I've picked up an expensive hobby. :)

[benlonghair]

Hi everyone. Years ago, while I was still in high school, Mom gave me her Minolta SLR that she had purchaced just after I was born. (The story goes she took about 15 rolls of film on a P&S before developing them and realizing the shutter was broken.) Anyway, it was a pretty nice setup: the body plus a 35mm f/2.8, a 50-200mm f/5.6 plus a teleconverter and a set of magnification filters. Had a pretty good time with it. Took a class my senior year with it and took some great B&W photos. (The school only had a B&W dark room, so that's what we did.)

Anyhow, I kinda put the camera away when I realized how much it cost for developing. I was pretty poor at the time.

Last summer a good friend's wife announced she was going to Hallmark to become a pro. A few weeks ago a friend of mine got a Pentax D20 (I think that's what it is). I decided that It was time to look into getting a DSLR. After some research I found what I thought to be a pretty good deal on a Nikon D60.

So I've got my D60 with the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 VR kit lens. Having done some more research, I'm feeling like I bought the wrong camera. The whole AF-S restriction kinda sucks. But that's neither here nor there, I'll live with it.

I'm looking around for lenses now. I miss having a prime, and a zoom with some length on it. I'm putting together a wish list. I really enjoy macro photography. I've always felt that there's a lot of beauty in the small stuff that people look at but don't see on any given day.

I'm looking for feedback on the lenses I'm drooling over. This is the list, in the basic order I'm looking at getting them in.

1. Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G SIC SW Prime - Seems like a pretty good, very fast prime lens with a decent price tag. I'm aware that "you get what you pay for" so I'm trying not to cheap-out on glass.

2. Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom - Kind of slow, but as much as I'd love an f/2.8 or something close, price pretty much precludes it unless I can figure out how to make it pay for itself. At this point that's a long way down the road.

3. Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Micro - I'm not sure how I feel about the price. I'm also not sure that for a macro lens I really need an f/2.8. DoF is basically non-existant on my kit lens at 55mm f/5.6. I can only imagine what it would be like at 110mm 2.8.

4. Nikkor TC-20E II (2.0x) Teleconverter AF-S - I suppose that this in addition to my kit lens and/or the macro lens above would take the place of the 70-300, but that sucks if you're trying to capture something quickly.

Any comments on these lenses would be appreciated. I've stuck with Nikkor only because I know that they make a decent lens, and I don't feel like dropping $500+ on a lens that turns out to suck.

Thanks for reading.

 

[PhotoXopher]

The 70-300 VR and it's one of my favorite lenses.

Instead of the 50mm f/1.4 ($500) you could get the 35mm f/1.8 ($200), another favorite of mine. Or if you don't mind manual focusing you could get the 50mm f/1.8D that will still meter on the D60.

Never used the other two but I've heard good things about the Kenko DG 300 Pro series teleconverters.

Lastly, you could perhaps break even by selling the D60 and getting a body that supports the older lenses with the camera driven auto focus. That's the route I took. Cost difference from the 50mm f/1.4 to the 50mm f/1.8 is about $400 so I sold my D40 and got a D80. Not only was I able to autofocus older lenses I also had commander mode to control Nikon flash off camera (such as the SB600 and SB800). If you're doing macro work this could be handy. Granted the D60 is a great camera, I'm just throwing out that idea... sometimes it's worth upgrading bodies, sometimes it's not. This was one of those times it was for me.

That said I went from the D80 to the D200 a short time later, and 2 weeks after that I went from the D200 to the D90.

 

[Dao]

Well, the 3rd party lenses are not so bad either in terms of quality.

You may want to check out at some of the lens review sites.

Welcome to Photozone!
Camera lens tests, user reviews, camera accessory reviews - SLRgear.com!
Lens Reviews: Digital Photography Review
FM Reviews - Main Index
Nikon Field Flash Digital Guide photography by Thom Hogan


For example, the Tamron 90mm macro lens

Quoted from Photozone

"The Tamron AF 90mm f/2.8 Di SP is a superb lens without any significant flaws and it's easily as good as the corresponding (classic) Micro-Nikkor - the resolution figures are extremely high, vignetting is marginal, CAs are low and distortions are non-existent. The build quality may be slightly inferior in comparison to the Nikkor but then the price tag is also substantially lower so the verdict can only be - HIGHLY recommended!"


I am not saying not to buy Nikon lens, some of those lenses from 3rd party manufacturers are not bad either.

 

[tirediron]

Okay, in reverse order... Scratch the Nikkor TC. They only fit on the "pro" lenses (Gold-ring). It will not mate with the 70-300. You can however buy third-party TCs which will, BUT I would not go over a 1.4. Even that is going to put you at f8 on the long end of the 300mm and that may cause some real difficulties with your auto-focus in any but the brightest light.

