Need some help shopping!

Oakley

I think I'm days away from buying a dSLR. I've been stewing over the Rebel XT vs. the Nikon D50. I'm 80% sure I'm going to go with the D50...but in the end it may come down to $$$.

As someone new to dSLR's, lens choices is very overwhelming. I'm trying to figure things out, but I get lost easliy. I know I'm going to get the normal AF 50/1.4D but beyond that, I'm not sure?

I like shooting portraits, landscapes, macros...so I know I'll need a "set" of lenses to cover all needs.

Anyways, to the shopping, I found this on B&H and want to know if it's a good deal.

Nikon D50
AF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED Zoom-Nikkor Autofocus Lens
AF-S 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED Zoom-Nikkor Autofocus Lens
Plus all the other standard stuff that comes from a new D50.

All for $869.95.

So can someone help me decide if this would be a good idea? Or are these shitty lenses and I should jest get the body and the lenses I want separatley?

Thanks in advance.

leebase

A couple things.

50mm is not "normal" on a cropped sensor DSLR. "Normal" refers to the focal length where the field of view is the same as you see without having a camera in front of your face. On a 35mm camera, that's a 50m lens.

On the Nikon 1.5x cropped sensors, that'd be a 33mm lens.

The two lenses you mentioned are "kit" lenses. Are they good enough? Depends on what your desire and budget is. They are probably good enough to start with, particularly if you get that 50mm f1.4 to go with them.

A camera will not be better than the glass you put on it -- then again -- if money were no object, you wouldn't be getting the low end DSLR. I think the kit you mentioned sounds like a fine starting point. You can upgrade your glass later as you learn what your needs and desires are.

Lee

DanielB

Definitely D50. if i had to re-choose. i'd be goin with it. *sorry die-hard canon lovers* i absolutely love canon and their lenses. but lets face it. i like to shoot wide. and nikon is great wide. i aint switchin though. i'm too stubborn and i'm anxious for that 20D replacement!:D

gus

More info in this thread.

Oakley

leebase wrote:

A couple things.

50mm is not "normal" on a cropped sensor DSLR. "Normal" refers to the focal length where the field of view is the same as you see without having a camera in front of your face. On a 35mm camera, that's a 50m lens.

On the Nikon 1.5x cropped sensors, that'd be a 33mm lens.

The two lenses you mentioned are "kit" lenses. Are they good enough? Depends on what your desire and budget is. They are probably good enough to start with, particularly if you get that 50mm f1.4 to go with them.

A camera will not be better than the glass you put on it -- then again -- if money were no object, you wouldn't be getting the low end DSLR. I think the kit you mentioned sounds like a fine starting point. You can upgrade your glass later as you learn what your needs and desires are.

Lee

Great advice Lee. Thanks. Right now I'm shooting with the Canon A95 which I've had for less than a year...but I'm pretty sure any Canon or Nikon dSLR with any lens will be an upgrade.

However, we are talking lots of money and I want to get the best bang for my buck. At some point I'm just going to have to make a decision and go with it...and not quit my day job so I can afford the inevitable "upgrades".

Thanks again...and the info on the 50mm is great. But a question - if 50mm doesn't give you the "normal" view with a D50, then is there a lens that I could use that would give me the "normal" view?

Chase

Canon rebel xt
50 f2.5 compactmacro 200ish
85mm f1.8 350ish
canon 28 f1.8 400ish
sigma 20 f1.8 350ish

Nice cheap, fast prime setup.

And you get triple rebates
so 225 back on the camera and 45 back on three lenses I think.
so you get like 360 or something back.

Oakley

Chase wrote:

Canon rebel xt
50 f2.5 compactmacro 200ish
85mm f1.8 350ish
canon 28 f1.8 400ish
sigma 20 f1.8 350ish

Nice cheap, fast prime setup.

And you get triple rebates
so 225 back on the camera and 45 back on three lenses I think.
so you get like 360 or something back.

Awsome...I'll look into that set.

Anyone else have any ideas for a decent starter Canon lens set?

Chase

Oakley wrote:

Awsome...I'll look into that set.

