Settled on a Nikon D60..

AsSiMiLaTeD

Shack, the dpreview site seems to think that this may not be the sharpest lens - what's your impression on that aspect of this lens, and is that something that's easily corrected in photoshop?

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_18-200_3p5-6p3_os_n15/page4.asp

AsSiMiLaTeD

AsSiMiLaTeD wrote: »

I agree with Shack on buying from someone you know will take care of you on this stuff. I only mentioned Amazon because I've also had great service with them on camera stuff, and they're about $40 cheaper at the moment on the Sigma lens.

EDIT: Correction, the Nikon version of the lens is $420 at Amazon, so only a savings of 20 over B&H Photo, although I still wouldn't hesitate to recommend Amazon. Given those prices though, if I do pick this up I'll probably look at B&H.

polkatese

Too bad that none of the dealers sell the D60 body with 18-200mm kit as an option. Oh well, either way, the old audio adage can also be applied here: Pay Now or Pay Later, either way, We Will have to Pay.

shack

AsSiMiLaTeD wrote: »

Shack, the dpreview site seems to think that this may not be the sharpest lens - what's your impression on that aspect of this lens, and is that something that's easily corrected in photoshop?

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_18-200_3p5-6p3_os_n15/page4.asp

I use an unsharp mask in photoshop on almost every photo I plan to keep. (it is the opposite of what it sounds like. It is a sharpening tool)

I have seen images from a friend's Sigma 18-200 and they are very sharp. If you can keep around f8 - f11 overall sharpness should be excellent. There may be some softness around the edges at the long end but that is not unusual for a super zoom. Are you sure they are not looking at the non-OS version? It did have some issues from what I have read with some focal lengths.

Here is a review that states it is a fairly sharp lens....

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/sigma18200os

polkatese

Got my D60 yesterday, and have been clicking away. This camera is fun! even my son made a comment about how easy it is to use it like a P&S camera. 18-55mm appears to be more than adequate for everyday's use, not too heavy. I am still learning and exploring its features. I've been reading the setup guide from this guy:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40/users-guide/index.htm

any other recommended site for learning the ins and outs of D60? TIA

polkatese

here is a couple sample pics of my SF that I snapped with D60:

(btw, I was trying out its settings, as you can see)

dkg999

Is Photoshop Elements 7.0 a good editing package for a casual enthusiast who wants to start learning and doing more with digital photography? Or do you need to go all the way to the full Photoshop software?

BTW - picked up the Nikon D60 with 18-55 VR lens, plus the 55-200 VR lens and an extra battery at Onecall, with coupon from my LCD TV purchase in December, for under $600 delivered.

polkatese

that's a sweet deal, Doug. congrats..your LCD coupon worth $150 or so?

don't have the answer to your first one, Shack perhaps.

shack

Before I spent money on Elements, I would either go with the Adobe Photoshop Album Starter Edition 3.2...

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshopalbum/starter.html

or even better....Gimp...

http://www.gimp.org

Either one will do most of what the casual photographer needs and most everything Elements will do...for free.

If I was going to do photoshop...I would go full blown CS4.

dkg999

Shack - thanks! Gimp looks like something that would be fun to play with. Not sure how serious I want to get with photo editing and manipulation, but it's always something I wanted to learn more about. I wanted to get a better digital camera, and the D60 looked like a reasonably priced way to go.

polkatese

Shack, a noob question for you: if I need to take a close-up picture of an object, at a distance of about 35-40 ft., what lens(es) are my option? if you could point me to a Nikkor VR, I'd appreciated. TIA

Early B.

Early B. wrote: »

I bought a Nikon D-80 a few months ago. This hobby is sick!

Just "upgraded" from the D80 to the D200. I like the D200 better. Yeah, it's the same sensor, so theoretically the picture quality is the same, but the D200 has better build quality and is much more "tweakable," and you guys know how much I like to tweak it.

At some point I'll start taking pictures...








...uh-huh -- probably around the same time I stop upgrading audio gear and start listening to music...

polkatese

Brad, ping me whenever you're ready to let go your telelens, VR would even be better.

Congrats, you're moving up the food chain.

shack

polkatese wrote: »

Shack, a noob question for you: if I need to take a close-up picture of an object, at a distance of about 35-40 ft., what lens(es) are my option? if you could point me to a Nikkor VR, I'd appreciated. TIA

I'm not that familiar with the Nikon lenses...but something similar to the 18-200 discussed earlier would be a good lens to get a closeup of 30-40 ft. The image stablization would help with this as well.

polkatese

Thanks Shack. I am saving my coins for that one. Hoping for a cheaper alternative of a prime lens, for the time being (if such thing exist).

Early B.

shack wrote: »

I'm not that familiar with the Nikon lenses...but something similar to the 18-200 discussed earlier would be a good lens to get a closeup of 30-40 ft. The image stablization would help with this as well.

