Lens Selection Help. (From Canon...to Nikon)
SimplyShane
Registered Users Posts: 153 Major grins
As the title suggests, I am a recent convert. I just picked up a D5000 for $374.50 with the kit lens at Target. It had 30 shutter actuations and is in absolutely perfect shape. No scratches, no dings. Nothing. I'm really, really happy about that part of it.
But now I'm having some difficulty trying to find glass that will replace my old Canon gear.
On my Rebel XS, I used the following lenses: the 18-55IS kit, the el-cheapo 50mm 1.8 prime, and the 55-250IS zoom. The kit acted as my landscape lens and it did a marvelous job stopped down. The 50mm prime was my portrait lens that also saw use for scenes in which I wanted a more shallow depth of field. Finally, the zoom was used primarily for birds and other critters. (Yes, 250mm CAN be long enough for some of them, though I wouldn't mind having a bit more reach.)
Looking at Nikon's lens selection, I'm having great difficulty trying to find anything that compares. Obviously, the kit lens is not a concern as I already have Nikon's version, which seems to get solid reviews.
One very popular lens is the 35mm 1.8, which seems like a great piece of equipment, but the "real" 50mm equivalent focal length is pretty bizarre to me now, believe that or not. I'm just not sure how I could fit that in with the way I shoot.
Nikon does happen to make two variants of the 50mm that interest me, but each have their flaws. The more affordable "D" version is priced very well at just over a hundred bucks and it beats the living crap out of the chinsy little plastic thing I had been using. The problem? No auto-focus. Granted, Canon's lens was so bad that I ended up manually focusing a majority of the time anyway, but still. It is a flaw.
The AF-S model Nikon produces DOES support my current camera and the reviews it has gotten have been nothing short of astounding. I can't find one person who doesn't like it. Apparently, the bokeh is quite creamy and things just seem to work better from the previous "D" version. The problem? Cost. It's over 400 dollars and for a poor guy like me, that's a HUGE investment.
As for the zoom, Nikon does offer a cheapy in the way of the 55-200mm, but I lose 50 from the long end. That could have an impact on the birds I'm trying to capture. On the other hand, Nikon does have the 55-300mm lens which gives me an EXTRA 50 in reach, but again the cost is significantly higher than Canon's alternative. I believe Amazon is listing it at somewhere around 330 dollars, while the 55-250IS is right under 200.
Though I greatly enjoy using the camera itself, this lens situation has me a bit stressed...
Money is VERY tight with me, so I need to make the smartest moves here. Does anyone else out there have experience with the lenses I'm considering? Would manually focusing the "D" 50mm really be all that terrible? Is there an accessory I could buy that might aid me in that task?
Is 50mm off the long end of things really THAT big of a deal? Can the 35mm prime be used effectively for something I might not be considering?
These are some very tough questions. I *do* know that I've got to find the answers for myself, but I'm curious as to what others are thinking about this.
But now I'm having some difficulty trying to find glass that will replace my old Canon gear.
On my Rebel XS, I used the following lenses: the 18-55IS kit, the el-cheapo 50mm 1.8 prime, and the 55-250IS zoom. The kit acted as my landscape lens and it did a marvelous job stopped down. The 50mm prime was my portrait lens that also saw use for scenes in which I wanted a more shallow depth of field. Finally, the zoom was used primarily for birds and other critters. (Yes, 250mm CAN be long enough for some of them, though I wouldn't mind having a bit more reach.)
Looking at Nikon's lens selection, I'm having great difficulty trying to find anything that compares. Obviously, the kit lens is not a concern as I already have Nikon's version, which seems to get solid reviews.
One very popular lens is the 35mm 1.8, which seems like a great piece of equipment, but the "real" 50mm equivalent focal length is pretty bizarre to me now, believe that or not. I'm just not sure how I could fit that in with the way I shoot.
Nikon does happen to make two variants of the 50mm that interest me, but each have their flaws. The more affordable "D" version is priced very well at just over a hundred bucks and it beats the living crap out of the chinsy little plastic thing I had been using. The problem? No auto-focus. Granted, Canon's lens was so bad that I ended up manually focusing a majority of the time anyway, but still. It is a flaw.
