DSLR with sharpest lens and best optical zoom, under $1000?

[Melissa2012B]

I've enjoyed amateur photography since age 12, and am now 63. My first decent camera years ago was a Minolta SRT 101 if I recall.

The budget has been tight lately, with this economy, but a few birthdays back I got a Canon Sd4000IS for a purse camera, and because I enjoy taking natural light photos of our birds.

But now we have a part time home based business and are thinking of expanding into some light photography services with it. Photos of properties and maybe some PI work.

I'm not up on the latest and greatest though. But if we want to get the sharpest lens in a DSLR for under $1000 and the greatest stable optical zoom, what should we consider? Does Nikon still make the sharpest lenses of all nowdays, even though we're talking relatively low end here?

Would I be in the right ballpark with a D3200? Or what else should we consider at the same time?

I want to be able to take sharp, high pixel photos that really knock the socks off clients, with plenty of stable optical zoom ( retaining sharpness ) to "reach out and touch someone" from a good distance.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I'm not trying to be pretentious, but I know what you're looking for and that's like wanting a Ferrari for the price of a Pinto.

 

[bratkinson]

With only $1000 or so to spend on body and lens, I'm thinking you'll have to go used to get anything decent. Get a 'feel' for what's out there for what prices by checking 'completed auctions' on ebay. You may even consider buying on ebay, but it is definitely "caveat emptor"...(let the buyer beware). You'll need good skills at judging the junk from the good and scammers from good-guys. Be sure to check the used areas of both Adorama and B&H online, as well.

I don't know about Nikon, as I'm a Canon shooter, but these days, a used 12-15mp camera is in the $400-500 range and another $600-800 you should be able to find a decent, though slower (f4) "high end" zoom lens (Canon "L" equivalent) to fit your needs. For PI work, a faster (f2.0-f2.8) lens will likely be needed for low-light work, and they get pricey, even used.

 

[bhop]

Switch has it right.. you're living in a dream world.

 

[Overread14 2]

Second hand Canon 5D would give you a pro series (its older tech but still up to the standard) 35mm digital camera (the camera you've listed from Nikon is 1.5crop from 35mm and Canon entry level bodies (rebels) are 1.6crop). You'll have to get second hand because they are no longer made new, but that price should fit into your budget.

Lens wise you'll have to pass on the zoom if you want sharp quality - that's going to cost you as much and more than you're budget is currently. A 24-70mm f2.8 would be the starting point for zooms - but even 3rd party options such as Sigma are going to be too much for the budget.

You should be able to fit a good prime lens into the budget however, a 50mm f1.8 would be the cheapest on the market and yet more than suitable for optical quality (even if its build is very cheap and weak). A 50mm f1.4 (Sigma is currently the newest and the best) would be more in cost, but I think it should fit in to the budget. You'll then have to "zoom" with your feet. For product or interior building shots you could use a tripod and use image stitching software (fairly easy to get even Photoshop Elements has simple and good photo stitching features) to give a wider angle of view by stitching together a series of shots.

 

[StandingBear1983]

With a budget of 1k$ you can get the Nikon D3200 with the kit lens and a prime 35mm 1.8, that will fix you up pretty good for most situations. sharp pictures are mainly up to the photographer and light your shooting in.

If you have good light conditions and know your photography to shoot on high enough shutter speeds (if hand held without a tripod), then you should get sharp images. if you know how to get the most out of your camera you can get razor sharp images. but don't expect magic if your not a magician - there is no short cut from practicing your craft.

 

[KmH]

Unfortunately, the Nikon 35 mm f/1.8 is an inexpensive, consumer grade lens that has some optical aberration issues, most notably when wide apertures are used.

To keep the cost of the lens low, Nikon had to forgo designing the lens so those optical aberrations were corrected.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Unfortunately, the Nikon 35 mm f/1.8 is an inexpensive, consumer grade lens that has some optical aberration issues, most notably when wide apertures are used.

To keep the cost of the lens low, Nikon had to forgo designing the lens so those optical aberrations were corrected.

^^^^ I had one of those and wondered what was going on and KmH posted the same comment and gave me a link to read about it. Thats lens was sold on craigslist days later

 

[Mach0]

Unfortunately, the Nikon 35 mm f/1.8 is an inexpensive, consumer grade lens that has some optical aberration issues, most notably when wide apertures are used.

To keep the cost of the lens low, Nikon had to forgo designing the lens so those optical aberrations were corrected.