Polkatese -- This may not directly answer your question, but it's a great link to get a sense of relative lens length:

http://www.usa.canon.com/app/html/EFLenses101/focal_length.html

Early B.

polkatese wrote: »

Thanks Shack. I am saving my coins for that one. Hoping for a cheaper alternative of a prime lens, for the time being (if such thing exist).

I like the Nikon 70-300mm VR lens. It's a longer lens, less expensive, and apparently better (or at least as good as) picture quality than the Nikon 18-200mm lens.

shack

polkatese wrote:

Thanks Shack. I am saving my coins for that one. Hoping for a cheaper alternative of a prime lens, for the time being (if such thing exist).

A good prime will cost you more...typically. Because of its nature and intended use, a prime is usually built to more exacting specs, thus costing much more. For instance a good 200mm Nikon Prime will cost you about $4,500. An average 180mm prime about $1,000. Because many zooms are compromises to begin with, they are made to meet less demanding specs thus the more reasonable price. This isn't to say a zoom will always be less...you can certainly spend several thousand on a high end zoom.

polkatese

Thanks for the link Brad. I'll check out 70-300mm.

polkatese

shack wrote: »

A good prime will cost you more...typically. Because of its nature and intended use, a prime is usually built to more exacting specs, thus costing much more. For instance a good 200mm Nikon Prime will cost you about $4,500. An average 180mm prime about $1,000. Because many zooms are compromises to begin with, they are made to meet less demanding specs thus the more reasonable price. This isn't to say a zoom will always be less...you can certainly spend several thousand on a high end zoom.

So much for my saving idea. Thanks Shack.

shack

Early B wrote:

I like the Nikon 70-300mm VR lens. It's a longer lens, less expensive, and apparently better (or at least as good as) picture quality than the Nikon 18-200mm lens.

From everything I read the Nikon 18-200 is average at best. The alternatives by Sigma and Tamron are considered to be better. It is also easier to make a good 70-300 than the wider zooms because of the similarity of the focal lengths.

polkatese

Update: I've been having lots of fun taking all kind of pics, experimenting with the various settings (noob's joy ). The downside is, instead of taking 30-50 pics per event, now we do 200-300 pics per event! downside is, my iPhoto database growing is growing like crazy. The good news is the wife is getting very interested with these new found pics possibilities. One of the feature on iPhoto and/or Aperture is the ability to create professional looking album. Well, I have to actually slow her down before she click the send button to have those Books (album) orders. Not a bad price, considering $30 get you 20 pages of album with hardcover, nicely done, considering a decent looking large album cost upward $20+, plus photo prints and time to organize them.

Another nice surprise (since she has also been using it too, more than I do), she came home one day (two weeks ago) with a 18-200mm Nikon lens! I tested out and I am pretty impressed with the amount of zoom that I can do (from my untrained eyes), and the pics' quality. All in all, good experience all around.

ckphoto

If you want good photo's of your daughters dance competition get the Nikon 80-200 2.8 ED D you should be able to get a good used one for around $400 to $500. Your camera is not a full frame sensor so the 80-200 will be more like a 120-300 which will give you lots of reach. Avoid the consumer all in one zoom lenses like the 18-200 it is garbage as is most consumer lenses. It is just like your speakers there are the Bose and then there are the Polks big difference.

izafar

70-300 MM is very tough to use by hand after 200 MM. The following photo is one of the better ones I could take hand held fully extended:

polkatese

Izafar brought up a great point. The users of mine is the whole family (i.e. my 14 yo son, 10 yo daughter, and the wife), hence I know it would be a compromise and wasn't meant to be one operator camera. Even with the 18-200mm lens, the camera gets heavier, can't imagine those prime lenses that need a tripod to operate properly. I supposed for daily use, this is the lens that I would go, and in the future, I could add more of those lenses to get into the hobby more (...yeah, and that's right after I get my hand on those Anthem pre/pro...;) )

AsSiMiLaTeD

ckphoto wrote: »

Avoid the consumer all in one zoom lenses like the 18-200 it is garbage as is most consumer lenses. It is just like your speakers there are the Bose and then there are the Polks big difference.

I couldn't disagree with this more.

1 - Consumer lenses aren't garbage, polkatese don't let the photography snobs tell you that. Are they as good as the pro lenses? Of course not, but for 99% of people taking photographs, even those doing it as a hobby, a good consumer lens works just fine.

2 - The Sigma 18-200 lens that Shack originally suggested I picked up, and it's a fantastic lens!

3 - if you're going to use the speaker analogy, at least get it right, or reasonably close to reality.

