Is Nikon evil around here?? (quick lens question too)

[tjl1388]

Seems to me the Canon Rebel has taken over around the photo seen.

I have a Nikon D70 and I love it. Currently I am running primarily a Tamron 18-200(not perfect but it works)
I am looking to do some serious landscape for my June trip to DW.

I am looking for something wide angle around F/1:4, 1:8. I have found this..

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7617539465&rd=1&sspagename=STRK:MEWA:IT&rd=1

Here is the other one. The F/1:4 50mm

http://cgi.ebay.com/NIKON-50mm-f-1-...7616192200QQcategoryZ3343QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


As well as F/1:4's in the $3-400 range. What is the big difference?

Thank you for any help.

 

[Muushka]

I love my D70!

I bought the NIKON NIKKOR AF 50mm f/1.8 LENS and I probably need to use it more, but I am not that impressed with it. Prior to my DSLR, my old SLR just had the 'normal lens'. I loved that lens and thought this would be comparable. But I guess because of the 'math' used in calculating the actual focal length (not sure I am saying this right or not), it is not a 50mm lens.

Not sure if this helps, hopefully someone more knowlegeable will chime in!

 

[ducklite]

Nikon is definitely NOT evil. I use a D-70. I'm not a fan of third party glass at all, other than Hoya filters, only because Nikkor doens't make their own.

The D-70 is noisier than other cameras, which is one of the many reasons I'm going to purchase a D2X as soon as I've got the cashola.

As far as the lenses on E-Bay, I have the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AF prime, which for half the cost of the 50mm f/1.4 prime suites my needs entirely, and I do primarily low level lighting work.

The big difference is in the stops. Like I said, I shoot almost all in low light, and the f/1.8 opens far enough to allow plenty of light in. This photo was taken with the 50mm prime:

This band (Seether) is so notorious for having such poor lighting conditions that a lot of photographers just won't bother to shoot them anymore. I've found them almost impossible to shoot unless you use a f/1.8 or f/1.4 lens, or flash. (Which I do not like using for band shots for a variety of reasons but have resorted to at other shows with this band. It was not used for this photo.)

My biggest complaint about this--and it's with any wide/wider angle lenses--is that it's difficult to show depth of field and selective focus can be almost impossible--I use both of those techniques in most of my work.

Anne

 

[safetymom]

Add me to the Nikon list. I love my D70S.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Nikoon is definitely not evil. This is coming from a Canon user.

 

[Anewman]

Oh NIKON, the horror.
Just kidding you may get that on other photography forums, but remember this is still DISboards.

I am a lifetime Canon shooter, but my daughter(15) saved money for a Dslr and I advised her to get the D50.

Now when it comes to those lenses you know 50mm is not exactly considered "wide angle" , But now when it comes to digital it may actually be considered telephoto. ON a Canon DSLR it works as a 80mm. I have the Canon equivelent of the 1.8, and I love it. But for a basic walk around LOW LIGHT prime lens I would get something in the 20-28mm range. I know you said Landscape, but I did not think most landscapes are shot wide open anyways.

 

[tjl1388]

I would love to go into the 20-28mm range but unfortunalty the $$ starts heading skyward after 50mm. I figured for $100 I can play with it and see if I want to go lower and then invest the $$$.

 

[Anewman]

Oh dont get me wrong, IMO every bag should have 50mm 1.8

My concern was that you mentioned "Wide Angle" and "landscape", again this is my opinion but I feel that you would be better off with the lens you already have.
What these 1.4 and 1.8 lenses give you over the lens you already have is better LOW LIGHT performance and much shallower depth of field, the lens you already have gives you much wider focal range. Most Landscape shooters would take that latter if forced to choose.

Other than outdoor sports I do not use Zooms very often, I love prime lenses but there are types of shooting that unless you have EXACTLY the prime lens needed the flexibility of zooms can not be beat.

 

[tjl1388]

Well low light shooting is also a pretty big concern as well. It seems that all my shots at Disney as the light goes away in the evening get worse and worse because 1. I am to lazy to use a tripod, this it the biggest reason (not this time though) #2. I run out of lens.

As far as lanscapes, I am need to amend my statement. I like the dusk with the sunset and the lights of mainstreet/Crystal palace on type lanscape shots. So yes, a low light lens comes into play.

Thank you for all your help.

 

[mabas9395]

Nikon is the camera of the devil. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

 

[handicap18]

Nikon N6006 user for 7 years. N70 user for 9 years, now I'm on to the D50 (6 months now).

I use the Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED IF AF-S DX as well as a Quantaray70-300mm f/4-5.6 D NF AF Macro (which I got with my N70).

I've been looking at a few of the primes. The 28 and 35 would be more pratical with the dSLR (cropped up to 42mm & 52mm equilivent). However, their prices aren't to pratical right now. Though on ebay the Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 might be a good price. I like the price of the 50mm f/1.8. Very affordable (probably under $100 on ebay). That might be good for portraits and some family gatherings. Though it does crop up to 75mm on the dSLR's. This is my biggest reason for holding off. I haven't quite determined how often I would use it compared to the 18-70. I think I'd rather get the SB-600 speedlight flash first. Things may change down the road as the kids start getting into more activities and I may end up looking at a telephoto in the f/1.8 range instead.

To many decisions. I need to hit the lottery so this becomes a non issue and I just go and get EVERY lens!!!!

 

[tjl1388]

If I didn't have a lifted, very capable rock crawling Jeep, I would have a kick butt camera...if I didn't have a awsome capable D70 I would have a kick but Jeep.

Life is full of choices. I can thin kof worse ones to have to make.

I think after all of this I am going to go with the 50mm F/1:8 and get the 28-200 VR to replace my Tamron 28-300.

 

[ducklite]

Life is full of choices. I can thin kof worse ones to have to make.

No kidding! If I hadn't just bought a Saturn Sky I'd have a D2X and just about any lens I could want!

Anne

 

[Kelly Grannell]

28mm is just not wide enough for me. Heck, even 20mm is barely wide enough for me.

 

[safetymom]

I have the 18-200 VR Nikon lens and I love it.

 

[jockey]

Another vote for Nikon! Got the D50 on saturday and am very pleased with the results even though I am still learning how to use it. At the moment I am using the Lens that came as part of the kit but am thinking of investing in the 18mm-200mm VR .

 

[JR6ooo4]

Oh NIKON, the horror.

When it comes to those lenses you know 50mm is not exactly considered "wide angle" , But now when it comes to digital it may actually be considered telephoto. ON a Canon DSLR it works as a 80mm.

The crop factor does not magicaly make any lens longer. ie 50mm lens now has the reach of an 80mm. It merely means the field of view will be more narrow compared to a "full-frame" sensor camera.

Mikeeee

 

[Anewman]

. ie 50mm lens now has the reach of an 80mm.

Mikeeee

So you are saying it does not work like a 80mm?

Or are you agreeing with me?



We all understand the tech stuff, magnification vs crop factor.
Bottom line, a 50mm lens on a APS sized sensor will capture an image comprable to that captured on a traditional film camera with a 80mm lens. I am not saying it does so by magnification.

 

[JR6ooo4]

So you are saying it does not work like a 80mm?

Or are you agreeing with me?



We all understand the tech stuff, magnification vs crop factor.
Bottom line, a 50mm lens on a APS sized sensor will capture an image comprable to that captured on a traditional film camera with a 80mm lens. I am not saying it does so by magnification.

Ok I misunderstood. Even now, when you say "capture an image" to me that seems like the quality not how big the frame is.

But I always do that. I think that california is later than chicago. Because 9am in cali is two hours later than 9am in chicago.....

Mikeeee

 

[Anewman]

Ok I misunderstood. Even now, when you say "capture an image" to me that seems like the quality not how big the frame is.

Mikeeee

Yes, when taken out of context it may seem that way.