eigtball

I am a shallow telephoto user I am currently in film shooting 28-105 and am happy there. I am not at the 105 alot, more near the 50ish range. So I do know I'd like to be around the range of the 17-55mm for a zoom.

 

My problem is the D300 is a big beast to learn. I guess I am looking for confirmation that a 35mm/2 prime will be adequate for me. I shoot mostly 50mm 1.8 on my Film body and have done so for almost 10 years of shooting. The only zoom I have experience with is my Canon 28-105 , yes I am moving from Canon to Nikon :).

 

I think the cost for the performance is just too much on the 17-55. 1400 is a huge wad of cash.

I was going to just say Lilly. I am mainly going to be doing street photography and some nature while on hikes this summer. Id say 75% street and 25% nature.

Sorry I should have said I was pairing this with a D300.

I have the software and the computer (computer geek). The zoom does give me the wide angle perspective. The 2.8 speed is fast. The down side is the price.

 

If I choose two primes or three if I toss the grip (which I probably will) What choices do you think?

 

24/2.8

28/2.8

35/2

50/1.8

50/1.4

85/1.8

Just so you know, most newer notebooks/laptops have EXPRESS CARD slots, not PCMCIA which is older technology. Make sure you get the right reader for your system if you go that route.

I am debating whether or not to get two primes (most likely 35/2 and 50/1.4) or

the 17-55/2.8. I have been going back and forth for the last 3 weeks trying to

decide between those two choices.

 

I have looked at a number of sample shots from each of the lenses. I have

spoken to a number of experts and Nikon users. I have heard both stories. I

see the advantage to having just that one zoom vs two primes, but the lens of

1399.95 Canadian prices. Which is a huge amount. I am moving from Film to

digital and I have a $4200 budget. I can come under budget with an extra

battery and grip which I honestly don't really need.

 

Should I be thinking about getting the two fast primes and a mid-range zoom

(16-85) or just stick with the 17-55.

 

Thanks,

Yes the 28-80 will work. you would do better with the D40/D40x or D60 with a the new 18-55 VR, you could get one for a very good price.

Love the sequence. You need to make an animated GIF.

Congratz! It's weather sealed, get out there and take some pictures!

BTW... buy it. No really. I'd buy it in a heart beat.

I think since you said Macro/Flower, you might be interested in the 60mm 2.8G Nikkor Micro AF-S. Its a tad more expensive. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/545660-USA/Nikon_2177_AF_S_Micro_Nikkor_60mm_f_2_8G.html. It's right around that 50mm focal length, and its Nano-Crystal Coat, Pro quality lens. 1:1 reproduction, 185mm (7.28inches) close focus.

 

Just a thought.

The 17-55mm and the 16-85mm are the two lenses that I am thinking about picking up (either or). My problem is price vs. performance. I have seen sample shots and I have read the comments. I am having a hard time seeing a major difference (read: $700 difference). Sure the constant aperture would be nice and fast. The sharpness of the 17-55mm is well known, and the construction is well built. In the end I will most likely get the 17-55mm due to the positives that it brings.

 

I will be pairing it with a D300, so I am not sure but the D40 should be fine with either as well. If you make a choice let me know (if you are buying sooner than later).

 

Cheers,

You can go half way. take a look at the sling shot from LowePro. I am looking at either the 200 or 300.

These samples are from a DPreview post - http://www.pbase.com/julianprice/inbox

 

Heres the post http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&thread=27142696

Hashim. You need to use HTML and link them from other sites. Nice photo's BTW.

Joe, if he broke it, why are you suggesting he return it??

In the time you would have to wait you could "save" up the extra $150 to get it. As for length, unless you look at Sigma or Tamron you are stuck with only the 80-400.

I am planning on two 4GB's. Same reasoning. I might might get another 4GB from the States when my Parents come back home because the price difference is so huge.

 

Sandeep, I'd just skip the 16GB model and go with the 4GB or 8GB model's. You save a huge amount of money that way, and can span the photo's out. its not like you change the card every 24 to 36 exposures ;)

Do you have any examples that you care to share with us? I'd like to see what you have for us to compare too?

 

Cheers,

Matt your assessment of photo.net is right on target. Its the reason I read here vs other well known unmoderated forums. The team here do an excellent job on keeping things in check!

SB-800 as people have said. B+W or Nikon Cir. Polarizer if fine. I'd like to know what lens are you using with it as well.

Looks good. The distortion is pretty heavy at 16mm according to that review Roberto. They say that the construction on it is better than other lenses but it should be for the price over the lower end kit lens.

 

This might be a good combination lens for someone who needs the range. The VR is a welcome edition. Its a toss up between this and the 17-55 for me. I'm going to have to get some test shots side by side.

Small light, thin. Not a bad travel companion.

Canon Rebel XTi with a 18mm-55mm 3.5-5.6 IS. The reason I say XTi is because the XSi will be out shortly and a good deal can be found on the XTi, well worth the extra cash. Larger sensor, faster frame rate more control easier to handhold (IMHO) and expandability, which I believe is key.

 

Unfortunately I do now know what the D40x is capable of, but you might be able to find a good price on that as well.

 

So your Take Away:

 

Check out these cameras:

Canon Rebel XTi with a 18mm-55mm 3.5-5.6 IS

 

or

 

Nikon D40x with an 18mm-55mm 3.5-56 VR

 

Cheers,

A file isn't a file unless you have 3 copies or more of that file. Just a quick rule of thumb most IT people use when securing data.