cmulcahy

--I'd get the 50mm 1.8 ($109.95 at B&H) and a flash.

 

--I'd recommend the SB600 for $172 (at B&H)

 

--Also get a sto-fen flash diffuser for about $17 to use on your new flash.

 

 

These two additions to your lineup will allow you to take pictures in any kind of light. The 50mm 1.8 is a great, inexpensive little lens that will allow you to take pics in low lighting with out a flash. You'll find that still isn't enough...and you'll find that your on board camera flash does not yield good results. You can activate that sb-600 wirelessly with your D90 as well.

 

If you've got more cash you want to spend, make sure you have a good tripod.

I think given that she's a young student....it doesn't make much sense to invest into better versions of the lenses she already has. Those two lenses she has now are VR lenses, correct? They are good for what she is doing. Maybe after H.S. if she wants to further her photography skills, then start thinking about pro lenses, fast primes, etc.

 

So why not get something that she doesn't have.?...like a sigma 10-20mm wide angle lens. This is a great lens, it can be had for under $500. The perspective is something totally different then what she currently has. The wide angle will really add another dimension to her photography and it's something I think she'll have a lot of fun with.

 

 

here are a couple examples of what that lens can do:

 

 

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/7631113

 

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/7037041

<p>How about a sigma 10-20mm? She could do some pretty creative stuff w/ that lens. </p>

<p>With the two lenses she already has, I think she's got what she needs for shooting sports and events.</p>

<p>Or you could look into a 2.8 lens, but that can get pretty expensive. <br>

Another option to consider would be an SB-600 flash and a nice tripod or mono pod.</p>

<p>Brooks - I know there are plenty of people who like the 50D.  I'm just not one of them.   I get better quality pics at higher ISO's w/ my D300 vs the 50D.  I hate the interface....where as I think this is a strong point for the D300.  I prefer the D300's viewfinder.   I think the D300's body build is much better.   The AF system is were Nikon really shines vs canon mid range SLR's right now.   You can use old lenses w/ the D300 were as the canon isn't so flexable.  Add that to the fact that the 50D is not getting rave reviews from many Canon shooters says something.  The 40D is a really nice camera as well but it also lags behind in just about everything vs the D300.  (granted the D300 cost about $500 more. <br>

I know canon makes great gear for the most part.  I just think they could have done better w/ the 50D.  I suspect they'll get it right when they release the 60D.   I'm just so comfortable w/ Nikon's menus and interface now that I'll probably never care for Canon's interface.  so yea I am biased...obviously.</p>

<p>I do think it's time Nikon spend some serious money on updating their lens lineup...and if rumors are true that is about to happen.   I would like to see some F/4 zooms....or something that's better then the kit lenses but not as pricey as some of the pro glass.</p>

<p>I had the 18-135mm and I hated it.  Get the two VR lenses.  You will regret not doing this. </p>

<p>I like the D300 over the 50D and 40D. <br>

Since you don't have much glass...I'd switch. <br>

The Rebel is a nice starter camera...but it's not in the D300's class.  If $ were an issue, I'd take the D90 over anything from canon in the same price range. <br>

Sell the stuff you have now and invest in a nice used Nikon lens.  Great thing about the D300 is you can use older nikon lenses. <br>

I'm not s a huge fan of the D50 personally.  I don't like the AF sytem.  I don't like the color rendition.  I question the build quality for a camera in that price class.  I think the 15mp is too much for a cmos sensor...and is clearly just a marketing gimmick.  I hate the menu system and interface vs the D300.  I really think Canon needs to introduce a 60D soon w/ a few tweaks.  I wonder if they didn't rush that one to the market place sooner then they should have.<br>

IMO Canon doesn't start impressing me until the 5D.  I got my first chance to play w/ that camera this week.  That thing is impressive.  I'd take it over the D700.<br>

