DSLRUsers.com

Hello all and thanks for your very kind welcome and the good advice.

Matt.K recommended I look at the Nikon 50mm 1.8, which I think is an excellent idea, (thanks Matt.K) however I think I can obtain a Nikon 50mm 1,4 for a couple of hundred dollars more. What do the members think about the 1.4 as opposed the 1.8?

I have decided to go for the dearer 70-300 ED lense instead of the cheaper G series. Good idea?????

Also would the cheaper 600 speedlight do the job, or would I be better off forking out the extra dollars and buying the 800 speedlight.


Many thanks in anticipation of your advice


Kindest regards to all
Nigel

Nigel,

Good questions. The 50mm question is a big one, both are excellent lenses. The real solution to this is go to http://www.dpreview.com go to the nikon slr lens forum and there are great examples from both lenses side by side. There are a couple of threads right now comparing them. Do a search. You wont go wrong with either, different opinions here on both. I have both.

With the 70-300 (I own neither) I have seen reasonable shots from either, thay are both cheaper consumer lenses so I would take the cheaper and save for another lens. Actually I would buy a s/h 80-200 2.8 instead and get a 10 yr old pro lens instead (that is what I did). Both your choices can be found in the above forum.

I barely know how to turn a flash on so cant help there.

Good luck

On top of what Glen mentioned re: 50 1.8 vs 1.4, realise that the 1.4 is two and a half times the cost of the 1.8 - and I believe if you could appreciate the difference between the two numbers (and what they mean in photographic situations), then you wouldn't be needing to ask which one is for you.

Also for the consumer tele zooms - I'll throw one more into the mix I believe you should consider: Sigma 70-300 APO II. Priced closer to the G, features closer to the ED.

Nigel

Save your pennies and get the 50D f/1.8. It is a bargain at under $200.00. I have this lens and can definitely recommend it for the price. I don't think that you would notice the difference between the 1.4 and 1.8. The money you save you can use towards getting your flash.

I have the SB-800 and don't really know anything about the SB-600. Birdy has the SB-800 very cheap at the moment and if you can snap one up at his special price you should definitely grab one. I did a quick search at DPReview and it seems that the SB-800 is more recommended than the SB-600.

Here is a review on the Sigma 70-300 Macro APO II lens:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read. ... e=11003282

Also, check out the reviewers image gallery.

Cheers
Kristine

Yeah, I have the Sigma 70-300 Super Macro APO I. Very good lense that I used with my first body.

I can notice a difference between the two lenses and like the 1.4 better... But I have many situations where I would like the extra .4stop...

I am torn between the two.... but am tending towards the 1.4...

Here is an image from it wide open

Nigel, I have both lens that you're looking at so here's my 5 cents worth...

The 50 f/1.8 is a great lens and very cheap at about $200, I'd be stunned if you can get the f/1.4 for a mere $200AU more. Personally I'd grab the f/1.8 and keep the spare cash for other things.

Regarding the flash, grab the SB-800. From Birddog right now the price is really good and it has a level of power and features missing in the SB-600 that you might well miss.

On the matter of the longer lens... I have the 70-300ED and whilst it does a pretty good job in good light it's definitely wanting in lower light. I bought it for it's range vs weight during hiking etc. In hindsight I think that perhaps buying a cheaper 70-300 might have been a better option and then use the saved money for a 'faster' lens. Either the G version or the sigma lens would do the trick (I didn't personally like the feel of the latter but it does have an extra macro mode for fun).

I suggest that if you can hold off, save some more and get the 70-200VR f/2.8. You wouldn't find anyone here who would dispute that it's a gem and I wish that I had done just that. If that's too expense have a look around for the 80-200 which apart from lacking VR is really good glass.

Michael.

I suggest that if you can hold off, save some more and get the 70-200VR f/2.8. You wouldn't find anyone here who would dispute that it's a gem and I wish that I had done just that. If that's too expense have a look around for the 80-200 which apart from lacking VR is really good glass.

I have been considering the 80-200 becuase I feel that the price of the 70-200VR is out of my price range at the moment. I am debating whether to "SAVE" of just go with the 80-200 or the 80-400 VR which Gary and Nicole have just ordered. I may go with the 80-400VR since Poon is apparently out of stock of the 80-200 (if I remember correctly, another member posted this in another thread).