The AF-S model Nikon produces DOES support my current camera and the reviews it has gotten have been nothing short of astounding. I can't find one person who doesn't like it. Apparently, the bokeh is quite creamy and things just seem to work better from the previous "D" version. The problem? Cost. It's over 400 dollars and for a poor guy like me, that's a HUGE investment.
As for the zoom, Nikon does offer a cheapy in the way of the 55-200mm, but I lose 50 from the long end. That could have an impact on the birds I'm trying to capture. On the other hand, Nikon does have the 55-300mm lens which gives me an EXTRA 50 in reach, but again the cost is significantly higher than Canon's alternative. I believe Amazon is listing it at somewhere around 330 dollars, while the 55-250IS is right under 200.
Though I greatly enjoy using the camera itself, this lens situation has me a bit stressed...
Money is VERY tight with me, so I need to make the smartest moves here. Does anyone else out there have experience with the lenses I'm considering? Would manually focusing the "D" 50mm really be all that terrible? Is there an accessory I could buy that might aid me in that task?
Is 50mm off the long end of things really THAT big of a deal? Can the 35mm prime be used effectively for something I might not be considering?
These are some very tough questions. I *do* know that I've got to find the answers for myself, but I'm curious as to what others are thinking about this.
0
Comments
There was just a thread about those who believe that the AF-S lenses are so much better than the previous version, but cost was never mentioned.
Is the AF-S version $300 better?
I haven't used the new 50mm AF-S version, but I do use the F1.8, 1.4 and 1.2 and any of them are very nice.
You didn't mention what you like to shoot, but if you are looking at wider lenses, look at the Tamron 17-35mm or Sigma 24-70.
Website
I believe I did mention a bit about what I like to shoot, but that is a rather imposing wall of text up there, so I'll summarize. :-D
With the kit lens, I usually like to shoot landscapes. Very rarely do I ever use the zoom feature on it.
The prime was used for portraiture and other miscellaneous tasks.
Lastly, the zoom was used for wildlife. (Birds, squirrels, things of that sort.)
Unfortunately, all the lenses you've listed I can not use.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bengford
I guess you'll have to decide between the two 50s. Buying used can save you money. Like Steve said, is the AF-S $300 better? Buying used might cut it down to a $200 difference (just guessing).
My advice:
Get the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (~$400 used). It's a "huge investment," but it covers your wide landscapes, normal zoom, and low light. Not to mention it's outstanding quality and why hamper a good camera with crummy glass?
Next step is to get the 50-200 (super cheap used or refurb) and deal with the loss of 50mm on the long end. (Later on you can shell out the extra money and get the 55-300 or Tamron 70-300 if you want.)
Find a used SB-400 ($75-100) and learn how to use it well. Suddenly your 17-50 becomes much more useful indoors in low light.
Somewhere along the way you'll come across a great deal on a used 50 f/1.8 or 35 f/1.8.
Sir, I thank you for your suggestions. I will certainly be looking into them. Speaking personally here, I find that I miss my zoom lens more than anything else at the moment. I guess I'm more of a wildlife/macro kind of guy. (I use the term "macro" very liberally here, as I have yet to own an actual "Macro" lens.)
And yes, I assure you that $400 IS a VERY large investment for me. I am quite poor, but I love photography very, very much, so I try to do the best that I can when it comes to budgeting for gear. The D5000 was purchased at a ridiculously low price and in immaculate condition. I had always been frustrated with my Rebel, so I thought it might be time to consider the Nikon side of things.
I will make a majority of the money I spent on my Canon lenses back, but I *am* going to be taking a bit of a hit on the body, as it is out of date. That's okay though, because again, this Nikon deal was so good that I can absorb that and come out relatively unscathed anyway.
:-)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bengford
Can I ask why you were frustrated with the Rebel?
the 35mm F1.8, it will focus and is close to 50 on a DX. and did i mention it will focus. Sold my 50 none D after i bought the 35.