Anyone else have any ideas for a decent starter Canon lens set?

Interested in zooms?

This is what ive got....
sigma 24-70 f2.8 400ish
sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 400ish
sigma 100-300 f4 700ish
and i have the 85 f1.8, 50 f1.8, and am getting a 28 f1.8 soon

That will cover the full range.....with the normal range covered with fast glass, and the long with decently fast but very,very sharp. You dont have a macro lens here, but you could throw in an 80 dollar 50f1.8 and some extension tubes or the 50 compact macro.

DanielB

Oakley wrote:

Awsome...I'll look into that set.

Anyone else have any ideas for a decent starter Canon lens set?

what i have. the 2 lenses i have are fantastic for a starting set. and i'm currently saving up for both a 70-200 f/4L and a 17-40 f/4L at which time i will ditch the 28-105.:D but definitely pick up the 50mm 1.8 if you want that normal field of view. i think the closest you could get would be to pick up a 28mm or so

who ruled out the 10D. its cheaper. better build. and lets you concentrate on your lense set-up without too much $$ tied up in the body.

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=24732 one for sale in B&S without grip for 560. and it has exact same body style basicly as the 20D. so if you're comfortable holding it. you'll be comfortable holding the 10D.

Oakley

To Zoom or not to Zoom, that is the question.

Ok, acturally the real question is:

In my inexperienced mind, ZOOM seems like a nice feature to any lens and it doesn't make sense that you wouldn't want a non-zoom lens. However, many of the non-zoom lens are expensive and it seems many people use them. Could someone please tell me why you, for example, purchase a 50mm f1.4 USM vs something like a Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens. What am I missing about lens technology here?

If anyone can explain or post a reference link for me to "learn" the lens language.

Thanks,

Justiceiro

The quality of a lens can vary over its range of zoom, and through its aperture settings.

Pretty much all lenses function best at f8-f11, and zoom lenses look crispest at the middle of their zoom range.

I am currently using the following lenses (on my 20d):

18-55mm f3.5-5.6
35-135mm USM f4-5.6
50mm f1.8

The first two are zooms, the 18-55 being the kit lens. It is best at about 35mm of zoom, at 18 it is very soft. At low apertures it is quite soft as well. You will alos notic that two aperture values are given, on zooms the widest possible aperture at minimum zoom is usually wider than at maximum zoom. so at 18mm you can shoot f3.5, at 55mm only f5.6

the 35-135 is a much better lens. It's sharper, and looks good even at 35mm. However, it is still better at 70 than it is at 35 or 135.

The 50mm prime has a much lower f stop, and that allows tighter DOF and shooting at low light. It is also the sharpest, by far, of all the lenses, because it is desgined for optimum performance at one focal length. That is how you get the quality for the price. However, this is not a lesn you are going to use as your walking around lens. On a DSLR its more like an 80mm lens.


By the way, if you are constrained by budget, then getting the 50mm f1.4 is probably not a good choice- if its price is $400 or so, compare it to the canon 50mm f1.8 which is about $75. I would spend the extra money on either a 20d, or a D70s. I would much prefer the f1.4 capability, but I would probably spend that extra money on a different lens.

Also, keep in mind that a good many lenses can be bought cheaply used. I got the 35-135 USM for $90. It looks a little used, but functions very well. So I would spend the cash on a body with good capabilities, then add lenses later as you can afford them.

leebase

Oakley wrote:

Thanks again...and the info on the 50mm is great. But a question - if 50mm doesn't give you the "normal" view with a D50, then is there a lens that I could use that would give me the "normal" view?

Well, I'm a Canon shooter so I'm not as up on the Nikon lenses. Canon has a nice 35 f1.4L -- but it's very pricey. I bet Nikon has a similar lens.

What _I_ did, and I'd heartily reccomend for anyone else, is get the Sigma 30mm f1.4 -- they come in Canon and Nikon mounts.

Lee

Chase

Oakley wrote:

To Zoom or not to Zoom, that is the question.

