New Here, new to photography

[bnkrecords]

Well you started at the top for the camera body and flash system, but you started at the bottom of the real parts: the lenses.

Thank you, i was wondering about my lenses.. what would be some good lenses? my price range would probably be about 1500.

 

[JDP]

Thank you, i was wondering about my lenses.. what would be some good lenses? my price range would probably be about 1500.

Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 for sure. $1200, or buy the Tamron version for less then HALF! Sure, it's not as hefty as the Nikkor, but the lens is spot on - beautiful as it could be!

 

[xfloggingkylex]

Yeah what I was thinking is that you hit the photography bug hard! I just got into it a few months ago and I though I was crazy for stating SLR without a year of practicing on a smaller compact, but you went into the pro0sumer/pro catagory! Hey, more power to ya! you can make some great pics with that equipment, the knowledge and expertise will come with time.

just so no one gets the wrong idea, you can take equally as nice of shots with cheaper cameras, it is simply the build quality and functions/abilities (like sophisticated metering) that make higher end cameras, higher end.

The lens is going to be the thing that makes the biggest difference.

So dont get discouraged anyone!

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Thank you, i was wondering about my lenses.. what would be some good lenses? my price range would probably be about 1500.

It's really no biggie, and it happens alot. But in all seriousness, if you're going to spend 1500 on a standard lens, you get the 17-55 f/2.8 DX. You can get the 35-70 f/2.8 and 80-200 f/2.8 for about $1300 together and both are amazing pieces of glass, but the 35-70 and 28-70's give an awkward focal length on a cropped sensor (in my opinion). I used to have the 35-70 f/2.8 and hardly ever used it. I love my 80-200, it's amazingly sharp, fast, and rugged. I use it all the time. I also own the 17-55 DX and It's an incredibly versatile lens. Probably my favorite in my bag.

Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 for sure. $1200, or buy the Tamron version for less then HALF! Sure, it's not as hefty as the Nikkor, but the lens is spot on - beautiful as it could be!

I've used the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 on a Rebel XT and I can safely say that not only does the Nikkor provide better contrast and sharpness, but it's got build quality to match.

 

[The_Traveler]

I just got a nikon d200 with the sb800 flash with some nikkor lenses. I was told I was on the right path, and im loving my photos so far..

you sure are starting with good equipment.

welcome.

 

[bnkrecords]

you know, im kickin myself in the but for not starting along time ago. I spent some time in Iraq, kuwait, and the kingdom of bahrain, i could have got some good pics out of those deployments. oh well.

so this 80-200 you are talking about, what model number or model name is it? Do i just tell them i want an 80-200?

 

[JDP]

I've used the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 on a Rebel XT and I can safely say that not only does the Nikkor provide better contrast and sharpness, but it's got build quality to match.

I'm wondering if you just got one from a bad run, I've heard about the build quality not being as high, but from all the reviews (User & Pro) I've read, the tamron performs just as well as any Nikon glass - I tested both lenses, hell the 17-55 nikkor dx is the one I rely on the most, and didn't notice any serious photo quality between the two - can you elaborate more for me? I'm considering getting this lens instead of the Nikkor.

About the only other thing I heard about the Tamron is it's a bit whiney, but I can put up with that.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

at f/2.8, I found that my Nikkor is sharper than the Tamron, by the time you're at f/5.6-f/8 it really didn't' matter anymore.

And yes, the tamron is noisy and doesn't focus as fast because it's not AF-S.

 

[JDP]

at f/2.8, I found that my Nikkor is sharper than the Tamron, by the time you're at f/5.6-f/8 it really didn't' matter anymore.

And yes, the tamron is noisy and doesn't focus as fast because it's not AF-S.

Hrm. Maybe I'll just go with the Nikkor then, since 2.8 is where I usually sit and the sole purpose I use that lens. I've used the Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 many times and know it in and out, never used the Tamron except for in the showroom - this might be one of those times I err to the side of caution here.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Well one of the reason I shoot Nikon is to use Nikkor lenses.

 

[binary bill]

[FONT=&quot]this is my first post, so hi everybody. i got into photography late in my college carreer and now i'm done am looking at starting a respectable collection respectably. rather than open up a post i'd like to revive this one that i read through and found very helpful as a noob. i hope this works the same as the last forum i was a member of, and this new post sends the thread up to the top so i can get a response.

i'd just like a formal conclusion to the advice given to brandon regarding lenses.

17-55 f/2.8 DX. and 80-200 f/2.8

those two lenses with a decent body, say a D40X would make for a great; serious, amateur start...am i right? please feel free to contradict on my body choice. i've pretty much made up my mind on getting a nikon, i've been using them casually for a long time. the D40X seems like great value for money.

next question. what does DX mean? in regards to the first lens mentioned.

...there are no stupid questions.

in regards to personal camera choice. i don't enjoy using flash, i want at least one lens that will perform admirably under low light. a camera i can take a picture of a dark alley at night with, without a tripod. will one of the above lenses do this for me?

personally for me, when i take a picture, clarity is the first sacrifice of a great image. but i don't want sharpness, detail and the prospects of natural light to suffer on account of anything but my own choices or mistakes.

thanks a lot. from the posts i've read so far i'm sure i can expect a helpful response from somewhere out there.

 

[DSLR noob]

Well Binary Bill welcome to the photo forum. I say if you want to go Nikon, go for an unopened leftover D50 from before the D40 came out. the D40x has no built in autofocus motor, and only 3 autofocus points. It is a downgrade from the D50 really.
Those lenses sound great for not using flash as a max aperture of 2.8 is fast for a zooming lens.