The world of macro lenses is a specialized one, and while the Nikkor 105 is a REALLY nice piece of glass, you might be better off to wait until you're established and know what you want to do.

The 50mm 1.4 is a great lens, it won't as you know auto-focus with your body, but it does produce some beautiful results and is well worth having in your bag.

One lens you may want to consider is the 18-70; this was the kit lens that first came out with the D70, and is (in the world of kit lenses) an outstanding piece of glass.

 

[Sherman Banks]

The 50mm 1.4 is a great lens, it won't as you know auto-focus with your body, but it does produce some beautiful results and is well worth having in your bag.

This is the AF-S version, not the older AF version so it will autofocus on your body. Very good shots from what I've seen it do.

 

[benlonghair]

Thanks for the quick replies folks.

Thanks for the links Dao. I've been looking for some good review sites. I can only tolerate just so much Ken Rockwell, and it seems he's always at the top of google searches.

N0YZE, I've considered trying to turn the body around on ebay, but I'm gonna hold onto it for a little while I think. I have a lot of work to do on the artistic end before I upgrade the body, anyway. It'll be a long time before I'm limited by my camera.

I'm definatly going to hold off on the TC and macro lens. I really need the tele though, since I've missed a BUNCH of hummingbird shots due to the fact that 55mm just isn't enough. The prime is just nice to have for general stuff.

Also, below the TC, I suppose I should have put something really short like 15+/-mm. Not a fisheye, just a real wide one.

This is the AF-S version, not the older AF version so it will autofocus on your body.

This is true. It just came out recently, last month, iirc. I was quite disappointed when cameta camera (who I bought the body from) said they didn't have one or even have an ETA on more.

 

[tirediron]

The 50mm 1.4 is a great lens, it won't as you know auto-focus with your body, but it does produce some beautiful results and is well worth having in your bag.

This is the AF-S version, not the older AF version so it will autofocus on your body. Very good shots from what I've seen it do.

D'oh... showing my age I guess. Forgot they'd come out with that little gem!

 

[UUilliam]

1. Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G SIC SW Prime
Your not cheaping out on glass, the 50mm is one of the best lens' you will buy (well i dunno about nikon but canon definately) but your sensor is a 1.6x crop sensor thus meaning a 50mm is really an 80mm on your body (1.6x50=80)

2. Dont worry about the f/number on this lens, great lens, good glass worth buying

3.Are you gunna do allot of macro images? if not leave it

4. This WONT take the place of a 70-300mm Also teleconverters will add a stop or 2 on therefore coming back to your "i would rather a f2.8" quote
E.g. if a shot on a 70-300mm could be shot at f5.6 with the convertor it would need to be about f7 instead also convertors add noise sometimes i dont recommend a convertor, just buy larger lens'


oh btw, Primes are ALMOST ALWAYS better quality than zoom lens' therefore if your looking for better quality, buy fixed focal lens'


70 - 300 = 112-480mm on your body
50mm = 80mm

basically, if you really need the 70mm length, try get the 28-300mm

 

[benlonghair]

1. Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G SIC SW Prime
Your not cheaping out on glass, the 50mm is one of the best lens' you will buy (well i dunno about nikon but canon definately) but your sensor is a 1.6x crop sensor thus meaning a 50mm is really an 80mm on your body (1.6x50=80)

Ya, I've heard nothing but good things about this lens. That's why it's at the top of my list.

2. Dont worry about the f/number on this lens, great lens, good glass worth buying

The only thing that concerns me about less expensive tele zooms is the only real experience I have with one (the one mentioned in my OP) it was super grainy when printed. I suppose lenses have come a long way since the early eightys though.

3.Are you gunna do allot of macro images? if not leave it

As I said, I love doing macro. I just am going to have to save my pennys for a little longer for this lens. I like the idea of having a dedicated prime macro lens.

4. This WONT take the place of a 70-300mm Also teleconverters will add a stop or 2 on therefore coming back to your "i would rather a f2.8" quote
E.g. if a shot on a 70-300mm could be shot at f5.6 with the convertor it would need to be about f7 instead also convertors add noise sometimes i dont recommend a convertor, just buy larger lens'

This is pretty low on my priority list. It would probably get used with the 50mm prime more than the zoom or macro, at least that how I used to use the one I have for the Minolta.

 

[benlonghair]

Well, here I am again.

This weekend I was taking some candid shots of my cousin's two-year-old daughter and got really frustrated that my 55mm just wasn't long enough to shoot her without her being really interested in me and my camera.

So I started cruising Ebay last night and picked up the Nikon 70-300mm AF-S VR for what I thought was a pretty fair price. Should cover me on just about all my distance stuff.

It should be here tomorrow or Wednesday. I'm super excited to give it a shot, get some of the shots I've missed with a short lens.