DSLRUsers.com

Hey guys, sorry for the boring 'what camera i buy' thread but I'm looking at buying a camera in the next few months. Currently a bit overwhelmed, but have a good idea of what I want and wanted to run it by some different people.

Firstly -
I'm a beginner. Looking at doing landscape/weather/lightning stuff, also nature/animals/bugs and astronomy/moon/meteors/planets etc. Video would also be nice

Looking at something basic, but something that will last me. Would like to improve my photography skills before buying super pro equipment that'll have me selling my kidneys

Have been asking for advice from lots of people and heard lots of different things. Main points seem to be it's all about 'the glass'. Said 'glass' can be quite the investment as I'm sure many of you know first hand!

I think I want to focus on getting a decent body that'll last me, so I don't have to upgrade in 12-24 months time. A good enough lens/es that'll do the job for a beginner, and then down the line can always purchase additional ones.

Currently the Nikon D90 is looking like my best bet. It's not exactly entry level but seems like people have had good experiences with it...it does video (Although not perfectly) and seems to be a good all around camera.

Suggestions for lenses? Don't want to spend heaps but want something that'll work for landscapes and another that'll do macro (I think)

A friend recommended these - Micro Nikkor 60mm f2.8 AF-D - dedicated macro lens

Nikon AF 28mm f2.8 AF-D - will cover landscapes, astro, day to day.

I've held a few Nikons before and felt comfortable with them...I do plan to go to the shops and try a D90 for myself, along with other brands.

Any input would be great.

Cheers !

Hi Chris,

Why don't you consider adding a Tamron 17 - 50 2.8 as your first lens?

Also please read the red bit on the top with the forum rules regarding the location.

AusChris wrote:A friend recommended these - Micro Nikkor 60mm f2.8 AF-D - dedicated macro lens

Nikon AF 28mm f2.8 AF-D - will cover landscapes, astro, day to day.

hey Chris and welcome.

Firstly, lets start with your lens choice, the 60mm macro is a very nice lens I would definitely go that if you need a dedicated macro and the 105mm macro is out of the equation.

The 28mm f2.8..... I have this lens and I reckon you would be seriously limiting yourself with two primes, especially the 28mm, this only covers a small portion of compositions in my opinion and given you have a fairly wide list of interested subjects a shortish zoom might be a better option. As Suren mentioned the 17-50 would be a good recommendation especially given its great glass for the money.

Was there any reason for wanting the 28mm? size maybe?

.I do plan to go to the shops and try a D90 for myself, along with other brands.

smart move, make this the number one priority, how it feels in YOUR hands is super important and can be a deal breaker.

The D90 is a good camera, only recently been replaced by the D7000 (~AUD1279), depending on your buget either of these would be perfect for an enthusiast beginner.

I have the Nikon D90 (have had for about 15 months now) and I can attest to it's many virtues (it is a superb camera) and as Gerry or some other EXIF peeker here (Suren ) will no doubt discover I'm also the proud new owner of the D7000. I started with the D90 and the 18-200mm lens which was a fantastic combo (however the 18-200 is pretty pricy and has many compromises for it's outstanding range, size and weight) - I've since essentially moved more towards specialty lenses for more specific purposes.

I think the 28mm will be too narrow for landscapes (remember on DX bodies like the D90 it will have an effective focal length of 1.5x - i.e. 28 x 1.5 = 42mm which essentially makes this a "normal" lens and not a wide angle). I suspect the suggested lens options assumed a full frame camera (like the D700/D3/etc).

I have the same Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens as Suren (in my case in Nikon mount for the D90/D7000) and it really is a fabulous fast lens for the very small ($300) price - this is my new walkaround lens - it has an effective 35mm focal length of 26 to 75mm which is wide to short tele so great for landscapes at the wide end, general photography in the middle and perfect for portraits at the long end.

Personally I reckon whilst the 60mm macro is a good lens you'll find it too short and will want something more in the 90 to 150mm range (go the 90mm f/2.8 tamron ).

Unfortunately for some of your other chosen desires you'll need something else - macro for the bugs and something longer for the wildlife (something around the 70-200 or 70-300 ranges) and certainly very long for the moon (300mm+) and insanely long (forget it) for meteors and planets (unless you're talking star trails - in which case the 17-50 would be perfect).

