eric_arnold

the sb-600's max power can also be tweaked down to 1/32. correct me if i'm wrong, but i don't think you can tweak either the 800 or the 600 up and make it more powerful than the normal (1/1) setting. the 800 does have a bigger guide number, allows you to do more with remote speedlights, and eats up more battery juice with slower recycling. it also weighs more, has a bigger footprint, and costs almost twice as much. for the problem you describe, i don't think getting a more expensive flash is the solution.

 

you need a faster lens and a higher iso. with a 5.6 iso 200 is too slow at 200mm indoors. the d200 should be able to handle 800 iso easily. that's why you have a dslr; save the 200 for the point and shoot. of course, upgrading to a 2.8 or faster lens will improve your low-light capabilities immensely.

maybe i have a good copy, but it hasn't been a big issue for me. a larger issue might be that there's a bit of distortion at 12mm which might be a concern for architecture shooters but not really noticeable for landscapers. so i guess it depends what you're gonna use it for. no lens is perfect, but this one's a beaut, well worth the price. it has top-quality build and essentially same specs as the nikon, so i wouldn't be surprised if they both have the same exact glass. but the tokina has the focus clutch feature which is pretty nice. nikon has bigger price tag. if that makes you feel more confident, go for it. otherwise, get the 12-24 tokina (and rebel against the tyranny of nikkor snobs).<div></div>

there's a difference. get the tokina.<div></div>

skip the kit lenses and get a 2.8 -- you'll save yourself time in the long run, the tamron sp 28-75 will work on both film and digital and it's not that much more than the 18-70, but it blows it away in terms of performance. also, the tamron 17-35 sp is a really good deal right now, under $300 and it's a 2.8 at 17mm which will also work on film and digital.

hi i just ordered the tamron 17-50, it was a tough choice between that, the sigma 18-50 --which uses 82mm filters-- and the tokina 16-50. i have no doubt that all are capable performers. however, if i had an extra $1200 laying around, i probably would have gotten the nikon 17-55. performance-wise, it's the standard against which all others are judged, although the sigma has been lauded as equal or better optically and the tamron has also scored high marks. part of what you're paying for with a nikon "pro" lens is the name and snob appeal, make no mistake, but also the build quality (although tokina's at-x series is hummeresque if not tank-like).

 

the 17-55 is the wedding photographer's bread and butter and would surely last for many years and make you the envy of all those punters with the d40/18-55 combos. but, and here's the thing, it's big, obstrusive, and heavy; for general/doc photos, the lower profile of the tamron could be a plus, not to mention the lower weight.

 

if i really wanted to be inconspicuous with candids and street stuff and i had $1200 to spend, i'd get a 3rd party 2.8 mid-zoom, and some fast primes like the nikkor 50 1.8, and perhaps the sigma 30/1.4, or maybe the nikkon 35/2.

 

at this point i'd still be almost $300 under the cost of the 17-55. with that i could almost buy a nice macro portrait lens like the tamron 90, the tokina 100 new or i could solidify my prime selection with the nikkor 85/1.8. so, the choice is yours. you can get one lens for $1200 and tell yourself you got the best and it was worth it, or you could get three specialized lenses plus a fast mid-zoom for only $100 or so more and see minimal difference if any in results.

 

untimately, it really depends on if not being held in reproach by nikkor snobs is worth the added neck and back strain (j/k). if that's an acceptable trade-off for you and you don't mind a little lightening of the wallet in exchange for a pro kit, go for it. if you'd rather have a variety of lenses that work just as good or better than the 17-55, go for it. either way, you're gonna be shooting at 5 fps, so hold on to your hat!

for around the price of the 18-200 you can get get a tokina 12-24, a nikkor 50/1.8, the 18-55 dx and the 70-300 g. that gives you a true wide angle for landscapes, a sharp prime for portraits and low-light stuff, a walkaround zoom, and a lightweight long zoom. not knowing anything thing else about your shooting style, that's what i'd recommend as a "most bang for your buck" starter kit.

wow, enjoying all the fish pics, great discussion.