Of course I'm a little bias considering tha I shoot w/ a D300.</p>

<p>BTW - the tamron 28-75 2.8 is a nice lens.  The build quality isn't all that impressive, but the image quality is very good.  For under $500 it's all you could ask for.</p>

<p>I purchased a 35-70mm 2.8D for $285 on ebay.  It's in mint condition.   It's a great lens and it's solid metal. <br>

My only complaint is I wish it were sligtly wider.  On a full frame sensor it would be perfect.  It was made for film so duh.   I do which it were a 28-70 at least....but I'd be a whole lot poorer because of it.</p>

<p>If they call cost the same, I'd take the Nikon 50mm 1.4.  </p>

<p>If $ was an issue, I'd take the 50mm 1.8</p>

<p>I've heard the Sigma is a nice lens, but it seems a little wide for portraits.</p>

<p>The D300 does have SOME sealing.  It is better sealed then the D90,D80,D70,D60,D40, etc.  As far as I know, those other cameras have little to no seals.  If you want more sealing that what the D300 has, then you have to jump up to the D3. </p>

<p>The D300 is not water proof, but it can handle more then most cameras.  I was told the D300 has more weather/dust sealing then Canon 5d, which costs significantly more. (not sure on the new MarkII?)  Could someone confirm that?</p>

<p>The only camera in that price range with better weather sealing is the Olympus E3.  I got to look at one of those for the first time today in fact.  I have to say it feels like a pretty nice camera.   According to the Olympus rep you could go out w/ the E3 and shoot in a light rain.   That's not something I'd do w/ my D300.   But I think the D300 can handle some "moist" situations that the D90 could not handle. </p>

<p>If it's just durability you are looking for then I don't think there is a digital camera priced under $2000 that is better then the D300. (in terms of durability and sealing)  Maybe the Olympus E3?   Even if it was, I'd choose the D300 for other reasons.</p>

<p>As far as humidity?  I don't know.  I think I'd be more worried about my lenses then my camera.</p>

<p> </p>

Peter, I to am anxious to see the image quality of the new prime lenses they are releasing. I have doubts they are much better then what you can currently get. Sounds like a better AF system and maybe more resistant to flare and CA's?

 

I will say that the price point of the new 50mm 1.4 AF-S is ridiculous...unless that lens is so much better then everything else previous?

Kent, my prime lens use is not an issue of mystique. I simply cannot afford some of the really high end new zooms, so I like the prime lenses. The zooms that I do have are not anywhere close to as sharp as the prime lenses that I use. I'm not doing the same sort of photography that you are either, so your applications obviously don't work well w/ prime lenses, where as mine do.

I own a 35-70mm 2.8D ....I can't get a sharp focus. I've fine tuned that lens on my D300 from +20 down to -20 and I see no difference in the results.

 

I'm wondering if that fine tune feature only works with new lenses?

Nikon currently has nothing to compete with the new 5d MarkII. I think that would be a pretty big mistake to not produce an equivalent camera for that market. Why copy Canon? I'm seeing ALOT of wedding and event photogs interested in that new 5d because of the hd video, high res/pixel count, and ISO performance.

 

It seems like a simple move by Nikon. Just add some of the D90's features to the D700's w/ the higher mp's of the D3x.

 

I'm guessing the only reason nikon would not do that is if the cost of the sensor is so high, that they can't do it at the price point needed to compete w/ the new 5d and the sony..

It goes to show that we don't shoot pictures in "labs"

 

But, I'm sure it all depends on what you ask of that lens.

 

I had a nikon 18-135mm and I hated that lens. Sure it was sharp when there was enough light to shoot at F/8. If you are using a flash, I'm sure you are fine to. But try taking a decent picture in doors, hand held, with out a flash...it's impossible. Which IMO sort of defeats the purpose of and "all purpose" lens. Obviously I was expecting more then that lens can give...so I sold it and bought a couple fast primes that blow it away in terms of image quality.

