Photography Equipment Hurts my brain, please help

[Sublime327]

I never thought that this would be so hard, never even thought it would be so hardd.

Let me state my problem. I want a D50 and 2 or 3 lenses.
(I've canceld 3 orders becuase Im scared on what to buy)

PLEASE HELP.


I want to shoot, portraits indoor and outdoor.

I want to shoot actionshots, mostly during dusk to late night. Maybe early day, but it would mostly be dusk. Skateboarding to be exact.

I want to shoot landscapes, building, forests, outdoors stuff. No close up flowers or anything.


Thats what I want to shoot.

I would really like help with buying lenses. I dont want to spend over 1,000$ on my total, Im a poor College Student

The D50 is about 454.00# with no lense ( I should just not get the kit and get a better lense correct?)

Should I buy the d50 with kit lense, and buy a nice 500$ lense that is an good lens, for actionshots, landscapes. Becuase the kit lens, and knowing what Im doing will get me nice portraits.(I know I need memory card, small things, etc.)


so confused! :(


So that leaves another 500$ for 2 lenses, its tight I know. I'm so confused with everything, this is so hard.


Any help would be so appreciated, I wanted this for xmas, but that wont happen, I start school in January and take 3 photography classes that require SLR's or DLSR. This is somthing I want to persue.


please help, name is Geoff.

thank you very very much

[SpecialK]

Hi:

If you are on a tight budget you will have a hard time getting everything you want.

The kit lens is mediocre from any manufacturer, but as it is inexpensive, start with that. It will do landscapes and general snap shots.

Then perhaps get a 70-200 zoom of some type - the fastest (f4 good, f2.8 better) you can afford. Nikkor lenses are a bit pricey but you can try Sigma or Tamron. The 70 end can be used for portraits and the 200 end for sports.

[Sublime327]

So this is what it comes down to, the D50 body with a Tamron 17-35MM F2.8-4 DI LD ASPHERICAL LENS, and a tamron 28-200mm lens.


or the d50 with kit lense and nikon 70-300 f5 lens




What is best for what I want to do?

[Sublime327]

I look around all day, and I dont know what to buy, Im so confused.

[TNB]

I want to shoot, portraits indoor and outdoor.

I want to shoot actionshots, mostly during dusk to late night. Maybe early day, but it would mostly be dusk. Skateboarding to be exact.

I want to shoot landscapes, building, forests, outdoors stuff. No close up flowers or anything.

The dusk/late night action shots are going to drive your costs way up there--I own the Nikon 70-200 F/2.8 VR lens, which is over $1k by itself. I also started with the Nikon D50 and a slower Sigma lens with a 300mm reach, which was fine during the day; however, once the sun started setting, the focus time dropped like crazy and the shots went down the tube without a flash.

[SpecialK]

Any way you do it, you've gone over the original budget.

Without getting into itemized specifications, the 17-35 and 28-200 seem like a bit if overlap but cover the bases. The 17-35 seems a bit limited on zoom-range. There are a lot of 17/18-50/70's that might fill the middle range a bit better, and Tamron's is a fixed f2.8. (For $75-100 less, Sigma 18-50 f2.8 is highly regarded, and there's and a 17-70 something as well.) Then you could get a tele that starts around 70 instead of 28, and generally give better results.

If you are more into tele I would bite the bullet and go with the kit lens, and the 70-300 VR.

[TNB]

If you are more into tele I would bite the bullet and go with the kit lens, and the 70-300 VR.
The 70-300 VR is still only F/4.5-5.6, which isn't probably going to be all that great for dusk/late night action compared to an F/2.8 all the way through. I know my Sigma 70-300mm F/4-5.6 (non-APO) sucked for those kind of low-ligh action shots and that is why I moved up to the Nikon 70-200 F/2.8 VR. Then again, I pretty much mentioned that earlier. Consequently, why didn't you purchase the lens that you are promoting and asserting that is what you would have purchased instead of the Sigma lens that you actually own?

[SpecialK]

I'm not promoting any particular lens. The 70-300 is one of the focal lengths of lenses Geoff was considering, and apparently from his original post, he is trying to stay at $1,000 or there abouts.

The reason I don't have one is in my sig :-)

[TNB]

Apparently, you misunderstood my question. Yes, I realize you have the APO lens in your signature. However, you also suggested the Nikon lens which lead me to ask why you chose the Sigma lens over the Nikon lens, yet recommended the Nikon lens.

