bourboncowboy

<p>I agree with the 28-70 suggestion. The Beast is sharp, but for best results, it needs to be stopped down to f/4 or 5.6.</p>

<p>My suggestion would be to sell your D90 and F65 and pick up a good used F100. They're excellent cameras, and can do just about everything except offer matrix metering with Ai/Ai-S lenses. They work perfectly with AF-S lenses and will allow you to use VR. I'd also recommend the FE or FE2 for full manual bodies. The only drawback to the FE2 is that the meter is hard to read in dim light.</p>

<p>And yes, I own all of the bodies that I've recommended.</p>

<p>My suggestion would be to sell your D90 and F65 and pick up a good used F100. They're excellent cameras, and can do just about everything except offer matrix metering with Ai/Ai-S lenses. They work perfectly with AF-S lenses and will allow you to use VR. I'd also recommend the FE or FE2 for full manual bodies. The only drawback to the FE2 is that the meter is hard to read in dim light.</p>

<p>And yes, I own all of the bodies that I've recommended.</p>

<p>AJ, the D700 is an excellent camera. I would've suggested it, but I was going by your $700 budget. Also, prices should be dropping on lightly used D300 bodies, since the new D300s has been announced. For low-light shooting, the D700 can't be beat.</p>

<p>The SB-600s are also good choices. I had one, but sold it in favor of the 800. If you're planning on using the SB-600 with the D50, pick up the SU-800. I use it with both my D700 and D90 - even though both will control off camera flashes. It's just an easier alternative.</p>

<p>I've found that when I shoot with film, these are pretty handy. Although, if I bracket, and then have the negs scanned, I can do basically the same thing in Photomattix.</p>

<p>Since I own the Sigma 30 1.4, I went with the Sigma 50 as well. I found that I had a lens that needed to be adjusted, so I sent it back. When it was returned to me, I took it to a camera store and tested it against the new Nikon 50. I took three shots with each, and found that the Sigma outperformed the Nikon in terms of bokeh, CA, and center sharpness. It also provided an almost 3-D look to the shots that I really like. I couldn't be happier.</p>

<p>I'd suggest selling the D50 and picking up a D300. It will meter with your old manual glass - which you'll be able to pick up later, cheaply. Your FE is one of a long string of manual film bodies, each with their strengths and weaknesses. However, there's workarounds for each body. Unless you plan on doing some serious film work (in which case, I'd second the F100 recommendation), I'd definitely upgrade your digital camera first.</p>

<p>Another lens that you might consider is the Tamron 90 2.8. I bought mine (the version without the built-in focusing motor) for $190USD. It's a gem - lightweight and tack sharp. You can add a Kenko 1.4 TC and you'll have a nice 124 f/4 macro. Unfortunately, you'll have to focus manually - unless you get the motorized version of the lens.</p>

<p>The 43-86 was my first Nikon lens. I hated it. I wondered why the guy who sold it to me had an evil grin on his face. When I got my first prints back, I knew. If your father's lens is as bad as my old one, he'll get the best use out of it as a paperweight.</p>

<p>I also use KEH. I've had them repair a 35 f/2, 28-105, and a D50. Each time my equipment arrived in perfect shape. I always look to them first for repairs.</p>

<p>Congrats, Victor. I'm glad you're happy with the D90 - as I just replaced my backup D50 with this camera. I would've chosen a lesser body, but I wanted the screw-drive option. The bigger LCD was also a major selling point. I doubt I'll use the video option much, but I am interested in what videos will look like when shot through the Sigma 10-20.</p>

<p>Just curious: If you're gonna use studio strobes to supply the lighting, why do you need lenses that are sharp wide open? </p>

<p>If you insist on using a 2.8 lens, take a look at the Tamron 17-50 as well. I had the 17-55 for a while, but sold it when I moved to FX. When I picked up a D50 for a walkaround camera, I wanted something with excellent IQ, but smaller and lighter than the 17-55. After trying the 18-55 and 18-70, I tested the Tamron. I can't see a lot of difference between it and the 17-55.</p>

If you've got a good copy of the Sigma, I wouldn't advise selling it. It's one of the few third-party lenses that I consider to be better than the Nikon equivalent. And as good as the 24-70 is, it can't touch the Sig 50 in terms of bokeh. Plus, the Sigma is right at home at f/1.4 - 2.

 

However, if you have a copy of the Sigma with focusing problems, either send it back to Sigma for adjustment (I did) or dump it.