What would you see as a suitable replacement ?

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Unfortunately, the Nikon 35 mm f/1.8 is an inexpensive, consumer grade lens that has some optical aberration issues, most notably when wide apertures are used.

To keep the cost of the lens low, Nikon had to forgo designing the lens so those optical aberrations were corrected.

What would you see as a suitable replacement ?

I stepped up and replaced mine with a 24-70 2.8 Nikkor, best investment I've made to date regarding camera gear (except maybe my portrait weapon 70-200 VRII)

 

[o hey tyler]

Unfortunately, the Nikon 35 mm f/1.8 is an inexpensive, consumer grade lens that has some optical aberration issues, most notably when wide apertures are used.

To keep the cost of the lens low, Nikon had to forgo designing the lens so those optical aberrations were corrected.

What would you see as a suitable replacement ?

35mm f/1.4

 

[Melissa2012B]

I'm not trying to be pretentious, but I know what you're looking for and that's like wanting a Ferrari for the price of a Pinto.

Not pretentious, but all these replies sound so snobby and elitist. Because some of you can afford $4000 cameras doesn't mean everyone can.

I'm asking about relative sharpness of lenses in the price class I can afford, and instead, I get "you're living in a dream world". Gee thanks.

 

[Melissa2012B]

With only $1000 or so to spend on body and lens, I'm thinking you'll have to go used to get anything decent. Get a 'feel' for what's out there for what prices by checking 'completed auctions' on ebay. You may even consider buying on ebay, but it is definitely "caveat emptor"...(let the buyer beware). You'll need good skills at judging the junk from the good and scammers from good-guys. Be sure to check the used areas of both Adorama and B&H online, as well.

I don't know about Nikon, as I'm a Canon shooter, but these days, a used 12-15mp camera is in the $400-500 range and another $600-800 you should be able to find a decent, though slower (f4) "high end" zoom lens (Canon "L" equivalent) to fit your needs. For PI work, a faster (f2.0-f2.8) lens will likely be needed for low-light work, and they get pricey, even used.

I'd avoid Ebay for something like this. I understand there's a lot of "gray market" and I could wind up with no warranty. But thanks on the rest.

 

[MTVision]

Not pretentious, but all these replies sound so snobby and elitist. Because some of you can afford $4000 cameras doesn't mean everyone can.

I'm asking about relative sharpness of lenses in the price class I can afford, and instead, I get "you're living in a dream world". Gee thanks.

They are just stating facts - it costs money to get the sharpest best performance lens.

Do you want a zoom? If not, primes are super sharp and fast and there are some great inexpensive ones. If you want that extra focal length there is the 55-200, 55-300, and 70-300. The last one is probably the more expensive one and the better quality. There are also all around lenses like the 18-105 and the 18-200. I'm not sure of the prices but you need AF-S lenses to autofocus with the entry level cameras like the d3200. VR is vibration reduction and it's really great for handheld shots. 1,000.00 for both camera and a nice lens will be tight. You can sometimes find kits though. I got my camera, Nikon d5100 with an 18-55mm lens and a 55-300mm lens for around that price though. Not the best lenses but they work and you can take amazing pictures with them.

The Nikon d5100 is/was the top level entry level camera by Nikon. I think the d3200 will surpass it but you can find the d5100 for a pretty decent price nowadays and it's a great camera.

 

[sovietdoc]

Would I be in the right ballpark with a D3200? Or what else should we consider at the same time?

I want to be able to take sharp, high pixel photos that really knock the socks off clients, with plenty of stable optical zoom ( retaining sharpness ) to "reach out and touch someone" from a good distance.

With D3200 photos will be high pixel, so thats a check.

By plenty of optical zoom what ranges are you talking about here? If you photograph birds then you'll need over 200mm at the minimum. If you go for zooms, within your price range you can only get Nikon's 55-200 VR but as far as retaining perfect sharpness throughout the zoom range, that's too much to hope for at this price point. 200mm prime will give you better quality.

Usually photographers that want to "reach out far" opt out for 400+ lens and those are expensive. If you want the maximum reach, your best option is sigma's 150-500mm but that lens alone clocks in at $1000 for a new one and $800ish for used. And keep in mind, at this price it won't be "optically amazing" either.

If you want the reach and quality of picture ( and a lot of people want that), that's the reason why lens like f/4 200-400 costs 6 grand and f/2.8 400mm costs a whooping 9 grand.