[SpecialK]

I don't have a Nikon body so buying a nice Nikkor lens for my Pentax is not a good investment.

Second, I can only assume that a $550, $850 or $1000 dollar Nikkor would be just a tad better than a fair to middlin' $219 Sigma which fits both the K mount and my budget.

As Geoff says he wants a Nikon body, why not stay with Nikkor lenses?

[TNB]

For a moment, I forgot that you don't own a Nikon yet keep posting on Nikon related threads. However, it did remind me of something else--did you ever take and post some action photos that were "panned" instead of stills?

Of course, my point to the OP is that his current requirements are probably exceeded by his current budget if he wants to take decent action photos in low-level light at dusk/dawn. For a flash, the SB800.

[Sublime327]

I went with the kit lense, and the 28-200mm lense. its a small overlap, but the lense was a good deal. Im just going to get my camera, and take pictures! not worth edbating for months on equipment, I can get started and take pictures well with the kit lense, and go from there, see what I want need.

thanks though :)

[Sublime327]

I did get the SB800 flash BTW

[TNB]

Smart move and enjoy your investment. And post some photos! ;)

[Sublime327]

Here some medocre stuff using a manual film camera, about one month of using it/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/36465824@N00/)


I'll be posting alot more once I get my d50

[TNB]

Looks good. I can tell you are going to have a blast with your camera, especially once you can capture some real close up action photos. Myself, I wanted closer then I wanted even faster and faster. I started with a D50 and two Sigma lenses, then I purchased the Nikon 70-200 VR because of low-level-light action photography, then the D200 because of the higher frame rate, and then a couple of more lenses just to go out shooting other things. And I am still looking at a couple of other lenses (wide, super-wide, and/or fish eye).

[Sublime327]

Yeah Im looking for a wide, super wide, fish eye aswell, they are very fun. can get some creative shots

[TNB]

Here's a link to help make up your mind or confuse you even more. ;)

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms/comparison.htm

Over all, the website is also filled with lots of information and comparisons.

[Sublime327]

Thanks, Ive been there, I chose the D50 becuase of Ken Rockwells review.




ill post more, and join the thread for NIkon SLR photo of the day

[SpecialK]

For a moment, I forgot that you don't own a Nikon yet keep posting on Nikon related threads. However, it did remind me of something else--did you ever take and post some action photos that were "panned" instead of stills?

Of course, my point to the OP is that his current requirements are probably exceeded by his current budget if he wants to take decent action photos in low-level light at dusk/dawn. For a flash, the SB800.

I knew one of us was confused - turns out to be me because I thought this was a general thread about focal lengths. Didn't know I couldn't play, sorry.

I haven't posted any panning-shot tests because I haven't taken any. I didn't think anyone cared about the other one as it was unacknowledged. There are other tests of the SR sytem out now (sorry I don't have the links handy, but no doubt you've seen them in some other threads), at least in numerical statistical terms, so I'm not in a big rush do another unscientific test when I doubt it will show anything different than the first one. I'll give it a shot but the only local moving subjects around here seem to be cars. Any particular parameters you would suggest or are looking for? Shutter speed, distance to subject, etc.?

Requirements always exceed budget - hence the "hurts my brain" :-(

[TNB]

I did read the other thread, but sort of like the OP on this thread--I'm more interested in action photos. If you only have full-size cars to work with I guess it has to be full-size cars though to me most full-size cars seem pretty easy to take photos of since they are large targets. And since the OP of this thread is interested in low-light dawn/dusk action photos, why not start with some panning photos of full size cars in low-level lighting at dawn/dusk if possible? The faster the cars the better--side-to-side shots and head-on shots. Of course, don't get run over or endanger yourself. I'm really just interested in how well your camera "pans" with the SR/IS/VR on when panning compared to when it is turned off while panning. To me, an ideal shot would also not be to "freeze" the action, but show some motion, i.e. the tires still spinning, yet the subject itself is clear. No flash of course. Again, thanks in advance and no hurry.

[SpecialK]

Hi TNB:

I will try to do that. Perhaps a basketball game or something can be found as well. I'm not big on low-light sport shots so no doubt I'll be lousy :-)

[TNB]

Looking forward to it. Thanks in advance.

[Beanboy]

85mm F1.8?

If you can get close, 50mm F1.8 or perhaps 50mm F1.4?