Considering a D50

[fmw]

I'll chime in too on the lenses. Lenses are still the image producing part of a camera. The digital body records what the lens projects. The architectural shot above was made with an expensive Nikkor 12-24 F4 wide angle zoom. That's why it is so crisp across the frame of the photograph. I'm not suggesting you should buy this lens. I'm just agreeing with those who advise against the "kits" that include cheap third party lenses.

I used the lens that accompanied the D50 for several months for product photography. It wasn't a great lens or a fast one, but it produced decent results. Any other lenses you buy in the future should be at least as good as that one and certainly better than the cheapies the camera dealers use to improve their margins.

 

[Mohain]

I know people who have had their D50 photos blown up to 30" x 20" and have been very happy with the result.

 

[Wiggly]

so how do I know a good lense from a bad one? by brand? just doing research on individual lenses? or just reading and eventually picking up on things? is sigma not a good brand?

 

[Tiberius]

Do research on the various lenses. Sigma's a decent brand, and has a lot of great lenses at certain price points (Their 150mm Macro and 10-20mm are both good lenses, and the 50-500 "Bigma" is famous). As a general rule, Nikkor-brand and Canon-brand glass is usually superior to Sigma glass, but there are some poor camera-brand lenses and some spectacular Sigma lenses, so it's not a golden rule.

I'd start with the Nikon 18-55 or 18-70 lenses. I own both and love them (I should get around to selling the 18-55, but I've been lazy). If you get the 18-70, however, make sure you get it used - it's the kit lens with all of Nikon's higher-end bodies, and you can get them used for about $200 all the time - an absolute steal for the quality. The 18-55 is decent quality and is dirt cheap, but the 18-70 is superior in every way.

 

[Wiggly]

I was reading in another thread that the higher the zoom the more poor the performance. Is this true? Or is the difference small enough to not be a big deal? So wouldn't the "Bigma" be bad? I was looking at the 18-70 and it looks good. I would also like a fisheye lense. It seems like a kit would be so much cheaper than buying them individually... Any good sites to buy lenses other than www.bhphoto.com ?

It just seems like that kit I posted earlier is a STEAL compared to buying everything individually. Unless I'm just looking in all the wrong places?

 

[fmw]

I was reading in another thread that the higher the zoom the more poor the performance. Is this true? Or is the difference small enough to not be a big deal? So wouldn't the "Bigma" be bad? I was looking at the 18-70 and it looks good. I would also like a fisheye lense. It seems like a kit would be so much cheaper than buying them individually... Any good sites to buy lenses other than www.bhphoto.com ?

It just seems like that kit I posted earlier is a STEAL compared to buying everything individually. Unless I'm just looking in all the wrong places?

It is a steal. The merchant is trying to steal more gross profit by selling you a junk lens or two. It isn't that you are looking in the wrong place. It is that you are looking at the wrong products.

I haven't seen or used "Bigma" but I can assure that, sight unseen, it will have worse performance than a more modest zoom like 18-70.

In the equipment section somewhere I posted a short review of an inexpensive Tamron tele converter. In that post you can see some images of newsprint that make a very graphic comparison of differences in image quality. In the best case, the image is made with a prime telephoto lens designed for a 35mm camera and the poorer performing lens is an expensive 17-55 f2.8 Nikkor zoom which is only 3X. As the zoom range grows things only become worse. Take a look and tell me what you think.

 

[Tiberius]

I was reading in another thread that the higher the zoom the more poor the performance. Is this true? Or is the difference small enough to not be a big deal?

Both. It's certainly true that if two lenses are of comparable build quality and price and one has a larger zoom range than optical comprimises would have have to been made. But in a large number of cases, it's not too bad. Several exceptions to the rule:

(1) Nikon's 80-400VR has a 5x zoom and is considerably better than a lot of Nikon's 'lesser' zoom range lenses like the 70-300, 70-210, 18-70, and so on. On the other hand, it's in a higher price and build quality range.

(2) Nikon's 18-200VR - is it as good as Pro f/2.8 glass? No. But it's got an 11x zoom range and is incredible acros 99% of it. A LOT of people love and use it, which is why you can never find one.

(3) The Bigma. It may cost a thousand bucks, but optically it's rock solid.

It seems like a kit would be so much cheaper than buying them individually...

Definitely not the "kits" you'll find on eBay. Their lenses are crap.

Any good sites to buy lenses other than www.bhphoto.com ?

Tons. Just use www.resellerratings.com to check out the various companies. I've used Beach Camera, KEH, Adorama, and Amazon myself.

It just seems like that kit I posted earlier is a STEAL compared to buying everything individually. Unless I'm just looking in all the wrong places?

It's only a steal in that they're stealing your money and giving you junk.

 

[ravikiran]

I just aggree with Tiberius and FMW. THey are very correct in telling you oof the ebay products especially their kits.

 

[Wiggly]

http://www.sigma4less.com/sess/utn;jsessionid=154548c8f07afad/shopdata/product_search.shopscript?query=NID50185555200K&pc=6

hows that look? they are both nikkor lenses. (nikon right?)

 

[Tiberius]

Those lenses are decent, but not spectacular. You'd still be better getting either the standard kit - Body + 18-55 - or, even better, the body alone and a lens like the 18-70.

 

[Wiggly]

I know I'm beggining to sound redundant, but here goes anyway. So if nikon has good lenses, and those are both nikkor lenses. Why are they only decent and not as good as a single 18-70?

 

[Arch]

Its because the 18-70 is notorious for being a pin sharp lens... it is just better built than the two kit lenses..... its your choice, i have both the kit lenses but i only ever use the 18-55 now because i have others that cover the range of the 55-200.
But given the choice now.... i'd get the body first.... then get the 18-70.

 

[Wiggly]

ahhhh I see. wow I have learned so much in this thread! Thanks everyone for all the help, patience, and comments!

wellllp. 950 dollars for both from wolf camera bought individually. guess I'll start saving lol. much cheaper at sigma for less though