Both are amazing cameras. It's tough to really compare the two fairly. The D700 cost a heck of a alot more money. It's full framed, it has better ISO performance.

 

The D300 has a crop factor which helps you if you need reach with your telephoto's. But if you want wide angle then the D700 is your best bet.

 

I would assume for just about everything the D700 is the better camera...hence the large cost difference. It's up to you if you want to spend the $ or not.

 

YOu also need to consider the fact that some of your lenses possible will not work w/ your D700. If you have any DX only lenses then you'll need to sell those and buy glass that is intended for full frame sensors.

Keith, I do like to take pictures in the mornings and evenings. I like the light during those times. Most of the time 2.8 is fast enough, but there are times were I wish I had more. I figure if the cost isn't much, I could sell my 28mm 2.8 to help fund something a little faster.

 

I have a Nikon 35-70mm 2.8 that I'm not entirely happy with. It's REALLY soft at anything below 5.6. I almost think it's auto focus isn't working right. I've tried the AF tuning feature in my D300 but I actually can't see any change at all when doing so. I've cranked it to +20 and down to -20 in my D300 and I see no difference?

How is that Sigma 30mm 1.4? I'm a little wary of Sigma's quality. I actually own a 10-20mm Sigma that I like very much but I've heard so many mixed feelings about Sigma as a whole that I've tried to stay away from them. The only reason I got the 10-20mm was the good reviews. typically I try to stick w/ Nikon glass.

 

I heard about Nikon's new 50mm 1.4 AF-S. But I'm going to wait and see if it's any better then the 50mm 1.4D that I have now. If it's just improved AF - then it doesn't matter for me. I hope they didn't cheapen it. I've seen Canon's 50mm 1.8 and I just laughed at how crappy the build is.

Shun, I have a Nikon 28mm 2.8D. On my D300 I'd say it's more of a normal lens then wide. I've done some decent portraits with it actually. (not your traditional head shot) . I typically have used it as a walk around lens along w/ inside stuff w/ my kids. In many instances lighting has been an issue were I would have loved to have a tad more speed.

 

I also have a 50mm 1.4, which I use for portraits, but it's too long for the other stuff I like to do. I was just hoping for something 30mm or wider in the 1.4 or 1.8 f stop.

 

I'm not a huge fan of cranking up my ISO. I don't care for the results of ISO's above 800.

Sorry.Shun...I'm using a D300

I'm looking for a prime around 28mm that is at least 1.8 or faster. I'd consider a 24mm or even a 30mm. But

I'd like to keep the cost below $400.

 

I'd be using it for a walk around lens mostly and occasional portraits.

 

thanks

Looking further into that add....it does state that it is an "imported" model. Meaning it is grey market.

That price for the body is cheaper then I can buy using my nikon rep. discount. It's below store costs. So I'd be very suspicious of that. Unless there is some rebate that I'm not aware of, that price is too good to be true.

 

My first guess would be "grey market" or "reconditioned"

While the differences are slight between the two, there are differences. DP's test contradicts that dxomark test. But I don't think that Dxmark test is doing the same tests. DX seems to consider all factors such as price when scoring their results.

 

I do see noticeable differences at ISO 800 and ISO 1600. The D300 does seem to perform better at those two ISO's...but it seems the D90's noise reduction really kicks in at 1600, because after 1600 the results look very similar. I don't think anyone is going to be shooting at ISO's higher then 1600 with those cameras anyway. In any event I think Dp's revies clearly show a slight improvement in image quality w/ the D300. (very slight, but it's there)

 

I think the key difference is the build and the AF performance. That is were the extra cost factors in. It's up to you if you think it's worth the difference in price.

If in fact the D60 cannot AF w/ older lenses - then that is something to consider.

 

You can save a lot of money buying older lenses. There are a ton of amazing, but used, older lenses on the market. So while the D60 may be less expensive - the D90 could save you money in other ways.