DSLRUsers.com

Hi Folks

I have a D70s with 18-70mm Nikkor AF-S and a Sigma APO DG70-300mm with macro all bought as *my* starter kit. Since then I've added a 50mm f1.8 and an SB-600 and a cheap second hand SB-26.

SAdly I have neither the ability, not the time to take photography as seriously as I'd like, I am short of the high standards exhibited here, however I like the sharpness and clarity of the 50mm lens but I find that most shots I take are on the Sigma at a focal length in the range 100-200 and I'm frustrated that I can't get the detail and sharpness that I think should be there.

I would love to get replacement lenses for both the zoom lenses but the VR stuff is priced well beyond what I can afford or justify.

Due to an unfortunate accident, I recently dropped by wife's Sony P-12 into a hot charcoal bbq which has done it no good whatsoever. Sadly it didn't record images of it's own death either.

Gillian has indicated that she would be happy to have a SLR rather than a replacement P&S. So I was thinking, I could get her a D50 or second hand D70 body (perhaps Stubsy's ?) and let her use *my* lenses and slowly purchase more. Perhaps starting with another prime lens 135mm or 80mm or similar?

So in summary, a 2nd hand D70 or new D50?
New prime lenses or zooms? do 2nd hand lenses offer big enough savings?

If necessary, I can buy on the way to Europe in September and if so, should we go via Singapore, KL, HK? or Thailand? Or just buy in Aus and get gst back?

All sensible opinions welcome.

Cheers
Bob in Bull Creek

Why not get yourself a D200 and give your wife the D70?

Seriously though... While the D50 is a great camera I'd probably go for another D70. Buying from these forums should get you a pretty good one if you do your homework. The D70 seems to offer more control over the D50.

Primes vs Zooms... I'd say going by your description of your photography (not being able to be as serious or having enough time) I'd say probably a good set of zooms would suit you... A 70-200 VR (or maybe the sigma equiv) would be a great start. (not cheap I know... but a seriously good zoom lens)

EDIT: Second hand lenses can indeed be a great way to go... so long as you do your homework and make sure you can actually see and use the lens before you buy.

Paul

If she doesnt mind button mashing, a D50 would be great. Image quality is better slightly than a D70 plus exposure system required less PP.

I would go for a zoom since it is less restrictive to people. Pick up a sigma zoom or buy from an importer to save cash (if you dont mind the no maxwell warranty issues).

I think zoom/prime is more of a personal preference. They are of very similiar quality these days so it's not a major difference in that regard (provided you buy good lenses)

The D50 is a fine camera, but the D70 does have a much better feel and a few features you might find significant. I;d reccomend going to a camera shop and handling the D50 to see what you think of it yourself.

Personally, the D70 or D50 choice, I will go for a D70. Since it got more creative and ergonomic control over the D50 and its definately easier to handle for people with larger hands. The D50 seem to slip away if you have larger hands. The 2nd dial knob and a wireless commander pays off the price different far away.


RE: Prime vs Zoom

It is a matter of taste actually. As well as the subject you are shooting.
If you're more into action and restriction on movement, then a zoom can do its job pretty well for you. Tight on budget but able to spend a bit, the 18-200VR can be a choice there and forget/sell the other zooms you got there. A great 'little' lens to travel with.

Personally, I favour on primes than zoom. Simple reasons being are they are sharper at most time than the expensive zooms, it MAY be lighter than the pro zoom lenses. And they are usually fast lenses compared to the zoom at same price. Only restriction is the distance and working FoV+DoF. You need to add much more leg-work and trial/error before you get use to one single prime lens.

In short, primes are fun and sharp. Zoom can do its job pretty well and saves you quite alot of time (And money for the range in primes).

BullcreekBob wrote:Due to an unfortunate accident, I recently dropped by wife's Sony P-12 into a hot charcoal bbq which has done it no good whatsoever. Sadly it didn't record images of it's own death either.

I would go for a second hand D70s, or wait a few weeks and go a D70s, when the new DSLR comes out from Nikon. You can pick up second hand D70 at good prices, just try to get it from someone who you can at least trust a little (like a member).

As for lenses, I'd buy sharp zooms. I know your working to a budget, so you could look at the 24-70 F/2.8 Sigma from DD Photos for less than $600, it gets very good reviews on FredMiranda. Also, you could look at a Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8. About $1500 less than the Nikon VR of the same focal length, and it produces some very sharp images.

I would avoid primes just now, until you figure out what you REALLY want from your photography. The only prime I now own is the Nikkor 50mm 1.8 which I got second hand for $60 US. A great lens.

All MHO of course!

nito wrote:If she doesnt mind button mashing, a D50 would be great. Image quality is better slightly than a D70 plus exposure system required less PP.

I would go for a zoom since it is less restrictive to people. Pick up a sigma zoom or buy from an importer to save cash (if you dont mind the no maxwell warranty issues).

Button mashing?

Whilst Gillian has said she would *prefer* a SLR to a point and shoot, I am quite confident in saying that she would do somewhere between no and very very very little PP. Also the camera would be set to that green Auto setting for well over 95% of the time.

So based on that, are you saying the D50 would likely be superior?

A Sigma 70-200 f2.8 sounds attractive but I'll see if I can get or borrow one to evaluate before making the purchase.

Cheers
Bob in Bull Creek

BullcreekBob wrote:
Button mashing?

Whilst Gillian has said she would *prefer* a SLR to a point and shoot, I am quite confident in saying that she would do somewhere between no and very very very little PP. Also the camera would be set to that green Auto setting for well over 95% of the time.

So based on that, are you saying the D50 would likely be superior?

