Nikon D80,

[Sunesha]

After finally found good store in my hometown. I decided to get a Nikon D80 with a 17-80 mm lens. I hade a mental stuggle in my mind as I wasnt sure at first what camera that fit me. The struggle was the classic Canon XTI/400D vs. Nikon D80. But just after played around it was easy match for my personal needs. I liked the more sturdier feel and big viewfounder, also the the controls that sales rep show me the diffrence in pratical use.

Thou, I am quite puzzled as I do alot off longe range photo, at least that what I do with my old Canon Powershot 3 IS. You can check out to see why I need one ;) at my site "photos" (http://sunesha.se/index.php?option=com_zoom&Itemid=&catid=1) , their are some photos from my local park. As I do alot off nature shots. So I discussed with sales rep to pick upp a mega lens 70-300 mm one. He told me that Nikon was realeasing a new one with Image stablize.

Thou he had a Tamron AF70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2, which was very cheap. Thou after checking around alot on the internet I cant find much info or some kinda off review off this lens.
Link at Tamron (http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/70300_di_a017.asp)

Picture:
http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/assets/images/a17_70300di.gif

So what do you think shall wait for Nikons antishake version or buy the cheap one. Any links for reviews or opnions will make me very grateful. As this will be my first d_SLR camera I am very confused.

Thanks in advance.

[britkev]

We seem to be discussing the 70-300mm lenses every other day just lately... best of the bunch of cheap ones is generally agreed to be the Sigma APO version which goes for a little over USD200 from reliabale online retailers in the States.

No personal experience with it, but the new Nikon VR version seems to already have a large fanbase, growing by the day, but at $500 it is significantly more expensive.

[Sunesha]

We seem to be discussing the 70-300mm lenses every other day just lately... best of the bunch of cheap ones is generally agreed to be the Sigma APO version which goes for a little over USD200 from reliabale online retailers in the States.

No personal experience with it, but the new Nikon VR version seems to already have a large fanbase, growing by the day, but at $500 it is significantly more expensive.

Thanks for your input, I was checking out the multliple other threads. Thou in some ego moment I wanted my own thread. My standards are quite low as it will be probaly just be such upgrade to work with a dSLR instead off my Canon.

I read alot about the Sigma lenses as they seemed to be well spread and reviewed. Thou Tamron feels like a wildcard even after alot off googling not much cant be told. Maybe just Tamron isnt a so big brand compared to Sigma.

I live in sweden but the prices are quite the same if you dont count our higher taxes which I have to pay anyway if have to order from the states.

[LR Max]

I have this lense. The macro is a bunch of crap. My nikon 18-200VR has better macro than the tamron. So don't count on it as a real macro.

If you've got good light, then it produces a real awesome image. No light, you are SOL. Once again, comparing to the 18-200VR, the 18-200VR produces a much better image than the tamron.

Nikon is coming out with the 55-200VR lense. I've got one of the ye olde ones (pre-cpu) and its a pretty good lense. The lineage is pretty good and should be a great lense. There isn't much difference between 200 and 300. The VR is DA BOMB. I bolt on a regular lense and I am like, "wtf!!?? Why can't I get a clean image at 1/10th shutter speed!!??" You get really spoiled. I think it'll be a good telezoom lense and cheap.

[britkev]

It's impossible to generalize about lens manufacturers - Tamron do make some highly regarded lenses, but since we were talking specifically about the 70-300mm the Sigma is superior. The Sigma also beats the super cheap Nikon 70-300G which I have, and holds its own against the more expensive Nikon 70-300 ED version.

That said I'm not horribly disappointed with my Nikon, for what I paid for it. It can produce nice results in good light. I definitely regard it as a "stepping-stone" to bigger and better things down the line, but if I had the chance over again I would probably have spent the little bit extra on the Sigma... and unless you can afford the 2.5x price differential for the Nikon 70-300 VR then I'd suggest it as by far the best long zoom.

