taking the next step: purchasing a DSLR... decisions, decisions..

[ir0n_ma1den]

cost more than D80.cost more than D80.

I was and am still considering the 40D but some of the pictures I have seen seem kind of noisy, i don't know. Its a hard decision.

 

[elemental]

canon.canon.canon.canon.

Ugh. Does the Canon vs. Nikon thing never get old?

I agree that the 18-135 is a more useful lens that the 18-55 and 70-300 package, or aty least would be for me. When I bought my camera, I spent extra for the 18-55 and 50-200, and I almost never use the 50-200. However, if you are using the 70-210 Sigma consistently, you know you want a telephoto with your new camera.

As for the VR question, VR lenses have built-in image stabilization, meaning they offset blurring caused by small movements of the camera. This is particularly useful during longer handheld exposures. As for the price jump, only you can decide whether or not it's worth it, and I really have no input because my camera has in-body IS and therefore all of my lenses are stabilized.

 

[ir0n_ma1den]

How 'bout a quantaray 18-200 mm DC 3.5-6.3 Lens, that would cover from wide angle to telephoto, right?

 

[ir0n_ma1den]

Well, I think I know that I want a Nikon D80, but choosing a lens is hard, can you guys help?

So basically I want a decent lens (not pro, not crap/not too expensive) that can shoot from wide angles to telephoto. I also want a fast focusing lense too.

Should I buy one higher priced lens that covers from, say 18-200; or should I buy two lenses, one for fast moving objects/general shooting and one for telephoto shooting?

Here are the few I have looked at so far if I go for the one, more expensive lens:

quantaray 18-200 mm DC 3.5-6.3 Lens, $360
Nikon 55-200 mm F/4 5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX VR, $250
Tamron 28-300 mm f/3.5-6.3 XR DI LD ASP AF Lens, $400

Here are some lenses that I have looked at if I were to go the 2 lens route:
Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX Nikkor VR Lens, $180

Nikon 55-200 mm F/4 5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX VR, $250
Quantaray 18-125 mm F3.5-5.6 DC AF, $270

Ideally I would like to spend only $400 max on my first one or two lenses.

 

[JimmyO]

Yup, but ive you might not need that much extra zoom. Go to a store and they will probably have one of these lenses on a floor model and play around with them. For my next lens im considering a 55-200 and a 18-135. I went to the store and i realized that the difference in zoom between 200mm and 135mm isnt actually that much and the ability to zoom out all the way to 18 was super nice. So i think i will be going with the 18-135.

 

[brileyphotog]

The Sony Alpha A700 looks like it outperforms the D80 on paper (it's right on the heels of the D300 in some categories), and yes, it will use all your old Minolta mount lenses. And I hear it comes with a new 16-105 f/3.5-5.6.

I chose a Nikon D80 over an A100, but the A700 would look awfully tempting to me if I were in that position right now.

As far as lenses go, just say no to Quantaray. I would go with the Nikon 18-200VR. I think the VR is worth it for low light and tele shooting. Speaking of image stabilization, the Sony has that in-camera.

 

[photogincollege]

As for the wide to normal zoom, Look at the 18-70 3.5-4.5 and scrap the 18-55. The 18-70 can be had used for almost the same price as the 18-55 new, and is superior in every way.

 

[Mav]

Well, I think I know that I want a Nikon D80, but choosing a lens is hard, can you guys help?

So basically I want a decent lens (not pro, not crap/not too expensive) that can shoot from wide angles to telephoto. I also want a fast focusing lense too.

Should I buy one higher priced lens that covers from, say 18-200; or should I buy two lenses, one for fast moving objects/general shooting and one for telephoto shooting?

Here are the few I have looked at so far if I go for the one, more expensive lens:

quantaray 18-200 mm DC 3.5-6.3 Lens, $360
Nikon 55-200 mm F/4 5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX VR, $250
Tamron 28-300 mm f/3.5-6.3 XR DI LD ASP AF Lens, $400

Here are some lenses that I have looked at if I were to go the 2 lens route:
Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX Nikkor VR Lens, $180

Nikon 55-200 mm F/4 5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX VR, $250
Quantaray 18-125 mm F3.5-5.6 DC AF, $270

Ideally I would like to spend only $400 max on my first one or two lenses.

I personally am not a fan of "super zoom" lenses. In order to give you such a huge range all on one lens, they end up trading off image quality and sharpness, among other things. I'd also avoid any lens that has a maximum aperture opening of only f/6.3 at the long end. Nikon's AF system needs a minimum of f/5.6 (smaller number = larger aperture = lets in more light) to work reliably. It'll probably be ok in good light, but you'll quickly get bogged down with an extremely slow lens like that and either need higher ISO (more noise) or have to use a slower shutter speed (more hand shake blur). I think Quantaray is really Tamron for the most part, which is a third-party lens maker obviously. Some of their stuff is good, but a lot of it, especially the stuff you'll find at Ritz camera, is junk. Personal opinion of course. And you're much better off getting a cheaper camera body but a NICE lens rather than a nicer body but junkier lenses. Nice lenses will hold their value far better than a digital SLR body will too.