 

i have the sigma 15mm, the older, non-dg version, which i picked up for $300. on a d80 it's a 22.5 mm, which is still fairly wide. but at that angle it's more like a semi-fish. it can be interesting though and it's pretty fast at f/2.8. it's pretty good for wide angle close-ups like band shots -- you can get the performer and the audience in the same shot. it's a bit tricky to master but if you keep playing with it you can get some cool results. i've heard some people dismiss it as not being great for dslrs because of the mag factor, but thom hogan liked it (he might have been using film, though).

 

if all you have is $300 to spend, it's a good value for the money, and gives you a wide-angle/low light option that's sorta kinda fishy. but if i had to do it all over again, i'd probably hold out and get either the nikkor 10.5/2.8 or the tokina 10-17 (which i'm considering) for that unmistakeable fish look.

it's really largely a question of marketing. the d200 is aimed at the pro market, while the d80 is targeted toward the advanced amateur or p&s stepper-upper, although nothing's stopping pros from using the d80. being a "pro model," the d200 doesnt have the in-camera functions that the d80 has, like color balance and crop, which are actually fairly useful tweaks that can save time in pp. the biggest difference is probably the weather-sealing and faster frame rate; everything else is kinda cosmetic. but the d80 certainly benefits from coming after the d200, just as the d40 benefits from following the d80.

hi robert,

for landscapes, you wanna get wide, no bones about it. the tokina 12-24 is an excellent second lens and great for landscapes, wide vistas, horizons, etc. keep in mind you will want a circular polarizer with this, which at 77mm size isnt cheap. some people also like the sigma 10-20, but i havent used this lens so i cant comment.

 

after that, i'd look at the nikkor 50 1.8 -- perfect for a newbie -- for low-light and portrait use. from there, you'd probably want to go longer. if you're on a budget i'd say the 70-300 nikkor g, if not the nikkor 70-200 vr. your next purchases after that might be a nikon speedlight and a good tripod.

 

after that you can start looking at specialty lenses like the tamron 90 2.8, the nikkor 85 1.8, or a fisheye like the nikkor 10.5 and the tokina 10-17. if you find yourself shooting a lot of low-light you might want to look at a fast mid-zoom like the sigma 18-50 or the tamron 10-17 but if not, don't bother.

shun,

i read in american photo that tokina's 16-50 and 50-135 offerings branded for pentax have motors in them. what are the chances they will manufacture their nikon-mount lenses with this in the future? that could change the game for d40 users...

"blurry pieces of junk"?

eric, your opinion is so subjective here as to make you look rather foolish.

 

here's a quote from photozone: "The Tamron AF 90mm f/2.8 Di SP is a superb lens without any significant flaw." and here's another: "The Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 SP XR... proved to be a very good lens in the lab. The resolution figures are among the highest tested among the standard zoom lenses."

 

fyi, this site is intended to provide helpful info to other photographers wanting feedback from their peers, not as a sounding board for nikkor snobs who think they're right about everything. if joe dslr gets a third party lens and is perfectly happy with it, who are you to say he shoulda got somethign else, based simply on name-brand recognition alone?

 

there are lots of differing views on the 18-200. for some it is a one-lens solution that does 80% of what they need it to do. many others seem to feel the 18-70 is sharper at the wide and, and the 70-300 vr is sharper at the long end. as far as the nikon vs. tamron, it really comes down to whether extra reach and lower cost are more important to you than having the trendy lens of the moment (and VR). however, both are fairly slow (6.3 max apterture at the long end), and low-light and indoor shooters might prefer a 2.8 or faster over VR (which makes sense with the 5fps D200).

 

stopped down on a tripod in good light, though, i'm sure the tamron could deliver outstanding results in the right hands. there's probably always going to be less shake with a tripod than vr, but if you plan on hand-holding at all, i'd say get the 18-200, which is (let's be real here) a consumer-grade lens with a pro price tag. still, for about the same $$, you can get an 18-300 two-lens nikkor kit that's still fairly lightweight.

neither of those lenses will af or meter on the d40, that's because the d40 doesnt have an internal motor.

 

if you're convinced you want the d40, you're basically limited to nikon af-s or sigma hsm lenses.

 

if you want to be able to use the lenses you have already, check out the d50, d70, (discontinued but some are still floating around) d80, or d200.

hi megan,

those prices look a little too good to be true for a d80 body... if you're thinking of purchasing online, check out resellerratings.com before you do...