[pagnamenta]

If you will allow some general speaking, the 55-200mm lenses are generally regarded as poor. They have cheap build quality and aren't all that sharp. That's why they are cheaper. I have sold and played around with the Tamron 70-300 at work (Wolf Camera) and I don't really like to suggest it because it's not that good.

Again, generally speaking, the zooms in the 70-300 range aren't the best lenses, but there are a few that aren't that bad. The Canon and Nikon 70-300 IS and VR lenses are good because they have a chromatic correcting element. This with the IS raises the price to $500+. I've used the Sigma as my main tele lens for over a year and I really liked the results. I feel it's the best bang for your buck when it comes to the 70-300 zoom range.

[jcon]

From what I have been reading on the internet, you might want to consider the Nikon VR version. like LR said, VR is very handy at long focal lengths.

I hear it takes great pictures, though I have not had any experience with it myself.

With that said, CURRENTLY, the Sigma APO is still regarded as the best in its class(the Nikon VR version may overtake it soon).

[T06]

You will see some entries of late by people with the 70-300VR Nikon lens. For mine if I was looking for a lens of this size that is what I would be buying. To me to achieve that type of quality photos with a lens of that price seems like a helluve a bargain to me.

[Sunesha]

Thanks alot for all your input. :)

Just a general newbie question, does the zoom length on a lens often impact on the image qualitity off lens. For example lesser zoom length on a lens does make it easier to obtain a better image quality.

After some more thinking, I am reallly think I want have IS/VR. Even that I love to take most off my photos with the tripod. I like the tripod as take more time to compose my pictures. Dont know why, think it is psychological thing that I am more serious with composing with tripod.

Thou prices on antishake really bump the price. I was at my local store today and checked out alot off versions live. Typically they didnt have any camerahouse to check with at time.

Cheers,
Daniel

[tcadwall]

does the zoom length on a lens often impact on the image qualitity off lens.
The longer the range of the lens the more challenging it is for the engineers to maintain a high standard of quality. So yes, and in a way no. The challenges cannot be completely overcome, but the compromises in one design may be favorable over the compromises in another design. So theoretically, you could have a 18-200mm lens that might be better than a 55-200mm (I am not saying that it is or isn't the case - just that it could happen).

IOW - if you exclusively used decent primes, you would probably have generally sharper images, with less occurance of distortions, etc. Because it is easy to tune those lens designs to optimum performance. However, if you are unable to zoom with your feet, then you will be switching lenses all the time, and might miss a lot of good shots.

It is a compromise. Always.

[pagnamenta]

Generally speaking, cheaper lenses with big zoom ranges are lower quality. There is a huge difference between the Nikon 70-300 and Nikon 70-300 VR lenses but that's because of the chromatic correction element. Same with the Canon 100-400, it's great and it covers such a large zoom range. However, when it comes to primes, they'll win hands down every time.

VR will help because the lens and camera combo might be to heavy for your tripod to support so the VR might come in handy.

[Sunesha]

Thanks, it finally explained some things for me. I am still trying to figure out things and it very helpful to nail some guidelines as I almost most speculating.

In my own mind I went it would be better to have the 18-70 which will do for most situations and then go for tele range lens for that nature photos.

At least thats how I speculated when making my lens choices. As I hope to get good image qualtity. Thou a mega zoom 18-200 would be nice for those walkaround in diffrent shoot things. But I think it is bit too pricey for my budget.

But also think it is fun to have special lenses. My third lens will probaly be a prime one for more composing art shoots.

[pagnamenta]

I've sold two 18-200 VR's in the store and I've had about a dozen people pre order them. I feel it's a great amateur lens that really can be used for most situations. But if you want a quality lens I'd diversify.

[Sunesha]

:D

Yes I finally bought the Nikon D80 with the 18-70 mm kit lens. I am very pleased the feel and weight on the camera. Thou I have to wait 2 full hours before taking my first photos with it, typically that you have to charge the batteries ;).

I decided to wait a bit with my tele lens buy. So can get a bit more familiar with my new camera. Cant wait to get started in the dSLR world.