Cheers
Kristine

Nigels
The 70-200VR is the Rolls Royce and the 80-200 f2.8 is the Volvo. They'll both get you there.

Noooo, don't compare the lens of my dreams to a Volvo - take it back, TAKE IT BACK!!

Unfortunately choice of lens is never easy!!! Keep in mind that the 80-400VR is an entirely different lens again. Whilst it gains extra reach and has VR it doesn't have the constant f/2.8 of the other two.

Choice of lens is one of dilemas that keeps me up nights. I can't afford all the lenses I'd like (in fact nowhere near) and can't even afford what I really need for the photos in my head... guess that's life !!!

Onyx, you may be getting closer to getting that lens after I saw Birddogs price on the 70-200

I agree with Michael and don't think it's worth the extra money to go for the ED version. I started off with the G version and was quite pleased with the quality for the price. It's tempting though and if you're interested in better then I would go with either the 80-200 or 70-200VR. The 70-200VR costs quite a bit more though.

Kristine, I went with the 80-400VR because I wanted the extra reach. If you don't need that extra reach and can wait a little longer, I would save up and go for the 70-200VR. Something on my list for the future.

Matt. K wrote:Nigels
The 70-200VR is the Rolls Royce and the 80-200 f2.8 is the Volvo. They'll both get you there.

But one will automatically keep everything neat and in the middle.

Nigel,

I have the 1.4 and it's a great lens, but I need all the light that puppy can let in. If you don't need that extra light (and it's not a whole lot, really) then the 1.8 might be just the right fit for you.

I'm getting the 80-400 because I want the reach too. my 70-300G is just not up to scratch, and the 80-400 will be replacing it.

My next lens purchase will be the 12-24, and those two zooms, combined with the 24-120VR, will become my primary kit.

Gary,
lens lust is now good time with higher Aussie dollar

Birddog114 wrote:Gary,
lens lust is now good time with higher Aussie dollar

Yes, but one also needs a supply of those Pacific Pesos to feed the lust.

Gary, if only the 12-24 comes with VR - your whole arsenal of lenses would be vibrationally reduced!

Onyx,

Well, I've yet to get the 12-24, but yes ...

gstark wrote:Onyx,

Well, I've yet to get the 12-24, but yes ...

Gary,
Is it will be your New Year's present? BTW, Our member Vicareyus is on his way to HKG today, I pass him Mr Poon's address and he will stop by to visit Poon while he's in HKG also he want to lust for some of his toys too, I contact Poon and he's very excite and waiting to meet Vic in HKG.
On behafl of the this community I asked Vicareyus brings him a Black Polo shirt with D70User logo for Poon as our appreciation for his supports to our members, also asked Vicareyus extend our invitation to Poon to our Xmas Party on the 10/12.
Vic returns to Australia next week and sure we will have a de-briefing from him.

Birddog,

Birddog114 wrote:

gstark wrote:Onyx,

Well, I've yet to get the 12-24, but yes ...

Gary,
Is it will be your New Year's present?

You never know.

Great news about Vicareyus meeting with Poon, and an equally great idea to give him one of our polo shirts.

I'm a little annoyed and suprised they dont make a fast WA zoom with VR..

Why cant the make a version of the 17-55DX with VR...

I've looked at the 24-120VR a couple of times (hell its going to be cheaper than my tripod rig by some margin!) and have passed it over because I want the 2.8...

Don't let yourself get annoyed MHD, this is fun, remember

hehehe... yeah...

(waits patiently for L plate)

MHD wrote:I'm a little annoyed and suprised they dont make a fast WA zoom with VR....

I don't see as much of a need for VR on WA lenses.

The vibration only becomes a major issue as you increase the magnification factors that you're using; with a WA lens you're into negative magnification, and the problem, while still there, becomes less and less evident as a result of the image being made.

your WA lens has VR on it..

What I was basically proposing is a upper market version of the 24-120 which has constant apeture of 2.8 (well more realistic would be a say 24-70, after which you put the 70-200 on)