Since you're familiar with film SLRs, just remember that on DSLRs like the D80 you have a 1.5x crop factor to deal with. The sensor isn't quite as big as a full 35mm frame for cost reasons (digital sensors that big are enormously expensive), which introduces different angles of view for a given focal length. To get the same angle of view on a D80 as 28mm gave you on your film SLR, you'd really need 18mm on the D80. So 28mm isn't really wide at all on digital - it's closer to normal. This is a pain for wide angles, but great for shooting tele. To get the same angle of view as 210mm gave you on your Sigma 70-210, you'd only need 140mm on digital. So the Nikon 18-135 lens is already the equivalent of a 28-200mm lens on film and might give you all you need on the D80 if you didn't want anything wider than a 28mm or longer than 200mm as on a film camera. The sharpness, color, and contrast of the Nikon 18-135 lens is great, it focuses quickly, has instant manual focus override, and overall is a great lens for $300 new or $200 used. This was also the original lens kitted and introduced with the D80 too.

 

[Early]

If the Nikon takes the old manual focus lenses, I would definitely opt for that one for the simple reason the vertical grip is cheap and takes AA size batteries in a pinch. It also has the second curtain sync, which the others don’t have. But that’s me. Besides, I’ve been a Minoltaphile for years, and believe me, that’s no picnic.

 

[ir0n_ma1den]

Thanks for making my decision harder by re-introducing the possibility of the Sony A700! jk.
The only reason why I am leaning more towards the Nikon side of things is because I don't know how large the range of lenses are for the A700. Could some tell me if I would be better of going towards the Sony or Nikon side?


I was looking at the Nikon 18-135mm VR lens on Ritz, but it was $400, maybe I can find it cheaper as it seems to be the ideal starter lens.

 

[Mav]

$400 is just the rip-off Ritz pricing. It's also not a VR lens, but I've never really needed VR on it. I'd only go with one of the other systems besides "Canikon" if I had a collection of older lenses from those systems that I could use, which would save me the expense of having to buy lenses.

My dad used to have a Ricoh 35mm SLR and some lenses. I think Ricoh got bought by Pentax and that you can use "some" of those lenses with varying levels of support on Pentax DSLRs, but who knows. They were nothing fancy and all manual focus anyways, and I wasn't interested enough to seriously investigate. If it was some nice pro level stuff I definitely would have checked it out.

 

[ir0n_ma1den]

I should stop reading all these threads on different models, etc.; I keep on changing my decision!

Anyways, just for kicks, what would be a comparable Canon body to the Nikon D80?

 

[RKW3]

You can't really go wrong with a D80, it's perfectly capable of taking nice pics.

You can't go wrong with a 40D either, except for the fact that it IS canon. (I know what your thinking- eeww)

It really doesn't matter that much actually.. With all these cameras your thinking of you won't see a GINORMOUS difference in the quality levels, I guess it depends on what brand you want to go for. If I were you it would be the major brands, Nikon or Canon. Pshh sony, they have no chance.

 

[ir0n_ma1den]

I was browsing the forums today and read a post to discover that Sony has a model that is just about as much as the D80; its called the A350. It has some pretty cool and innovative features like live view, tilting screen, 14 MP (dont think that matters too much), and some other stuff; but thats not why I would consider purchasing it. The reason why I would consider it, would be because I have 2 A-mount lenses that would fit it, and they have many cheap lenses available.

The thing is, I know I am investing into the system and not the camera, so down the road I still want to be happy with what I have. There would be no point in purchasing the A350 if the two lenses I already have are worthless; I might as well just buy into the Nikon family.

Here are the two lenses I have, and their condition:

Sigma UC Zoom 70-219mm f/4-5.6; sticky zoom slide, somewhat loud AF, ok image quality

Sigma UC Zoom 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5; this is the worst out of the 2, My Dad says sand got into the AF ring so now you have to toggle the AF ring for it to focus.

So my 2 two questions for you are:

Is the Sony A350 a formidable alternative to the Nikon D80?

If you were in my situation, what would you choose?

 

[skieur]

I would go with the Sony A350. The live view is excellent and 14.2 megapixels for under $1,000 is quite reasonable.

Realize too that Sony is out to take a chunk of marketshare from Canon and Nikon. They are certainly proving that by the speed at which they are bringing out cameras with some interesting innovations and by their pricing.

In the lens department: Sigma and Tamron are making Sony Alpha lenses and of course so is Sony and Zeiss and there are also the Minolta legacy lenses that one can still find even in pawn shops. In terms of the future, a Zeiss lens on a Sony Alpha will certainly match or better most "professional" cameras.

skieur