Today there where woman sales rep, she was really helpful and service minded she spent half hour on me. Showing how the camera works and also startup tips. Hmm maybe women are better sales rep then men?

As some male sales rep kinda get irritated when you dont understand all new terms. She was a owner off Nikon D70. At least in her opinion I made better choice to go with 18-70 contra 18-135.

Thanks all for all your helpful input, I will return to this thread as future reference on the subject tele lens. Also will share some off my first shoots here.

At the moment it such rush just to get a better tool. Not that I am not pleased with my Canon Powershot 3 IS, that will use as my social camera. It takes wonderful pictures even that the lowlight isnt best on it.

But it will be interesting to have the capability's off better higher ISO image quality. Also I hope the better viewfinder will help me alot as the canon viewfinder is really hard to use. That was my main personal reason that choose Nikon over Canon on the dSLR range at my budget. Hopefully it will make it easier to compose better shoots.

Cheers,
Daniel Sunebring

Ps. Sorry for the bit long post, but I am so excited at the moment. Ds.

[tcadwall]

Congrats!!!:D

[Sunesha]

Photo off my beautiful camera, thou very strange that Firefox desaturate the colours on my mac. The colours looks alot more nicer on MAC osx preview software. Edit: Just checked the forum with Safari browser, the colours look right with Safari. Strange didnt believe that two diffrent browser viewed pictures different

Heh, Cant help myself I just think it is beautiful camera to look at :p

http://sunesha.se/images/zoom/JJOWDX/Nikon_d80_1870-12.jpg

Cheers,

[lightinsky]

Congrats!!!

I know exactly how it feels!!! Just got mine a few weeks ago!!

do share some of your new pics...

[Sunesha]

Congrats!!!

I know exactly how it feels!!! Just got mine a few weeks ago!!

do share some of your new pics...

I will do.

Gonna try to re-shoot some off my shoots. Thou most off the pictures I take I wait for the right light conditions so it wont be a fair comparison with my old camera.

I thrilled, thou I quite displeased with my batteries, they dont charge fast enough:p

[jcon]

Sunesha, congrats on your new purchase!! I am glad you love it so much.

If I may offer one more suggestion, you may want to start looking at an external flash(speedlight). The 2 I would suggest are the Nikon SB-600 and the Nikon SB-800. I think in your case, the SB-600 would suit you perfectly, and its very cheap. You will find that the extra light provided from the flash will help alot in the low light scenarios.

Enjoy your new toy!!

[Sunesha]

Sunesha, congrats on your new purchase!! I am glad you love it so much.

If I may offer one more suggestion, you may want to start looking at an external flash(speedlight). The 2 I would suggest are the Nikon SB-600 and the Nikon SB-800. I think in your case, the SB-600 would suit you perfectly, and its very cheap. You will find that the extra light provided from the flash will help alot in the low light scenarios.

Enjoy your new toy!!Nice,

I shoot some indoorshooting in my apartment. Cant ever say that lighting is good there. Most shoots done there has been by using the sunlight from the window.


Also my first shoot off a building that my old camera never manage to take as the lighting is very strange. I always wanted to take the picture, just because the nice lines the buildings take. Thou really took me some time to fiddle around with new controls. But I am just so happy, this particular shooting situation always ended up with ugly noise and colors. As it is white bright building with lamps. Also the shadows is strange. Will thou reshoot this building a couple off times. As I think I didnt really nailed the shoot. But this just fantastic, my canon didnt manage to make image that was good enough qualitity.

http://sunesha.se/images/zoom/IRLAZL/nikontestshooting-2.jpg

[Sunesha]

A shoot to compare with, thou nicer sky this moment. Damn Swedish weather. I like this composition better. But really dont think image quality cut it. But a very nice photo IMHO. Forgot this nice composition. Will redo it with my Nikon now.

Canon Powershoot 3 IS :
http://sunesha.se/images/demodumppreview/nikontestshooting-1.jpg