 

as for the d80, it's great, i love it, shoots great low light with a fast lens. i got the d80 with the 18-70 but soon found it wasnt great for low-light stuff. then i got the 50 1.8 and the tamron 28-75. if i had to do it all over again i probably would have forgone the 18-70, which is a nice light sharp af-s lens, but i needed a 2.8 for concert photography.

 

the d40 is good for an absolute beginner, but lack of an internal motor will become an issue as soon as you look beyond the kit lens. the nikkor 17-55 af-s dx lens costs 2x the price of the body, so if you wanted a 2.8 mid-zoom, it's that or nothing. whereas, the d80 will support the cheaper but optically high-performance 3rd party offerings in that focal range.

 

if i was trying to build a kit with a limited budget that would allow me more flexibility to expand later, i'd get the d80 + 18-55 + 50 1.8 or the d80 + tamron 17-35 2.8-4. for a bit more $$, i'd step up to the d80+tamron 17-50 or sigma 18-50 -- both of which are fast glass. it doesn't hurt to have a future expansion plan, i.e., i'll get the 28-70 now and the 70-200 later, and then the 12-24, something like that. anyway, good luck!

#10 is sweet. looks plenty sharp. guess that settles it.

interesting chart. i think you'd show quite different results, however for real-world/street shots and landscape. you don't seem to be using the wide range hardly at all. a lot of long (105+) shots would probably be the result of wildlife shooters as well. still, this should make all owners/users of 28-75mm lenses (like, ahem, the tamron) happy -- 77% of your shots are in this range, which speaks to the need for a medium zoom in a digital world, i suppose..

hmm, interesting... most people prefer the 18-200 over the 18-135, also the 18-70 is considered a better lens than the 18-135. if i had the 18-200, unless i was really dissatisfied with its performance, i'd probably keep it. the 12-24 sells for over $900 in the nikkor version, the 18-135 is around $300. so that's $1200, much more than you can get for an 18-200 (used price between $700-$800, depending on condition). why not keep the 18-200 and buy the tokina 12-24 for the wide end, which is around $500? or maybe you were talking about selling the 18-200 for the 18-135 and the tokina? i'm confused. of course, if weight is a problem, the 12-24s are kinda bulky. but hey, do what you think is right, even if it doesn't make sense to anyone else.

hi, havent used the sigma 24-70mm, but i own the tamron 28-75. the tamron is not a DX lens, it is a Di lens, which means it can be used on both film and digital bodies. perhaps the previous poster was thinking of the tamron 17-50, with is a Dii (digital-only) lens -- basically the 28-75 in a DX format. the 28-75 is an awesome lens, but then your friend isn't selling that one, right? i suspect the sigma is almost as good--although more people rave about the 18-50--biggest reason i didn't get it myself was the 82mm filters: the tamron uses 67mm, same size as the nikkor 18-70... in any event, while i've been happy with my tamron, the extra 4mm on the wide end would be good to have, i think, and the build quality of the sigma is better than the tamron, even if the performance isn't quite as razor-sharp.

 

compared to nikon, any of the 3rds party manufacturers' top of the line glass (tamron SP, tokina AT-X, sigma EX) merits consideration, although it really depends on the individual lenses you are comparing which is "better" in terms of value/performance. some compete directly with nikon's line at a lower price point; others fill in gaps nikon and/or canon doesn't cover (ie., sigma 50-150 f/2.8)

yeah, don't think you need to upgrade the 18-55 just yet, it was made for children's birthday parties :)

 

with that and a flash, you'll be fine. the sb-400 "balances" best with the diminutive d40, the sb-600 offers the best combination of value and features (definitely get the omni-bounce), and the sb-800 is aimed more at pros who uses remotes and all kind of tricked-out lighting stuff. if you don't know that you need it, don't get it. NAS (nikon acquisition syndrome) can easily overcome you.

 

it's funny, recommending the 50 1.8 is such an automatic knee-jerk reaction, i almost did it myself. i won't do that, but i do recommend not relying soely on the d40's child mode and shooting in P/A/S/M (maybe just leave it in S).

