8/25 Alright guys. Nikon D80 with 18-135mm lens for only $709:
http://www.usaphotonation.com/products.asp?product_id=13642#acc
\- you should read the reviews of the 18-135. a 7.5x zoom
enters the suspect range for distortion, although this may be
\- you should read the reviews of the 18-135. a 7.5x zoom mitigated
for a DX format lens. that being said, if that's price if the
lens measures up optically and in physical construction [some
cheaper big zooms have had construction issues]. \_ don't
bother with big zooms. get a 17-35mm f/2.8 as a starter if you
have the money; 30mm f/2 if you don't. these big zooms tend to
use other than bright sunny day due to small maximum aperature.
\_
mitigated for a DX format lens. that being said, if that's
lend bundled in for $700, that seems like a pretty good effective
price if the lens measures up optically and in physical
5A5A price if the lens measures up optically and in physical
construction [some cheaper big zooms have had construction
issues].
\_ don't bother with big zooms. get a 17-35mm f/2.8 as a starter if
you have the money; 30mm f/2 if you don't. these big zooms tend
to have very bad optical qualities, AND that it is usually useless
to use other than bright sunny day due to small maximum aperature.
\- do you think the poster above is really looking for a +$1000
\_ So you haven't ever touched a woman, huh?
"starter" lens [17-35 f/2.8]? 30mm f/2? again, a big but cheap
zoom with a long range will never be great, but DX format and
modern lens design and glass may mitigate this.
modern lens design and glass may mitigate this. OP: it is
quite possible you will not need more than 80mm-DX/120mm-FX
at the long end. I really dont take a lot of serious pictures
in the super-telephone ranges [birds, wildlife, sports], and the
quite possible you will not need more than 80mm-DX/120mm-FX at
the long end. I really dont take a lot of serious pictures in
the super-telephone ranges [birds, wildlife, sports], and the
decent lenses in that area are multi-thousand dollar lenses.
\- oh you mean the 35mm f/2. look it's probably silly for
somebody with say a $1-1.2k photo budget to spend 25-30%
on a prime lens unless he wants it for something very
specific. the 50mm 1.8 is $100 ... which would be around
the 85mm FX FoV and is a fast lens of decent optical
\-
quality, eventhough not the most solid construction
[less imp for a small, light lens]. now are you going to
tell him the 50mm/1.4 is nicer.
oh you mean the 35mm f/2. look it's probably silly for somebody
with say a $1-1.2k photo budget to spend 25-30% on a prime lens
unless he wants it for something very specific. the 50mm 1.8 is
$100 ... which would be around quality, eventhough not the most
solid construction [less imp for a small, light lens]. now are
you going to tell him the 50mm/1.4 is nicer.
\_ if you want long end, fetch an used 70-210mm f/4-5.6 they are
cheap and almost good enough. (I personally find f/5.6 a bit too
slow at the 210mm end... and i am using ISO400 all the time).
And yes, my recommendation for newbies are: 17-35mm f/2.8,
50mm f/1.8 and 70-210mm f/4-5.6 (go for an older 70-210mm f/4 if
you can find one). The new 70-300mm f/4-5.6 VR is nice if you can
afford it. |
http://csua.com/feed/