Hi Chris, and welcome.

And thanks for taking the time to explain your background and intended usage. It makes it so much easier to be able to offer some guidance.

First of all, definitely wander into a camera store and have a play with the D90; it's a great body. Also play with the D7000, and just to help you reinforce what's best for you, also play with the Canon equivalents. See what feels best in your hands.

Your buying logic is sound: get a good-ish starting body, then build up your glass collection as you're learning techniques and building up a skill base, and then you can expand into a better body, with which your glass should already be compatible.

Are you considering any of the kit lenses? You're not talking about zooms at all, which is commendable, but in dismissing the zooms (which can be very inexpensive) you will also be losing out on a great deal of flexibility.

That said, primes are the best way to achieve the best acuity and optical speed, and they're also quite light, at least at the shorter end of the spectrum.

Rather than the 28mm, why not the 24? On the crop body, it will give you just a little bit more edge room.

As good as the Nikkor 60 is, I'd also suggest looking at the Tamron 90. It's great lens, and very good value. Either will be good for you, but ...

I'd also strongly recommend you grab a 50mm. For around PP150, the 50mm f/1.8 is a no brainer purchase. The f/1.4 is better, but comes after the outlay of more of your hard earned.

If you look at having a kit with a few primes as a starting point, the 90mm Tamron, the 50mm Nikkor and either the 24mm or 28mm Nikkor would be about as good a starting point as one could want.

Wow..so many lenses mentioned...

Tamron 17-50 - there are a few versions of this lens (Model A16 and Model B005), the first is a tad sharper and has less chromatic abberation, and also cheaper, the second, newer model is image stabilised. Myself, Suren and Rodney all own the A16. I too would recommend this lens as a versatile, zoom for general usage.

Micro Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 - a few members own the older AF-D version of this lens, myself included. It is a great lens (either the AF-D or the AF-S) , sharp and versatile, it displaces my 50mm f/1.8 from my bag a lot of the time.

Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 - cheap, sharp, great for low-light.....why not?

Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 - I could almost justify having both this and the 60mm in my kit. This is truly one of the classic lenses with a stellar reputation that it lives up to. The longer focal length gives it a slightly longer working distance then the 60mm and also makes it ideal for head and shoulders portraits. I have used this lens heavily, and now that my girlfriend owns one I will use it even more.

28mm f/2.8 - I own and love a Series E (manual focus) 28mm, it has a nice look, but it isnt wide like 18 or 20mm

Just to throw something else into the mix, have you considered the Voigtlander 20mm f/3.5 Color Skopar SL II?? This is a fully CPU chipped old style manual focus lens which is very sharp (esp on the DX frame), compact and actually wide. I borrowed this lens and fell in love with it and have since purchased it, using it a lot more than I expected to.

With so many lenses mentioned, it can be rather daunting and/or tempting to go out and buy a whole lot of them. I agree that getting into a store and playing is the best way to decide. A zoom is nice to have when you have few lenses, primes are awesome for quality, but you end up either passing over some opportunities or changing lenses more often. I used to use all zooms, but have recently gone to using primes almost exclusively for my day to day photography.

AusChris wrote:A friend recommended these - Micro Nikkor 60mm f2.8 AF-D - dedicated macro lens

I have this lens and it is by far my favourite lens. It is the lens I use most often and it is also my oldest lens still in use. I bought it in 1996 and have used it on film bodies as well as digital.

It is not a dedicated macro lens and can be used for anything. It makes a great portraiture lens on a crop body (same angle of view to a 90mm on a full frame).

While it is shorter than the 105mm lens, which means you need to get closer for the same magnification, I find this is a benefit from a lighting perspective when taking macro with flash (and softbox). As you are closer, the flash area is larger (so softer light) and there is less light loss so you can have smaller apertures (greater depth of field).

Hey guys thanks so much! Been incredible how much people have been willing to help me out with this, everywhere I ask I've gotten great info.

Why don't you consider adding a Tamron 17 - 50 2.8 as your first lens?