It's not what you look at that matters: Its what you see!
Nikon
http://www.time2smile.smugmug.com
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
I hated the combination of that body with the 50mm 1.8 lens. It failed to focus many, many times for me. I just couldn't take it anymore.
Even under broad daylight, I could NOT trust that the camera would focus properly. (And yes, I always choose my focusing points manually.)
To me, that's just unacceptable. I owned two copies of the lens and encountered similar results each time.
Plus, with the Rebel bodies, you must strobe the flash under lower-light conditions just to find focus, and that's also really annoying. Nikon's AF-assist lamp is just a thousand times better. Simply put.
Yes, I could have purchased an external flash and helped my chances out a bit, but then the tiny, comfortably light-weight XS, turns into something much more awkward and uncouth.
Obviously though, some situations are going to require the addition of a flash, but I'd also like the option of a lamp. Strobing the pop-up flash is just...well...dumb.
----
I'm sure if I had started with a 40D, I'd be happy as can be with Canon. But the XS has left a sour taste in my mouth, and the Nikon was at a FANTASTIC price. So, I decided to pull the trigger, knowing that in a worst-case scenario, I could sell the unit back for what I paid for it. Heck, maybe I could even make a little money off it.
Hopefully I won't have to do that though. Hopefully I'll be happy with this camera and enjoy using it.
If you have any kind of response to what I've just written here, feel free to leave a line. Maybe there IS something I just didn't understand about the XS that led to all this trouble...
I'm all ears.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bengford
No, no. All is good, I was just curious. Lots of folks complain about the AF funx of that particular lens. Though you do not mention it I'm guessing you had other lenses with similar trouble too. I will say this, many many lenses will hunt in what otherwise looks like 'ok' light. Even my Nikon 70-200mmVR2 hunts in low light so I have to help it out, usually by turning lights on.
Good luck with and have fun with your new piece!
I really wish Canon made a decent 50. The 1.8 AF is too slow, 1.4 has old AF, 1.2 is heavy and expensive, and 1.0 is no good. Sigma 50 1.4 ftw.
The real problem is this:
If the lens can't auto-focus, you're left trying to manually focus through the XS viewfinder. And that is ALWAYS an act of pure and total frustration. Particularly at faster apertures.
Seriously. I've tried it many, many times, and more often than not, I'm left with a soft picture. Even if, by some miracle, the focus confirmation dot shows up, you still can't be 100% certain that your subject is perfectly focused. The dot itself is prone to error...
All in all, it's a wash.
You're ONLY option for reliable focus 100% of the time is to use Live View. And, with all the good shots I did manage to take with that lens, such was the method used. It helped a great deal to increase the ISO a bit, even in daylight, so that I could get shutter speeds of 1/1000th of a second or faster. That way, all the extra vibrations caused through holding the camera away from my center of gravity were mostly negated by an ultra fast exposure.
Does it work? Yes. Is it ideal? Hell no.
Unfortunately, on the Nikon-side of things, the D5000 can't auto-focus with its 50mm equivalent, so I'm left with the same exact problem as before if I go that route...(To its credit though, the Nikon lens is MUCH better built. If nothing else, at least I won't have to be paranoid about shattering the damn thing. :-P)
Maybe that magnifying eyepiece will prove to be the ultimate panacea.
Or maybe, that tilting screen will help me out...
Somehow though, I doubt it.
It seems the REAL SOLUTION is to save up cash for the rock-solid AF-S f/1.4 Nikon. Too bad it's over $400 dollars. :cry
Maybe the D90 is STILL the real point of entry for the Nikon system.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bengford
Frustrated I take it?!
I also take it your wedded to that lens range somewhat. What would you pay for the ideal lens: your range pref, focuses in lowest of light, fast, sharp? $400 bucks can be a lot of money, in fact it is more than you paid for the new camera, but really you already know that lenses are the defining factor in the camera/lens=result combo. SO what would you pay for the lens, I fantasy-floated out there?