Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: Nikon D80,

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    24

    Nikon D80,

    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" , 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

    Picture:


    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.
    Pleased owner off:
    Canon Powershoot 3 IS
    ---------------
    Nikon D80
    Nikkor 18-70mm DX AF-S

    Suneshas homepage

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    295
    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.
    D300 | MB-D10

    18-105MM F/3.5-5.6G ED AF-S DX VR | 105mm f/1.8 AI-S | 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR | 80-200 f/2.8 | 50mm f1.4 | SB-900 | SB-600

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by britkev View Post
    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.
    Pleased owner off:
    Canon Powershoot 3 IS
    ---------------
    Nikon D80
    Nikkor 18-70mm DX AF-S

    Suneshas homepage

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    516
    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.
    Last edited by LR Max; 03-19-2007 at 07:06 PM.
    Small Town Newspaper Oaf

    East Coast Coorespondant for CRAWL Magazine!!??

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    295
    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.
    D300 | MB-D10

    18-105MM F/3.5-5.6G ED AF-S DX VR | 105mm f/1.8 AI-S | 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR | 80-200 f/2.8 | 50mm f1.4 | SB-900 | SB-600

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    300
    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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,929
    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).
    Jason

    "A coward dies a thousand deaths, a soldier dies but once."-2Pac


    A bunch of Nikon stuff!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Nsw Oz.
    Posts
    916

    Have a look in the "bird thread" in the photo gallery.

    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.
    Kev.

    D200~
    24-70mm f2.8 , 50mm f1.8, 70-200 f2.8 VR.more

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    24
    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
    Pleased owner off:
    Canon Powershoot 3 IS
    ---------------
    Nikon D80
    Nikkor 18-70mm DX AF-S

    Suneshas homepage

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    1,148
    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.
    Nikon D70s
    Nikkor 50mm 1.8D (If you don't have it you need it)
    Nikkor 18-200mm VR II
    SB-600
    Bogen/Manfrotto Tripods/Heads
    NAS (D300, Nikkor 80-200mm (or 70-200mm)f/2.8, Tamron 90mm Macro)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •