Different bodies and lenses

[catspawspec]

Good day!

 

I thought I would ask here since I can't seem to really find

an answer on the net and when I ask sellers on amazon I

still can't get a straight answer.

 

So since there are so many camera bodies and so many

lenses...

 

Do you have to but only Nikon lense for a Nikon body?

Can you mix and match?

 

I know it may not be ideal - however for just starting out

and being on a budget if I find a body but the type of lense

I want to learn is way out of my price range but I find the

same type by a different company - can I combine them?

 

Thank you!

[JosvanEekelen]

<p>Good question. It is more a matter of the right mount/bayonet than of the brand. In general Nikon lenses fit on Nikon bodies, other brands like Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and a few others make lenses for Nikon bodies as well. Check that the latter are made for Nikon since they will make the same lenses with other mounts (Canon, Pentax, Sony, etc) as well. Canon, Pentax, Sony lenses will not fit Nikon bodies.<br>

There are a few more peculiarities of Nikon bodies and lens types, I trust other pnetters will inform you about this. </p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>From my limited understanding Sony Nex & Alpha might be the only cameras eating another brand's lenses which come in a different proprietary mount via adapters. (So far they seem to support their own Minolta / Sony A mount glass or Canon EOS lenses. - There seems also a Nikon AF 3rd party adapter, but it earned less praise so far) - There are adapters across other brands too but they don't provide complete functionality by linking AF OIS and automated apertures. Most of them simply mechanically connect lens and camera and leave all operations to the user.<br>

I advice to <em>not</em> start dabbling with non AF lenses cobbled on AF DSLR bodies. I tried it back in the days with old manual focus Pentax lenses that fitted on my Pentax AF DSLRs, but honestly: they are pretty hard to focus on an AF SLR's screen that was never really made for that chore. Focus confirmation via AF sensors helps a bit but is slower than somthing else directly accessible and needs a well lit environment & high contrast subject to work well.<br>

It might work for certain rather static subjects under good lighting conditions but is unlikely to make you happy.. - I think using heritage glass on mirrorless cameras that support manual focusing via assistance in a decent EVF might be more fun. FTR: I only have elderly Fujis which IMHO lack <em>decent</em> EVFs. I tried adapting lenses on them and noticed: they don't work well for studio settings = dim light, small aperture, lots of flash used. Either my EVF went dark beyond usable of I would have needed a tripod to stabilize the camera while stopping down by hand (slow). In natural light at moderate apertures or wide open things should be better with them.<br>

Especially Nikon doesn't take a lot of other system's lenses since the mount to sensor distance is comparably big and doesn't leave space between itself and an adapter. - Canon DSLRs seem a better (but still not recommended!) choice for such, since they allow focusing some adapted lenses to infinity.<br>

Like Jos stated: there might be 3rd party lenses in a Nikon mount for AF DSLRs (I believe Nikon offered 4 different mounts so far and changed the SLR one 4 or 5 times?) that do a well enough job on them. - But read into the details and reviews plus look for sample images online before you buy anything.<br>

There can be lightyears between "same types of lens by different companies" A current Leica 50mm f1.4 should perform pretty crisp, even wide open; a Pentax 50mm f1.4, even stopped down to f2.8 is still pretty soft. - An old Tokina ATX 35-70 f2.8 is anything but sharp either and still might count as "the same" as a modern Nikon 24 -70 f2.8 (through their shared zoom range), although the latter might be a good lens and worth its money.<br>

If all you are after is getting a rough idea of how a f1.4 portrait might look compared to a f5.6 one, grab an old lens and adapt it on something. I wouldn't recommend Nikon DSLRs for dabbling with adapted lenses only. - I'd rather go for Sony Nex for that purpose. An old Nex5 can be found for 150 Euro, adapters are about 20 euro on ebay. Later camera models might be more desirable.<br>

Nikon DSLRs seem great though, if you manage to get the hang of their menus (I didn't, but I never owned one of them). For a general entry into photography you can't go too wrong with sticking to Nikon's least expensive kit of 2 VR zooms to start with.<br>

Maybe name the kind / type of lens you want to learn for which situations and get more detailed answers about budged solutions. All I can say: if I wanted to shoot <em>moving</em> people with a 85mm lens, I 'd bite the bullet and buy Nikon's plastic AF lens instead of thinking a second about using even a contemporary Leica 90mm f2 on anything (including their own digital bodies)<br>

If you want to get into birding you'll have a hard time with old Spiratone 400mm f6.4 lenses and should be better off with a less expensive zoom getting close to their reach and cropping a bit. Having decent AF seems important at the long end of the lens line...</p>

[steven_clark]

<p>If you need to ask this question you probably don't have the level of experience that you should really use adapted lenses yet. All the extra processes that are usually automatic on an SLR made since the 70s are missing when you use adapted lenses so you need to have a much more in-depth understanding of what's going on in the camera before you do it. That said, it is indeed better with mirrorless cameras like the ones Sony makes, or even an EOS M series, even though they aren't as well liked. The key feature you need is called focus peaking, which will color the sharpest pixels in the image showing you what's in focus at any given time to help manually focus. On the Canon EOS M this needs to be hacked-on after the fact with Magic Lantern, on the Sony's it's standard.</p>

[JosvanEekelen]

<p>C'mon guys, the OP is asking in the beginners forum so adapted lenses are way beyond his/her thoughts. Same for firmware adaptions like Magic Lantern which is by the way no fun to use for a beginner.<br>

Loren, since you seem to be on a budget a starter kit (body + standard zoom lens) is the best way to start. The extra price for the lens (as compared to body only) can't be beat. Just check offerings from the big companies (Canon, Nikon and the rest) and decide which one you like. Mirrorless or DSLR, there's a big difference in size, you may like one or the other more. Perhaps add a 50/1.8 lens (ca. EUR/USD 100) for low light situations and you're set to go. For the moment I'd go with a EOS 700D/Rebel T5i but YMMV. </p>

[paddler4]

<p>Here's a simple answer that is enough for someone starting out:</p>

<p>1. Nikon and Canon lenses will not work on the other brand's bodies.</p>

<p>2. Several other manufacturers make lenses for multiple brands of cameras. The two leading brands of this sort are Sigma and Tamron. They manufacture their lenses with different mounts, each to fit a specific brand. If you look at stores or online vendors, you will see that when you buy a lens from one of these companies, you have to specify the brand of camera body you will use. These lenses are often--but not always--cheaper than the Canon and Nikon lenses with which they compete. </p>

<p>3. If the sellers you are discussing this can't tell you this, run, don't walk, in the other direction. Particularly since you are new to this and don't know your way around, you need to buy from a reputable, authorized dealer that has staff who know camera equipment. There are lots of them, but I use two of the big ones, B&H and Adorama. I have been doing photography for decades, and I can still turn to their staff for more information.</p>

[jordan2240]

<p>Lauren,</p>

<p>To put it very simply, if you shoot Nikon, you won't find a lens from Pentax, Canon, Sony, etc. that will work for Nikon. As others have noted, there are '3rd party' lens companies that do make lenses for Nikon (typically Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina), which are generally less expensive than Nikon lenses. </p>

<p>However, other than Pentax cameras, which has had the same lens mount virtually forever, both Nikon and Canon have changed their mounts over the years, so depending on which camera you have, not all lenses from Nikon and Canon (or made for them by a 3rd party) will work on all of their cameras, so you do need to be sure your camera mount and lens mount match. Any quality seller (like B & H and Adorama already mentioned) will be able to tell you if a lens will work for your camera. </p>

<p>In short, if you shoot Nikon, look for lenses from Nikon or Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina, making sure the lens mount specifically indicates it's for the same mount that your specific camera uses.</p>

 

[raczoliver]

<p>Like others have said, the main camera manufacturers (Nikon, Canon, Pentax...) only make lenses for their own cameras. You can't put a Nikon lens on a Canon camera or the other way round.</p>

<p>However, there are companies that are primarily lens manufacturers, like Sigma, Tamron, Tokina. These make lenses for all the bigger camera brands. The camera brand that the lens will fit is usually indicated after the name of the lens with "for Nikon", "for Canon", or "Nikon mount", "Canon mount" etc., so you can easily determine whether the lens will fit your camera. These third party lenses are generally thought of as more affordable, but that is not always the case, and their quality is also not necessarily worse. It really depends on the specific lens type.</p>

[catspawspec]

<p>Thank you so much everyone! I mainly am just looking at this point - but, was mostly curious. I haven't used a body with different lense in over 25 years - and either back then the lenses mainly were able to be interchangeable or I just happened to luck out. <br>

So mainly it's curiosity at this point and getting and idea for the future. <br>

A friend let me use their body with two lenses - all the same brand - but, in all honestly all it did was piss me off the entire time I used it. The lenses didn't go on or come off easily, it took forever to make changes and neither lens would focus on what I wanted - either manually or automatically. She had bought a kit - and to me it was a total waste of time, or the lenses that came with the camera just weren't good ones for what I wanted to shoot. I don't know. <br>

So now I'm very leery of buying a body and lenses completely - but, the Nikon and the Sony I have now (one unit) don't fully do what I want either. But, I don't have the hassle of removing and changing lenses.<br>

That being said - I am focusing on learning everything I can about the two cameras I have now (and trying to find out why the Sony seems to be so much better than the Nikon at this point ((which totally floors me)). But, I was curious and wanted to know. </p>

<p>Sorry if anyone was put out by my "inexperience for asking such a question - but, I truly thought the BEGINNERS forum was for just that - us beginners that are trying to learn. </p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>"all it did was piss me off the entire time I used it. The lenses didn't go on or come off easily, it took forever to make changes"<br /><br />Don't give up on interchangeable lenses. They are one of the key advantages of a DSLR. If you were having trouble changing lenses, get someone familiar with the equipment to show you the correct way. Lenses do come off and on easily. It takes less than five seconds to pull one lens off and put another on regardless of camera brand. With practices, you can be even faster than that. No need to even look.<br /><br />"other than Pentax cameras, which has had the same lens mount virtually forever, both Nikon and Canon have changed their mounts over the years"<br /><br />Pentax began with the famous Pentax screw mount that was copied by many other manufacturers back in the 60s. But they abandoned it sometime in the 70s for the K-mount. Canon began with FD mount but then changed to the EOS mount (80s?). Nikon has had the same basic F mount since the beginning in 1959. They have had a number of variations over the years, most notably when they dropped the Nikon prong and went to the Ai version, and later as electronic contacts were added. With a few exceptions, just about any Nikon lens will physically mount on just about any Nikon SLR/DSLR body, but there are some combations with potential for damage to the body and combinations, particularly with recent low-end DSLRs, where AF or metering won't work. I still use my 1970s era Ai manual focus lenses on my D200 and D7000 with no problem at all.<br /><br /><br /></p>

[catspawspec]

<p>Craig - thank you for that information! <br>

I will have to revisit - I just remember in the past (again over 20 years ago) how easy it was to change the lens and fast too! Most of them were completely interchangeable. </p>

<p>I'm still learning the Nikon and the Sony I have - still trying to figure out how the Sony is so much better than the Nikon - regardless of what I do to it and putting them on the same settings and they are practically the same camera and I am just amazed that even the cheap Samsung I have is so far showing that it's out performing the Nikon (and not even close to being in the same "class") but, I'm not able to figure it out yet. </p>

<p>Thank you for the help here and the information is great! I really thought I would want a Nikon but, I've always heard that Canon is the best - and the majority of the macro images I see are taken on a Rebel and those have been the ones that I like best photo wise so far. But, again that is a bit in the future. <br>

I haven't figured out half of what yall say when you talk about the cameras. None of it makes sense your F mount, the mirrors, the AF and metering. It's just garbled.. and I keep researching it. <br>

I've always been more of an instinct and intuitive photographer (and with most things) seeing - does the image look great? Does it show what I want to capture? Does it focus correctly? Is the lighting right? <br>

Just basic stuff - and maybe that will keep me from ever getting close to some of the photos I enjoy looking at - but, as much as I try to read the camera language yall talk about, it just makes no sense at all. I'm not stupid, a computer engineer and took radiology for fun - however, this talk is like a foreign language lol <br>

I'll keep plugging away at it, but then I may just keep doing what I'm doing so I still can enjoy taking the photos and not have to work at it so much. </p>

<p>Thank you again! </p>

[jordan2240]

<blockquote>

<p>I've always been more of an instinct and intuitive photographer (and with most things) seeing - does the image look great? Does it show what I want to capture? Does it focus correctly? Is the lighting right?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think that really sums it up pretty well. Most any camera can get an acceptable picture of most subjects, but what you capture is uniquely you.</p>

[catspawspec]

Good Morning Bill

 

Thank you! Its taken this conversation and another with someone who is an acquaintance for

me to figure two major things out about photography and the issues I'm having

 

1. I am an instinct and intuitive person and photographer and just want to enjoy. Take

amazing shots is a definate yes, but continue to enjoy it

 

2. The reason I am having a dickens of a time with cameras I have and getting the shots I

want (and what drovevme to ask the questions in this thread) is that I MISS the old manual

focusing. I loved that! I could get the image I wanted and had to work at it and it was fun! The

cameras that I have all do the focus themselves. Yes I can push/pull the little button but it

focuses itself -- which I don't like at all

 

 

So he suggested that I get the Canon Rebel T5 body and a Sigma 18-300 mm f3.5 -6.3 dc

macro os lense for the camera since I do love the manual focus and it will give me the ability

of 3 lenses in one - macro, close and farther away...

 

So Im going to research this.

 

I completely missed the point that its the manually moving and focusing the lense tgat I enjoy

and that I am not crazy about the camera focusing for me. Yes thats great in a lot of

circumstances but, not for me.

[raczoliver]

<p>I can totally understand that you like manually focusing, while for professionals photography is purely about getting the shots they need in the simplest way possible, enthusiasts often enjow fiddling around with their cameras and want to enjoy the process of taking a picture. My first SLR was autofocus, but when I got a manual focus camera I enjoyed using that much more, and when I decided to taste the simplicity of medium format film SLRs, the shooting experience that it gave me, combined with the image quality miles ahead of any 35mm camera just meant there was no turning back for me. I just kept shooting my medium format all manual cameras, and I didn't miss any of the bells and whistles of modern photography gear.</p>

<p>However, none of the digital cameras that I have used so far provide easy manual focusing. I have a Nikon D700 now, which is a full frame camera, and the viewfinder is pretty much as big as it gets without going medium format (that I can't afford), but it is still not good enough to get accurate manual focus, even on stationary subjects. Anything moving... forget it. Maybe it's because i tend to judge the sharpness of the image by looking at it at 100% on the computer screen, which emphasizes all the little flaws more than they are visible on a moderately sized print, but the rate of keepers made me give up trying to manually focus the D700, and I even have a 1.2X magnifying eyepiece on it. Any entry level DSLR's viewfinder will be even much worse than that. For this reason, I sometimes feel like getting a couple of rolls of good old Ilford FP4 plus black and white film and taking my Bronica SQ-A out of its bag for some fun times!</p>

[catspawspec]

Hi Oliver

 

That is some good points! I can see the appeal of both options to different people.

 

I think at this point after really paying attention to both the Nikon and Sony... I just cant at all

get it where I want it... No matter what setting.

 

I can use the screen.. See what I want and its perfect. Then take the photo and the camera

literally loses its mind. Its fcus is in and out as it tries to figure it out and 95% of the time it

doesnt take the image on what was on the view screen - its completely blurry.

 

So then I have to back up or get closer and try to retake and its not the image I want and then

if I crop it down via software - no matter how much manipulation I lose so much of it.

 

After so many years of this I can only hope that going back to a manual focus will be best.

 

And again it could be that what I am trying to do the two cameras I have dont have the

capability to do it or I cant figure out the camera settings.

 

I took the Sony and took photos... Changing each setting after each shot to try to get it but no

joy.

 

And breaking out your Bronica sounds like a great and fun plan!