Photography Lab THIS SPACE OPEN FOR ADVERTISEMENT. YOU SHOULD BE ADVERTISING HERE!
A place to display digital masterpieces, enhance photography skills, photoshop, and share photo tips with one another... |
 | | 
06-23-2006, 02:02 AM
|
#101 | | VLS Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 16,351
Thanked 2,591 Times in 832 Posts
Failed 61 Times in 19 Posts
|
With my Minolta 50mm macro, the closest focusing distance at 1:2 ratio is 23 cm. With my Nikon 55mm micro, the closest distance is 25cm @ 1:2. A 1:1 ratio Minolta 50mm macro lens focuses at 2 inches. A little too close. The Canon 60mm macro close focuses at 4 inches.
__________________
2007 Volvo V50
Taken by ex: 2005 Toyota Prius.
R.I.P. 1997 Lexus ES300. 
R.I.P. 1989 Acura Legend Coupe LS.
Last edited by Senna4ever; 06-23-2006 at 02:03 AM.
| 
|  | |
07-12-2006, 11:34 PM
|
#102 | | i like gifs
Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: imgur
Posts: 27,179
Thanked 7,785 Times in 2,695 Posts
Failed 4,294,967,295 Times in 169 Posts
| Newest D-SLR member here
So after a little bit of procrastinating and saving up, I went ahead and ordered a Nikon D50 (body only) I was debating between this one or a Canon but from reading online reviews and user feedback, it seemed that the D50 was a better camera to start out with.
I've been doing some reading and I can't figure out which one is a good lens to start with. It seems that everybody recommends a different one as their "must have" lens: 35-70, 18-55, 55-200, 24-85, 18-70 etc.
I'm not made of money  so I can't afford a lot of lenses right now so I'm looking for some recommendations on which lens is the must have lens. I can start off with that one and then slowly build up from there.
Thanks  | |
| | |
07-12-2006, 11:41 PM
|
#103 | | Rs has made me the woman i am today!
Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Richmond
Posts: 4,335
Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts
Failed 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
18-70.
You should've bought my canon!
| |
| | |
07-12-2006, 11:43 PM
|
#104 | | i like gifs
Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: imgur
Posts: 27,179
Thanked 7,785 Times in 2,695 Posts
Failed 4,294,967,295 Times in 169 Posts
| Quote: Originally posted by MikesJo
18-70.
You should've bought my canon! | Haha...Wendy told me about your camera but I got a great deal on the D50 body.
Last edited by Ch28; 07-12-2006 at 11:43 PM.
| |
| | |
07-12-2006, 11:46 PM
|
#105 | | Rs has made me the woman i am today!
Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Richmond
Posts: 4,335
Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts
Failed 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Well if you got a really good deal then that's great  .
Now you have to start posting pics too!
| |
| | |
07-13-2006, 12:20 AM
|
#106 | | Banned By Establishment
Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Richmond
Posts: 12,484
Thanked 2,091 Times in 773 Posts
Failed 765 Times in 247 Posts
|
d50 has probably some of the best anti-noise for any nikon camera... still not a fan. Go to bccamera.com and look on the forums for some used nikon lenses. Hope that helps.
Also 18-55 is always good. You get your wide angle and your small zoom.
| |
| | |
07-13-2006, 01:24 AM
|
#107 | | VLS Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 16,351
Thanked 2,591 Times in 832 Posts
Failed 61 Times in 19 Posts
|
Welcome to Nikonia! I'm glad you saw the light and got a Nikon instead of a ergonomic nightmare of a Canon....but a Sony a100 would also have been a good choice too.
Get primes, not zooms. If yu must get a zoom, I think a lens 18-70 rang would be great.
__________________
2007 Volvo V50
Taken by ex: 2005 Toyota Prius.
R.I.P. 1997 Lexus ES300.
R.I.P. 1989 Acura Legend Coupe LS.
| |
| | |
07-13-2006, 01:27 AM
|
#108 | | Rs has made me the woman i am today!
Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Richmond
Posts: 4,335
Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts
Failed 0 Times in 0 Posts
| Quote: Originally posted by Senna4ever
Welcome to Nikonia! I'm glad you saw the light and got a Nikon instead of a ergonomic nightmare of a Canon....but a Sony a100 would also have been a good choice too.
Get primes, not zooms. If yu must get a zoom, I think a lens 18-70 rang would be great. | The ergonomics on a canon are great! I don't know what you're talking about...
| |
| | |
07-13-2006, 01:40 AM
|
#109 | | OMGWTFBBQ is a common word I say everyday
Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 5,236
Thanked 169 Times in 44 Posts
Failed 5 Times in 5 Posts
|
i agree with the 18-70, if you want something even cheaper though just grab the kit lens, 18-55.
and if money wasn't an issue, i'd say try the 18-200
| |
| | |
07-13-2006, 02:52 AM
|
#110 | | RS has made me the bitter person i am today!
Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: vancouver
Posts: 4,779
Thanked 129 Times in 31 Posts
Failed 0 Times in 0 Posts
| Quote: Originally posted by MikesJo
The ergonomics on a canon are great! I don't know what you're talking about... | if you play with both systems, the Canon are more simplified, where the Nikon has more buttons. However if you know how the Nikon systems works, then change settings would be wooping fast! I hate where the ergonomics on the Canon 5D sucked compared to the D200, but when you jump up to the 1 series, it's a whole different story.
| |
| | |
07-13-2006, 02:58 AM
|
#111 | | .
Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Richmond
Posts: 8,221
Thanked 83 Times in 59 Posts
Failed 82 Times in 19 Posts
| Quote: Originally posted by MikesJo
The ergonomics on a canon are great! I don't know what you're talking about... |
i agree
nikon has like menus within menus...
| |
| | |
07-13-2006, 03:18 AM
|
#112 | | VLS Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 16,351
Thanked 2,591 Times in 832 Posts
Failed 61 Times in 19 Posts
| Quote: Originally posted by MikesJo
The ergonomics on a canon are great! I don't know what you're talking about... | Both Canon & Nikon cameras are so menu biased, but the Canon is worse. I hate going through layer upon layer just to change a simple setting. That is why I love my 7D & F4s!
__________________
2007 Volvo V50
Taken by ex: 2005 Toyota Prius.
R.I.P. 1997 Lexus ES300.
R.I.P. 1989 Acura Legend Coupe LS.
| |
| | |
07-13-2006, 03:44 AM
|
#113 | | I don't get it
Join Date: May 2006 Location: Richmond
Posts: 427
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Failed 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
hey mikesjo what canon do you have and how much?
| |
| | |
07-13-2006, 09:36 AM
|
#114 | | Rs has made me the man i am today!
Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 3,123
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Failed 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
He has a 20D currently and selling an XT which is posted on the FS section.
| |
| | |
07-13-2006, 09:39 AM
|
#115 | | I contribute to threads in the offtopic forum
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,764
Thanked 281 Times in 96 Posts
Failed 64 Times in 25 Posts
|
Congrats.
The 18-70 is a bit of a mystery; if you're lucky and get a good copy, it's as sharp as some pro lenses on a 6MP body. However if you get a normal, or "so-so" copy, you'll neither be blown away nor disgusted by the performence... kind of an "ok" lens by common standards.
If you're familiar with Nikon's systems, the 17-55/2.8 is the best in that range, but many have said that the 18-70 is just as good at similar apetures...
and based on my own comparison between the 2 lenses... I probably got a very good copy of the 18-70 because although there are minor diffrences in sharpness, the difference's not significant enough to justify the big lens over the 18-70 at 3 times the cost if you absolutely need f2.8 and more rugged build.
So yeah, find a good 18-70 and avoid the 18mm end, and you'll be very happy with it as a starter lens.
__________________
Nikonian
| |
| | |
07-13-2006, 09:43 AM
|
#116 | | I contribute to threads in the offtopic forum
Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,764
Thanked 281 Times in 96 Posts
Failed 64 Times in 25 Posts
|
Congrats.
The 18-70 is a bit of a mystery; if you're lucky and get a good copy, it's as sharp as some pro lenses on a 6MP body. However if you get a normal, or "so-so" copy, you'll neither be blown away nor disgusted by the performence... kind of an "ok" lens by common standards.
If you're familiar with Nikon's systems, the 17-55/2.8 is the best in that range, but many have said that the 18-70 is just as good at similar apetures...
and based on my own comparison between the 2 lenses... I probably got a very good copy of the 18-70 because although there are minor diffrences in sharpness, the difference's not significant enough to justify the big lens over the 18-70 at 3 times the cost if you don't absolutely need f2.8 and more rugged build.
So yeah, find a good 18-70 and avoid the 18mm end, and you'll be very happy with it as a starter lens.
__________________
Nikonian
| |
| | |
07-13-2006, 10:02 AM
|
#117 | | Banned By Establishment
Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Richmond
Posts: 12,484
Thanked 2,091 Times in 773 Posts
Failed 765 Times in 247 Posts
| Quote: Originally posted by Senna4ever
Welcome to Nikonia! I'm glad you saw the light and got a Nikon instead of a ergonomic nightmare of a Canon.... | hey!
| |
| | |
07-13-2006, 02:47 PM
|
#118 | | i like gifs
Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: imgur
Posts: 27,179
Thanked 7,785 Times in 2,695 Posts
Failed 4,294,967,295 Times in 169 Posts
|
Would this be a good lens to go with? Nikon 18-70mm DX G AF-S Lens  Quote:
This versatile Nikon 18-70mm AF-S DX Nikkor lens marks a significant advancement in lens design specifically optimized for all Nikon D-series digital SLR cameras.