A Sigma 70-200 f2.8 sounds attractive but I'll see if I can get or borrow one to evaluate before making the purchase.

Cheers
Bob in Bull Creek

Yes, straight out the D50 is superior when compared to a D70. It tends to be more agressive on exposure than a D70. My friend has a D50 so that is were I base this observation on. She does no PP and the shots she has taken looks great off camera.

Because the D50 has one less command dial, there is some extra button pressing to access things like changing the Aperature. Also some D70 controls have been moved to the menu system.

There are a few D50 user here, I am sure they can provide more input.

On the lens front, if you can only afford one lens - the 18-200VR. Sharp as a tack at most lengths - check out my rosella and lorikeet post in image reviews.

IMHO It really is a great all round lens and it's half the price of the 70-200VR.

Yi-P wrote:RE: Prime vs Zoom

It is a matter of taste actually.

I'd say it's more than taste, it's a difficult optimisation problem. Zooms get you great convenience at a premium. The premium being size, weight, performance limititations and a price that is usually just as high as the primes they replace taken together.

Just for the heck of it, I've looked up the prices of the 70-200/f2.8 and a bunch of primes in that range. For simplicity and the purpose of comparison only, just the B&H "grey" prices in USD:

The zoom:

AF-S 70-200/f2.8 VR: $1570

and the primes:

AF-D 85/f1.8: $330
AF-D 105/f2 DC: $770
AF-D 105/f2.8 Micro: $540
AF-S 105/f2.8 VR Micro: $830
AF-D 135/f2 DC: $950
AF-D 180/f2.8: $650
AF-D 200/f4 Micro: $1140

To (almost) cover the zoom's range: 85/1.8 + 105/2.8 Micro + 180/2.8 = $1520. Those three are all Nikon legends and while the zoom offers VR and very good optical performance it doesn't quite play in the same league. And consider this:

- You don't have to buy all three of these primes at the same time. You start with the one you need most and add others later. Maybe pick from the more expensive ones, depending on your needs.
- The three primes above together weigh 1690g, the zoom alone 1470g.
- The zoom is much longer (without hood) than most of the primes (only 2cm longer than the 200mm Micro)
- You don't have to take all of your primes everywhere. You could just take the 85 and travel light, if you fancy.
- If you drop and destroy one you've still got the others to keep you shooting.
- The primes will all focus much slower on bodies like the D50 and D70 (unless you go for the AF-S 105/2.8, that is)
- There are two true macro lenses in the primes spectrum.
- There are two DC lenses in the primes spectrum.
- Some of the primes have great bokeh, others less so. The DC lenses let you modify the bokeh.
- With the zoom you won't have to change lenses as long as you stay within the focal length range.

Does this make your decision easier? I didn't think so...

There are just a lot of things to consider. There is almost no way of getting it right in the first go. The worst thing that can happen if you're on a budget is that you shell out for the zoom, and then discover that you also need/want one or two or even three of the primes in that range...

And yes, it is also a matter of taste. If you drive a Mazda you probably go for the zoom without hesitation

Cheers
Steffen.

Thanks to all for the replies - I am just going to take some time to absorb all of what has been said.

Once again, thanks one and all.

Bob in Bull Creek

Steffen wrote:I'd say it's more than taste, it's a difficult optimisation problem.

What you've just said is decided upon the tastes. If he will like to carry everything or just one. Having a few extra or just the convinient of it.

And yes, it is also a matter of taste. If you drive a Mazda you probably go for the zoom without hesitation

I dont have any petrol expenses, yet... reason why I should go with primes...

Just one more thing on the d50 V d70 front Bob. You have a d70 already and so you have CF cards. I'm pretty sure the d50 takes SD not CF cards. Nice to not have to buy a whole lot of new cards.

As for primes V zooms: I have a few primes and a few zooms. But one zoom I have is so sharp you could cut yourself with it. It's the Nikkor 80-200 f2.8. You can pick them up thru Birdy for about $1350 from memory. I don't want to knock the 18-200VR, but I believe there is a lot of difference between the image quality of the 18-200 and the 80-200. I got my 80-200 2nd hand for just under $1,000. You can get push pull versions 2nd hand for down around $600. I have the 20/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8 and I still say the 80-200 2.8 is a brilliant piece of glass. Do yourself a favour and try one out at least.

Cheers
John

G'day

I didn't realist the D50 uses SD rather than CF memory. That clinches it, a new D70S for the wife then.

Besides there are some tactical advantages to her having a newer camera than me, it will be the end of the whine about only getting my cast offs (computers, cars, sox...)

We are going to the UK in mid september, hopefully by then the *new* D70x/D90/D200s will be out and there'll be a good deal to be had in an obsolete D70S. Where would be the likely cheapest place to shop? Singapore? Kuala Lumpar?

As for the lens, I am drawn to getting a AF-D 85/f1.8 but the local camera shop seems to have a good deal on a Sigma 100-300EX/f4 with a 2x converter for $1299

Cheers
Bob in Bull Creek

Bob,

BullcreekBob wrote:We are going to the UK in mid september, hopefully by then the *new* D70x/D90/D200s will be out and there'll be a good deal to be had in an obsolete D70S. Where would be the likely cheapest place to shop? Singapore? Kuala Lumpar?

DSLRUsers.com - > For Sale

There has been some very good bargains in there. More to come as people get their D200.


As for the Sigma lens, you will be losing 2 stops with the converter, so that f4 lens gets pretty slow once the converter is on. You would be better off with the 70-200/2.8 Sigma with the 2xconverter, certainly in terms of light

Cheers,

André