Will definitely consider it. I'll check out reviews but you think it's a good lens for a beginner that'll do the wide range of photography I'll be doing?

biggerry-

Was there any reason for wanting the 28mm? size maybe?

Nope no reason, just what was recommended to me. Sounding like the Tamron 17-50 might be the way to go, it ticks the value box which is important for me.

Remorhaz-
Good to hear that the D90 worked well for you .

Why did you upgrade to the D7000? That camera is looking very tempting...even though I know the D90 will be more than enough for me. It might be worth going for this if it means I'm not looking to upgrade in a few years?

I like the fact it has a solid metal construction and weather proofing. If I remember right it does video better than the D90 as well? Video could be an important feature for me if it means I don't need to buy a video camera later...won't be trying to do super pro stuff but it'd be very useful to have something capable of good-great video.

Personally I reckon whilst the 60mm macro is a good lens you'll find it too short and will want something more in the 90 to 150mm range (go the 90mm f/2.8 tamron ).

Interesting. I'd imagine the tamron would cost a bit more? WIll have to read up on it.

Unfortunately for some of your other chosen desires you'll need something else - macro for the bugs and something longer for the wildlife (something around the 70-200 or 70-300 ranges) and certainly very long for the moon (300mm+) and insanely long (forget it) for meteors and planets (unless you're talking star trails - in which case the 17-50 would be perfect).

Sounds like I could buy a lens for every single thing I want to do with it ...Maybe in the long run, but since I'm just a beginner, at this stage I'm just looking for a body and two lenses at the most. I guess getting the best 'all-rounder' lenses for my purposes is the focus atm.

gstark - Will definitely go give the cameras a try at shops in the next week or so. Almost wasn't going to do this, and just buy off reviews alone...

Are you considering any of the kit lenses? You're not talking about zooms at all, which is commendable, but in dismissing the zooms (which can be very inexpensive) you will also be losing out on a great deal of flexibility.

I've been researching a fair bit but still haven't quite wrapped my head around everything, still very much a camera 'newbie'. I did consider kit lenses, but was told not to bother with them. Flexibility is very important for me. Any suggestions?

90mm Tamron, the 50mm Nikkor and either the 24mm or 28mm Nikkor would be about as good a starting point as one could want.

Hrm ok. Looking at three lenses now...I guess I could make that work if it really adds that much flexibility and they're good value.


aim54x-

Tamron 17-50 - there are a few versions of this lens (Model A16 and Model B005), the first is a tad sharper and has less chromatic abberation, and also cheaper, the second, newer model is image stabilised. Myself, Suren and Rodney all own the A16. I too would recommend this lens as a versatile, zoom for general usage.

I really like that you used the terms versatile, zoom and general usage. That sounds like a safe bet!

have you considered the Voigtlander 20mm f/3.5 Color Skopar SL II??

Nope, haven't heard of it. Good for landscapes and such I'm guessing.

With so many lenses mentioned, it can be rather daunting and/or tempting to go out and buy a whole lot of them.

Yep very daunting for sure. Will have to take a break and let my brain rest, then research/read reviews.

Flexibility, value and 'good enough for beginner' are my main points at the moment.

ATJ-

t is not a dedicated macro lens and can be used for anything. It makes a great portraiture lens on a crop body

I like the idea of that. I'm interested in macro but may just dabble in it. The face you said you have to get closer - I don't mind that so much but for spiders that could bring some anxiety

Thank you all so much, again for your advice. Appreciated very much. It's a bit overwhelming but I'd much rather figure what's best for me now rather than after spending money.

Sorry about the double post but just wanted to sum up and make it separate. Also, apologies if I mess up any terms or get confused.


Body -

Go to shops, try out D90, D7000 and Canon equivalents.

Lenses -

What I want- Good lens for landscape, Good lens for macro, if possible not dedicated so can use for other things. Zoom lens.

What I actually need - Will have to figure this one out. See what I can get away with for starters, and then buy extra lenses later.

Lenses to consider -

Tamron 17-50- general use (sounds good, this has zoom I’m pretty sure) the 17-50 means zoom doesn't it? I think I figured that bit out

Micro Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 – macro + other stuff
Nikkor 50mm f/1.8- cheap, sharp, great for low light
Nikkor 50mm f/1.8- cheap, sharp, great for low light
Nikon AF 28mm f2.8 AF-D - will cover landscapes, astro, day to day. (possibly too narrow for landscapes)

I think that's all of them?

Others -

Good SDHC card/s
Tripod
Remote

Brain hurts now so going to have a break and then start reading up more

i would start with the absolutely basics and then grow your kit. the tamron 17-50 is a safe bet. the 60mm macro is another pearler, i'd be getting the 60mm afs version over the D version personally. i'd park the 28/2.8 for now. your tamron already does this focal length and it will be every bit as good stopped down.

AusChris wrote:Remorhaz-
Good to hear that the D90 worked well for you .
Why did you upgrade to the D7000? That camera is looking very tempting...even though I know the D90 will be more than enough for me. It might be worth going for this if it means I'm not looking to upgrade in a few years?

The D90 is a fantastic camera and truth be told I probably could have lived with it for a few more years.

I like the fact it has a solid metal construction and weather proofing. If I remember right it does video better than the D90 as well? Video could be an important feature for me if it means I don't need to buy a video camera later...won't be trying to do super pro stuff but it'd be very useful to have something capable of good-great video.

I don't really do video at all but other than the 1080p vs 720p between the two models the D7000 has full time AF which the D90 doesn't. However in all seriousness whilst D-SLR video is uber (the creative lens choices, shallow depth of field, etc - which you can't get with consumer cams) - it's also really hard to do well - theres a real art to focus pulling and staging your video scenes and working out where to focus when. If you're just doing home videos of the kids and stuff I reckon a compact camera is easier to use and less frustrating (i.e. stuff will be in focus instead of with a D-SLR where it's out of focus half the time)

My reasons for upgrading were probably more around the usability features rather than the upgraded sensor, etc (although higher ISO capability with less noise and slightly higher MP count is I guess nice). For me it's things like the two user settings on the command dial, the AF and AF-Area modes via a switch and dial for instant access, more and better (cross) AF points, the second IR sensor (for the wireless remote) on the rear (hallelujah)/virtual horizon/mirror lock up all for landscapes/dawn/sunset and night photography, faster frame rate and processing (expeed 2) - I don't shoot sports often but I do do handheld HDR's and the brackets are much faster on the D7000 vs D90.

Personally I reckon whilst the 60mm macro is a good lens you'll find it too short and will want something more in the 90 to 150mm range (go the 90mm f/2.8 tamron ).

Interesting. I'd imagine the tamron would cost a bit more? WIll have to read up on it.

Actually I suspect the Tamron 90mm will cost less - yep $330 vs $370 (grey market).

Sounds like I could buy a lens for every single thing I want to do with it ...Maybe in the long run, but since I'm just a beginner, at this stage I'm just looking for a body and two lenses at the most. I guess getting the best 'all-rounder' lenses for my purposes is the focus atm.

Pretty much yes. A good walkaround lens (e.g. the 17-50 = 26-75mm) (and note I switched from the 18-200 to the 17-50 because the later is sharper, faster (wider constant max aperture) and better (for me)) is good and then you work out from there... a 50mm (either the f/1.8 - which is very cheap - like $140 grey; or the f/1.4 - which is considerably more) for low light, portraits and general everything use. After that you can specialise - a macro lens (for macro obviously but also portraits), an ultrawide (for landscapes, tight spaces, etc), a telephoto (wildlife, sports, etc), a tit shift (architecture, etc) and so on - the list could be endless

gstark - Will definitely go give the cameras a try at shops in the next week or so. Almost wasn't going to do this, and just buy off reviews alone...

Gary does bring up a very important point - you've gotta go feel the cameras in your hand and try using the buttons and dials - ergonomics is pretty key - I (and thats just me personally) hated the feel of the canons in my hand (the ones which were the equivalents of the D90 at the time I bought it) but the D90 fit perfectly in my hand (single hand holding). For some people (like me) having that little finger dangling at the bottom is a killer whereas I fit all my fingers (which are small even) on the D90 or D7000 grip.