The AF-S DX 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G has a 3.8x zoom capability which covers the popular focal length range equivalent to 27-105mm in 35mm format. It offers wide-angle, portrait and telephoto capabilities in one compact design with outstanding center-to-edge-to-corner image quality.
This DX lens offers a selection of Nikon's highly regarded technologies such as Silent Wave motor (AF-S) for super fast and quiet autofocus operation, Extra-Low Dispersion glass (ED) for minimized chromatic aberrations, and Internal Focusing (IF) for convenient and balanced handling.
In addition, the AF-S DX 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED-IF also incorporates hallmark Nikon features that customers have come to expect from Nikkor lenses, such as distance information guide window, a reliable metal lens mount for years of durability, and a M/A mode for seamless switching between autofocus and manual.
| Focal Length: 18-70mm (27-105mm in 35mm format). Maximum aperture: f/3.5 Lens construction: 15 elements in 13 groups (3xED glass lens elements, 1x aspherical lens element) Picture angle: 76° - 22° 50' Minimum focus range: 0.38m (15 in.) Max. reproduction ratio: 1/6.2 (.16) Filter Size: 67mm Dimensions (Diameter x Length): 073 x 75.5mm (2.9 x 3.0 in.) Weight : Approx. 390g (14.8 oz.)
Last edited by Ch28; 07-13-2006 at 02:48 PM.
| |
| | |
07-13-2006, 03:12 PM
|
#119 | | Rs has made me the man i am today!
Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Richmond
Posts: 3,113
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Failed 1 Time in 1 Post
|
yes haha thats what they have been talking about for awhile
its around 350-450
| |
| | |
07-13-2006, 03:18 PM
|
#120 | | i like gifs
Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: imgur
Posts: 27,179
Thanked 7,785 Times in 2,695 Posts
Failed 4,294,967,295 Times in 169 Posts
| Quote: Originally posted by endless402
yes haha thats what they have been talking about for awhile
its around 350-450 | Good...I just wanted to make sure | |
| | |
07-13-2006, 10:27 PM
|
#121 | | Banned By Establishment
Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Richmond
Posts: 12,484
Thanked 2,091 Times in 773 Posts
Failed 765 Times in 247 Posts
|
its decent. does it come in an f/4 constant
| |
| | |
08-08-2006, 02:43 AM
|
#122 | | Banned By Establishment
Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Richmond
Posts: 12,484
Thanked 2,091 Times in 773 Posts
Failed 765 Times in 247 Posts
| Question About Sigma's.
So i picked up a UK photo magazine called Digital Photographer, and I was reading some of the lens reviews they had, and what suprised me is they recommend sigma lenses over most canon lenses/l lenses.
And the the thing is sigmas are remarkably cheaper. Especially since im considering buying a 10-22 and sigmas cost 450 us will the canon cost around 600 us.
So is there a quality diffrence? slower focusing?
Sigma owners post up | |
| | |
08-08-2006, 08:46 AM
|
#123 | | Old School RS
Join Date: May 2004 Location: Port Moody
Posts: 4,596
Thanked 4,042 Times in 1,232 Posts
Failed 129 Times in 79 Posts
|
I was at Kerrisdale yesterday comparing the Canon 10-22 and the Sigma equivelant and let me be the first to say when I spend the money I will not be saving $200 by buying that Sigma. What a piece of garbage. The Canon is quiet, super fast to focus with the USM, and very sharp - not to mention the rings are smooth. The Sigma just feels cheap, takes forever to focus, and is really noisy.
__________________
I'm old now - boring street cars and sweet race cars. | 
| | |
08-08-2006, 08:54 AM
|
#124 | | Need to Seek Professional Help
Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: mars
Posts: 1,041
Thanked 8 Times in 5 Posts
Failed 1 Time in 1 Post
|
^^
agree on super fast focus and very silent focus
been a 10-22 owner for 7 + months and no regrets what so ever.
| |
| | |
08-08-2006, 10:28 AM
|
#125 | | Where's my RS Christmas Lobster?!
Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: White Rock
Posts: 809
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Failed 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
Yeah, the 10-22 is definitely going to be my next lens purchase... it WAS already going to be, but yesterday I bought a 50mm 1.8 on impulse and am loving every minute of it.
I played with other lenses, and I just think Canon feels nice and solid, everything else feels like a toy.
__________________
"Who's General Failure, and why's he reading my disc?" - Unknown My Flickr Gallery | |
| | | |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
| | |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:45 AM.
|
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