Ok, acturally the real question is:

In my inexperienced mind, ZOOM seems like a nice feature to any lens and it doesn't make sense that you wouldn't want a non-zoom lens. However, many of the non-zoom lens are expensive and it seems many people use them. Could someone please tell me why you, for example, purchase a 50mm f1.4 USM vs something like a Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens. What am I missing about lens technology here?

If anyone can explain or post a reference link for me to "learn" the lens language.

Thanks,

Most zooms, especially cheap zooms (ie, under 1000 bones) will simply not match the optical quality or speed of primes.

Speed- primes are fast, which allows you to take pictures in lower light hand held without flash. Take the case of the 70-300 f4.5-5.6 IS and say a 135L f2. The zoom on paper seems much better...image stabilization, a huge zoom range, small, light. The 135L is a pretty big heavy chunk of glass with one focal length. Where is the benefit? F2 allows you to shoot in much lower light than f5.6. How much lower?
A shutter speed of 1/50 at 5.6
is a shutter speed of 1/100 at f4
is a shutter speed of 1/200 at f2.8
and 1/400 at f2
This is important for stopping action in low light.

The second thing is optical quality. Think about how complicated it is to make a lens that can change its focal length. Not so easy, huh? Thats why primes are better. They can be simpler and perfected to work at ONE focal length to the absolute best of their abilities.

MikeFried

Oakley wrote:

To Zoom or not to Zoom, that is the question.

In my inexperienced mind, ZOOM seems like a nice feature to any lens and it doesn't make sense that you wouldn't want a non-zoom lens. However, many of the non-zoom lens are expensive and it seems many people use them.

If anyone can explain or post a reference link for me to "learn" the lens language.

Start here:
http://photonotes.org/articles/

Specifically, you're looking for the answers he provides here:
http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#zoomprime

But you should read the whole page, neigh, the whole beginner FAQ, neigh, the whole site. It's all excellent material. NK Guy writes about Canon EOS equipment, but most of what he writes is useful regardless of what camera system you decide on.

Oakley wrote:

Could someone please tell me why you, for example, purchase a 50mm f1.4 USM vs something like a Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens. What am I missing about lens technology here?

3 years ago (pre-DSLR), I knew very little about photography technology. After 2 SLRs, 4 zoom and 4 prime lenses, 2 external flashes, converters, extenders, couplers, extension tubes, remote release cables, and lots of other equipment, I know enough to say that there are an infinite number of ways you can answer that question.

The simple answer is that lenses vary in price from $50 to $50,000. Generally speaking, there are many reasons that people buy the $50 lens and there are many reasons that people buy the $50,000 lens. The lenses you mentioned looking into were cheap zoom lenses. It is possible to produce fine work with them (99% of photography is where you point the camera). You should be warned that on any 6MP camera, when you look at the results at 100% with these lenses and you shoot at their challenging ends, your photographs will not look acceptable. These lenses are fine for producing 6"x4" prints and 8"x10" most of the time. As you get to 20"x30" prints, you find you need more quality (100% at 96DPI on a 6MP camera is a 20x30). As you become more skilled with your equipment, you'll learn its limitations better, and you'll have more reasonable expectations.

Amateur lenses are inexpensive, slow (aperture wise), don't use many technologies that might make your experience more pleasant, and they may use older designs or be made of less expensive materials. But it's your hard earned money. You need to decide for yourself if the tradeoff is right for you. Prime lenses are generally much better for image quality than zoom lenses at a fraction of the price, but you give up the ability to zoom.

Image quality in general ranges from worst to best in the following order (exceptions to this rule are limited to any lens costing you more than $1000)

slow 10+x (ultra wide - super telephoto) zoom
slow 3+x (wide - telephoto) zoom
IS zoom < $1000
fast zoom (wide - telephoto)
prime lens (lenses here are generally as sharp or sharper than a zoom costing 2-3x the price)
macro lens (lens with a dedicated macro functionality need to be built to much tighter optical spec)
special purpose lens (tilt-shift, and just about any lens > $2000)

Good luck making your decision. Remember that there's an old addage - you get what you pay for. In photography, the lens is usually more important than the camera.

Cyclops

Before you make your final decision, I recommend you look at the Konica-Minolta 5D reviews and lens selections.

John