<p>I shot film for years, but have never put a roll through a camera. I'd like to shoot a few (perhaps 5 at most) before it's all gone. Any suggestions?</p>

<p>I use the Tamron 90. It's an amazing lens considering the price. I picked up the non-motorized version for less than $200, and it's tack sharp. What's even better is that I can slap a Kenko 1.4 TC on it, and it works just as well - with no loss of IQ. Here's a couple samples:</p>

<p><img src="http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c385/BourbonCowboy/-5331.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>And here's a crop of the same shot...</p>

<p><img src="http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c385/BourbonCowboy/-5331crop.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Although I wouldn't suggest buying all these lenses at once, I'd recommend the following (I own them all myself):</p>

<p>Sigma 10-20<br>

Sigma 30 1.4<br>

Tamron 17-50 2.8 (with built-in motor)<br>

Nikon 55-200VR<br>

Tamron 90mm macro</p>

<p>While I'm normally a Nikon snob, I've found that these third-party lenses either: A) are on par with their Nikon counterparts; B) have no Nikon-branded equivalent; C) are lighter/smaller than their Nikon counterparts; D) are significantly less expensive - while producing images of similar quality; or E) all of the above.</p>

<p>Don't be afraid of third-party lenses. Just do your homework, as some of these lenses might have issues that will need to be resolved by the manufacturer.</p>

<p>I'd definitely use it as a backup. While I shoot a D700, I actually use my old D50/lightweight kit more - as I can carry it around all day without needing pain meds.</p>

<p>I've got both the Sigma 30 and 50. Both will produce incredible bokeh. I've seen the Sigma 50 compared to the Noct in terms of bokeh - and it doesn't lose by much.</p>

<p>A word of caution: My 50 had a bit of a front-focusing issue. I sent it back to the company, and got it back just over a month later. It was well worth the wait. If you decide to purchase the 50, just be aware of the possibility of a need for recalibration.</p>

<p>My travel/vacation kit consists of a D50, Sigma 10-20, Tamron 17-50, Sigma 30 1.4, and a 55-200VR. I wanted a lighweight alternative to the D700/28-70/70-200 etc. I've been very impressed with the images that I've gotten from this kit.</p>

<p>I've also thought about upgrading to the D90, as the physical sizes of the cameras are similar. I decided against this, as I wanted simple, fun and lightweight. The D50 still fills that bill - no need to upgrade.</p>

<p>The D60 is a capable camera. For a first venture into digital photography, it'll work nicely. Just remember that it's a 1.5 crop body. In other words, it renders images differently with regard to focal lengths. For instance, a 50mm lens will give you the apparent focal representation of a 75mm lens on a film body. So if you like the "normal" view (50mm) on your film camera, consider either the Nikon 35 1.8 or the Sigma 30 1.4 (my personal choice).</p>

<p>As for an upgrade to the kit lens: I use a Tamron 17-50 2.8. My copy is tack sharp - much more so than my old 18-70 and sharper than my current 18-55VR that I use on an IR converted D50. <br>

Good luck.</p>

<p>Your D60 is a good camera for a relative beginner. You can assemble a nice kit around that body. While my primary kit revolves around a D700, I also have a DX kit that's based around a D50. I use it as a lightweight/travel kit. Here's what I use:</p>

<p>D50<br>

SB-400<br>

Sigma 10-20mm<br>

Sigma 30mm 1.4<br>

Tamron 17-50mm 2.8<br>

Nikon 55-200VR<br>

Tamron 90mm macro.</p>

<p>I'll recommend this kit to anyone, but since you're building your kit around a camera that doesn't have the internal screw-drive, you'd need to make sure that you got both Tamrons with the built-in motors. Otherwise, these lenses will not autofocus on your camera.</p>

<p>My lightweight/travel kit consists of:<br>

D50/Sigma 10-20/Tamron 17-50 2.8/Sigma 30 1.4/55-200VR/SC-28/SB-400. Everything fits snugly in a Lowepro MicroTrekker 100AW.</p>

<p>If I decided to go with my FX walkaround kit, I'd take the Tamron 17-35/Sigma 50 1.4/28-105/70-300/SC-28/SB-400 - all of which fits perfectly in a Crumpler Six Million Dollar Home.</p>

<p>Kent's advice is solid. Unless you're shooting in <strong><em>very</em></strong> good light, you'll need 2.8 lenses and a camera that performs well at ISO 1600 (or above).<br>

I shot a wedding last year with a D300, 17-55, 28-70, 50 1.4, and 70-200...and I still had problems with the low light. It's the main reason I sold the D300 and moved to the D700. Skilled wedding photogs get paid a lot - and for a good reason.</p>

<p>I'll agree with the Gorillapod. Get the bigger one. I'll also submit that you could probably get away with the SB-400. It's a good bit smaller (which counts when you're travelling), and is great for bounce flash in a small room. Just be sure to get the Sto-Fen diffuser with it. You could definitely benefit by selling your 55-200 and buying the VR version. For the longer focal lengths, the VR will come in handy. <br>

Finally, if you can find the extra $$$ pick up a used Sigma 30 1.4. It's an amazing little lens, but at this point, it'll put you over budget.</p>

If you're measuring the difference between 90 and 95% on viewfinders, you've got too much free time. Go out and shoot.