nikkor 50mm/1.4 occasionally with a
friend's camera and liked it.

In article ,
Paul Furman wrote:

A 50mm f/1.8 is only $100, it's useful
in low light, ideal for portraits and can give a very different look.

Shooting wide open in low light one can get some great shots with
everything blurred except the center of attention. Have some beautiful
portraits doing this.

--
I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in
one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you reject all other gods,
you will understand why I reject yours as well.
Stephen F. Roberts

ASAAR wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 22:12:43 -0800, SMS wrote:

One motivation for going the Canon route is that the Canon EF-s 10-22 is
a couple of hundred dollars less than the Nikon DX 12-24, and the Canon
is the better lens according to all reviews (and if Nikon aficionado Ken
Rockwell concurs with this then you know the Canon must be _really_ good.

I picked up the Canon EF-s 10-22 for $605 at a Dell sale, though it's
$635 now at Adorama. The Nikon 12-24 is $859 at Adorama.

This is a case where the less expensive alternatives can be as
good or better. Sigma's 10-20mm and Tokina's 11-16mm f/2.8 are
excellent lenses. From tests I've read, Nikon's 12-24mm IQ is
surpassed in some areas by the Tokina, although it's build quality
doesn't match the Nikkor. Just above these in focal length and
price is Nikon's 14-24mm which has no peers. Its IQ is so good that
for many it has been able to replace a bag full of fixed focal
length Nikkors. This lens alone has motivated a good number of
Canon owners to switch to Nikon and some other Canon owners that

Spare us the bull****.

--
Ray Fischer

On 20 Dec 2008 21:02:57 GMT, Ray Fischer wrote:

Spare us the bull****.

Sure thing, and it's easy enough. Heed the invisible note at the
bottom of all of my replies. It only requires that you don't
pollute the newsgroup with your replies.

ASAAR wrote:
On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 22:12:43 -0800, SMS wrote:

One motivation for going the Canon route is that the Canon EF-s 10-22 is
a couple of hundred dollars less than the Nikon DX 12-24, and the Canon
is the better lens according to all reviews (and if Nikon aficionado Ken
Rockwell concurs with this then you know the Canon must be _really_ good.

I picked up the Canon EF-s 10-22 for $605 at a Dell sale, though it's
$635 now at Adorama. The Nikon 12-24 is $859 at Adorama.

This is a case where the less expensive alternatives can be as
good or better. Sigma's 10-20mm and Tokina's 11-16mm f/2.8 are
excellent lenses. From tests I've read, Nikon's 12-24mm IQ is
surpassed in some areas by the Tokina, although it's build quality
doesn't match the Nikkor. Just above these in focal length and
price is Nikon's 14-24mm which has no peers. Its IQ is so good that
for many it has been able to replace a bag full of fixed focal
length Nikkors.

This is true although it costs and weighs as much as a bag of lenses.

;-)

This lens alone has motivated a good number of
Canon owners to switch to Nikon and some other Canon owners that
haven't switched have gladly purchased the 14-24mm with an adapter
that allows it to be used on their Canon DSLRs, despite clumsy
operation due to the loss of some features. The point here is that
Canon makes some excellent lenses as does Nikon, Pentax, Sony and
other camera manufacturers. They also make a few dogs too. The
same is true for Sigma, Tamron and Tokina, who also make very good
and bad lenses. Your credibility would be higher if you didn't
always see the world through rose colored Canon filters.

As for your comment with respect to Ken Rockwell, your logic is as
impeccable as ever. If he likes something, especially if it's made
by Canon, it must be good. Why that almost sounds like you. P&S
bad, DSLR good, especially if it's a Canon DSLR. But what about
Rockwell's infamous article that compared a $150 Canon P&S favorably
to a $5,000 DSLR? By your reckoning, those Canon Powershots must be
good. Really, really good. And you know it's true because it was
Ken Rockwell of all people that said so.



--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 14:19:42 -0800, Paul Furman wrote:

Just above these in focal length and
price is Nikon's 14-24mm which has no peers. Its IQ is so good that
for many it has been able to replace a bag full of fixed focal
length Nikkors.

This is true although it costs and weighs as much as a bag of lenses.

;-)

True, depending on the number and type of lenses owned. I saw a
couple of msgs. in DPRs forums saying that though large and heavy,
the camera bag was lighter after the 14-24mm replaced the other
lenses. I'm not a candidate for this lens (and wouldn't b