 

down the line, you could look at the sigma 30 1.4 for low-light and the nikkor 55-200 vr for a bit more reach and stability (unfortunately it wont stabilize kids), but i'd get nice and comfy with the d40 first if i were you.

nice fish pic. that's pretty w-i-d-e, i'd say. so i take it you're happy with the 10-17? what do you primarily shoot with it?

i agree. the 50 1.8 is a great starter prime -- that's why everyone has one -- i'd take that extra $$ and get a flash, battery grip, or a 70-300 g lens. i'm sure the 50 1.4 is great for folks who use it a lot, but the 1.8 is still pretty fast... there's not a lot of lens to focus so af speed is quick. you're probably not gonna miss the extra speed too much unless you shoot A LOT in low light -- in which case the sigma 30 /1.4 might be a better choice as its closer to a "normal" focal length of 50mm on a dslr.

p&s's have benefitted from trickle-down dslr technology, to the point where you can get better no-brainer shots at low ISOs on some cameras. but even though some go up to ISO 3200, anything about 400 is gonna be challenging for anything except for some fujis -- a lot of them megapixel stuff and overload the nr on their sensors. IMO, 6-8 is a better MP range for a P&S than 10mp for this reason, read the DP review of the canon g7 for more on this. if you're only taking daylight snapshots, p&s's work fine. how's that s50 in low light?

 

btw, like the shamu pic.

thanks, i tried that, though. i normally set the d80 to -0.7 but i went down to -1.3 this time. wouldn't dialing down much more than that also give me more noise?

i have the tokina and find i use the 24 end fairly often. the build is nice and tank-like. i get less CA with a polarizer.

hi, these pics are from last weekend:

http://slideshow.sfweekly.com/index.php?gallery=399&type=1

 

overall people seem to like them but they're a bit overexposed in some cases

due to extremely bright sunlight. i was using a polarizer but you really can't

tell. my question is what should i have done differently? used d80, auto iso

setting, manual, no flash, aperture 2.8, shutter speed generally around 1/60-

1/125 for stage and 1/500 for crowd shots (tried lower shutter speed at first

but got a blinkie-fest). maybe a lower aperture number? i tend to like the

bokeh with 2.8. but i suppose maybe i should stop down a bit, huh?

 

thanks,

eric

hi anthony,

 

well, this is a popular predicament most nikon dslr users seem to have sooner or later. methinks the wide to mid range is where you most need a zoom over, say, a prime lens, although the sigma 30 sits comfortably in the middle of that range and is a f/1.4 with HSM for $400. but i'd get something wider first. there are numerous threads on this forum and nikonians discussing the nikkor vs. tamron vs. sigma mid-zoom paradigm, and all these lenses have been debated and reviewed a lot, so there's no shortage of opinions out there.

 

i'd probably stay away from the 17-35 tamron, though it's probably better optically than the 18-55 nikkor, being one of tamron's sp series. but for just a bit more money you can get a f/2.8 with longer range at a fraction of the nikkor 17-55 price (and weight). sure, if you're primarily doing weddings, the nikkor 17-55's cost and bulk is justifiable, but for street photography and general walkaround use, you're better off with the 3rd parties, IMO.

 

to sum up:

*the nikkor 17-55. best build quality. heavy. most expensive by far.

 

*the nikkor 18-55. cheapest build quality. not great for low-light. least expensive by far. lightweight.

 

*the tamron 17-50 and sigma 18-50: roughly comparable, sharp, fast, not as robust build-wise as the nikkor, but 1/3 of the price.

 

* the tamron 17-35. only 2.8 up to 20mm if i remember correctly. a good lens in its time (the dawning of the consumer dslr era) and a reasonable deal now that it's deeply discounted, but basically made obsolete by tamron's 17-50. only real reason to get this now is if you want to use it on both film and dslr bodies and/or you can't plunk down the extra $100 or so for the constant aperture.

 

remember, you always regret it later when you choose price over performance. the tamron 17-50 and the sigma 18-50 offer pro-quality optics at a consumer price. to answer your next question-- which one is better?--all i can say is general consensus is they're about even so it comes down to personal preference (and sample variation). test-drive 'em, if you can.