- Your mid-grade point and shoot cameras would be equivalent to Bose.
- Your entry level DSLR and lens kit would be more in line with the Polk RTi series or so.
- Your mid level DSLR and a good zoom lens or maybe an inexpensive prime lens would be in line with something like the Polk LSi series.
- Your high end DSLR would probably be closer to something like Dynaudio or something along those lines, with the pro bodies and lenses going even higher up the food chain.

Maybe those aren't spot on, but my point is that a good consumer lens vertainly isn't to photography as Bose is to speakers...

shack

In photography I find the better lenses often has a lot to do with build quality vs optics. I know there are some Canon "consumer" grade lenses that actually perform on par with the Canon L lenses. Also, in certain situations the consumer lens will be equal in the "average" areas and the better lenses perform better across the full spectrum. And yes...there are better lenses out there than the Tamron, Sigma, and even the Canon and Nikon "all in one" zooms...but they are generally decent lenses that will deliver excellent results when used properly.

Plus, for the average hobby or travel photographer they sure do make life easy. Just always have a backup when it is important.

IE: I heard of a lady that went on a safari with her Canon 28-300mm L lens (a $2,000+ lens) and on the first day she dropped it and it was damaged beyond use. Her only other lens was a 24mm prime. Needless to say her photos were limited as it is tough to get those nice closeups with a very wide lens. She was able to borrow some lenses from other Canon shooters, but of course only when they were using them. Moral of the story...ALWAYS have a backup if it is important.

jcaut

Not trying to hijack, but Shack: The 10-17 you have, is that a Tokina? And not to ask a dumb question, but you'll know what I mean- Is it a "true" fisheye on APS-C? Assuming that it is, say, at 10mm, what happens when you zoom to 17? Still fishy? I'd like to see an example sometime if possible.

I have the Sigma 15mm fisheye and it's a real fun lens to use but it's actually not very "fishy" (for lack of better words) on the crop cameras. (I use a 30D and a 5D, so I try to avoid lenses that don't work on 35mm) It's a rather limited-use lens though, obviously. The fisheye zoom sounds interesting though. My "ultra wide" rectilinear lens is a Sigma 12-24.

Jason

ckphoto

AsSiMiLaTeD wrote: »

I couldn't disagree with this more.

1 - Consumer lenses aren't garbage, polkatese don't let the photography snobs tell you that. Are they as good as the pro lenses? Of course not, but for 99% of people taking photographs, even those doing it as a hobby, a good consumer lens works just fine.

2 - The Sigma 18-200 lens that Shack originally suggested I picked up, and it's a fantastic lens!

3 - if you're going to use the speaker analogy, at least get it right, or reasonably close to reality.

- Your mid-grade point and shoot cameras would be equivalent to Bose.
- Your entry level DSLR and lens kit would be more in line with the Polk RTi series or so.
- Your mid level DSLR and a good zoom lens or maybe an inexpensive prime lens would be in line with something like the Polk LSi series.
- Your high end DSLR would probably be closer to something like Dynaudio or something along those lines, with the pro bodies and lenses going even higher up the food chain.

Maybe those aren't spot on, but my point is that a good consumer lens vertainly isn't to photography as Bose is to speakers...

I definitely am not here to argue with anyone and garbage is a little harsh but if you compare the Sigma 18-200 F/3.5-6.3 to the Nikon 80-200 F/2.8 there is a HUGE difference in the image you will capture and there will be images that you will be able to capture that the 18-200 never can. I am by no means a "photography snob" but I do have 20 years in the photo business owning a photo lab and being a professional photographer full time. The Bose to Polk analogy was I guess wrong, I went from Bose to Polk and I hear a HUGE difference but then again I only have the RTi series what do I know.

shack

jcaut wrote: »

Not trying to hijack, but Shack: The 10-17 you have, is that a Tokina? And not to ask a dumb question, but you'll know what I mean- Is it a "true" fisheye on APS-C? Assuming that it is, say, at 10mm, what happens when you zoom to 17? Still fishy? I'd like to see an example sometime if possible.

I have the Sigma 15mm fisheye and it's a real fun lens to use but it's actually not very "fishy" (for lack of better words) on the crop cameras. (I use a 30D and a 5D, so I try to avoid lenses that don't work on 35mm) It's a rather limited-use lens though, obviously. The fisheye zoom sounds interesting though. My "ultra wide" rectilinear lens is a Sigma 12-24.

Jason

Yes, It is a true fisheye from 10-17mm and is made specifically for a crop body. It can be used on the FF camera but there is obviously some vignetting at the widest angles (10-13mm). At 10mm the fisheye is very "fishy"....at 17mm not so much. I have several examples on my computer at home but none here at work. Also the ones at home aren't necessarily direct comparisons. I'll take a few of the same subject at different FLs and post them here.

It is a very fun lens...if you know what to do with it. There are also some programs out there which will take the "fishy" out of the photo and make is super super wide. I only got this lens in Dec. and haven't had the chance to do that much with it yet but I really like it.