MacrossMan

Hopefully no more crappy cell phone photos. It is finally here!

Just ordered the VF-11B from the HLJ sale!

Just got this package in today at work.

Finally made a decision on a lens. I'm going with a first generation Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G VR. My understanding is that the new "II" version only has one feature the old one doesn't that isn't significant. Hoping to get it for less than $600.

I understand the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR is a full frame lens (not even sure what full frame is, except that it is expensive). Curious to know if this lens is compatible with the D90. I've been seeing it paired with the D700 and that it is a pro lens. I am only considering it because I have located one for a very good deal. I believe this would be a great lens for shooting my son's sporting events and should fair well with potraits as well??? What do you guys think?

Not always. an f/1.8 prime will cost a lot less than an f/2.8 zoom lens and an f/2 35mm will cost a lot less than a f/2 200mm.

the closest thing to a general rule about lens costs is that the heavier it is, the more expensive it is. the number of parts, material used and amount of glass all determine the price of a lens. since a lens with a high f-stop has a wider aperture, it's going to need more glass than an otherwise similar lens. (an f/4 200mm will be cheaper than an f/2.8 200mm because the f/4 uses smaller diameter elements). of course sometimes a slower lens with the same focal length will cost more because it's made of better materials.

so for similar lenses, the faster the more expensive. for very disparate lenses, not always.

Okay that seems to make sense. Gotta read it a few more times for it to fully absorb...

It all depends on how and where you shoot. Most of my stuff is outdoors, at the zoo, parks, etc with the family and I need a UV filter for that. If you're shooting close up, indoors, etc, yeah, you won't need one. But yes, it's a nice protective element and it's better to be cleaning your replaceable UV filter rather than your thousand dollar lens...

I'll most definitely be getting one for any lens that will be used for outdoors, but anything I do indoors I probably won't have the filter on them. So here's my next question. It appears that the higher the aperature the more expensive the lens is. Am I correct in making this assumption?

End of the line for this Alaska Base Tomahawk.

1/100 Bandai model kit

Ron you're insane mane! Awesome work there brother!

Definitely a great Macross sale. This is what the retail price should always be.

You can say that again!

Okay, I have another question. I notice that aperature or the "f" setting means that a smaller number means that the camera will allow for more lighting to enter the lens effectively corrupting depth of field, but making images that the camera is focused on a lot sharper. So am I to assume that the low "f" number means the camera will then go in reverse and allow for less light to enter the camera? Just want to make sure I have this right. Thanks!

right, with a prime lens, you have to move closer or farther away to get the shot you want. I have to say, I LOVE my copy of the 35mm f/1.8. Even though I have a decent zoom (the tamron), I usually just end up with the 35mm on the camera.

Just remember to get a good quality UV filter for it.

Cool deal! I know this is going to sound stupid, but what are those filters for? Is it to protect against UV light? I see all sorts of filters available and I assume they are for filtering something out you don't want, but is UV bad for lenses or something?

Also, I see you mention Tamron in some of your suggestions for a lens. Part of my reason for choosing the Nikon is because from research, and I may be wrong, is because they have a reputation for making some of finer lenses available on the market today. I assume Tamron is a generic brand that makes lenses for both Nikon and Cannon. Of the generic brands, would you say Tamron is one you would highly reccommend if you are not going to buy a Nikon lens? I saw where you said in another post that things get off and you have to reset some things some times, but it wasn't a big deal for you. Don't think I want to deal with that type of thing early on.

Lastly, the LCD on the back on the D90 is not the typical LCD used for taking pictures right? I'm going to have to go back to the old school and use the viewfinder right? I think I read that the LCD can be used as a viewfinder so to speak, but its main purpose is to provide playback for your images and that the quality is so good you just about rest assure the image is an accurate interpretation of what the photo will look like. Thanks again!

If you ever have any questions on what we're saying, please ask. If you're trying to stay around 250 you'll probably need to stick with either the kit lenses like the 18-55mm and the 50-200 (you'll still be around 300 bucks if you get both new) or just get one good prime lens (the 35mm f/1.8 runs around 200$ new)

or you can try ebay... I have the tamron 28-75 which I'm pretty happy with:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Tamron-28-75-F2-8-XR-A...#ht_1601wt_1029

Okay, so I think this is more what I am wanting. I'd rather pay a little more on the front end and have a prime lens I can use for everyday shooting and develop my skills. Once I've done all I can with the lens and ready to step up, I'll still have a nice piece of glass in my arsenal. So let me ask you this. With the 35mm f/1.8 I'll basically have to phycially get closer or further away from my subjects right? There's no zoom; just focus? I can deal with this as long as I am able to get nice group shots of family members. I know this lens will more than likely be my primary lens for my tabletop studio shots of my toys.

Before you start dumping big money on non DX glass, you need to figure out what you're gonna shoot. A non cropped sensor has benefits, wider shots (good for environmental and landscape photography), better low light performance (if you're talking the same megapixels, if you're talking 12 versus 21 then you get less performance). On the other hand, a cropped sensor gives you better zoom performance and generally smaller, lighter bodies. It's always tempting to buy the uber camera but if you're not going to be taking advantage of those capabilities or if it's stuff that's just not important to you then what use is it?

To me, the 18-200 sounds like your best bet. At 18mm it's a decent wide angle and it will give you the reach to be able to snap some shots of the kid playing ball. Or get a short fast lens for the toys and indoor stuff and a longer lens like the 70- 300mm for the football games, depending on the intensity of the light the D90 will give you clean images up to ISO 1600-2000, that plus using spot metering should let you keep your shutter speed up... unless you want to drop 4k on the new 300mm f/2.8

Damn eugimon! Just when I'm starting to understand some of the lingo you mash my brain I'm gonna go check out the forum again to see if I can decipher what you're talking about. I think the 18-200 should be a good starting point. Trying to stay within my budget. By the time my son starts football in July I'll probably be ready to invest in a lens better suited for sports.

Really appreciate all the info you guys are providing. As long as you guys are answering I'll keep asking. Many thanks!

EDIT:

Just realized the 18-200 cost more than what I paid for the body! I understand this is not uncommon, but I am in no way prepared to shell out that kind of dough for a lens just yet. I'm trying to stay under $250 and achieve all of the above or at least one of the above very good.

Internal vs. External is not a big issue -- the only time it really makes a difference is when your working distances are so small that the extrusion matters (the Nikkor 60mm Macro is a prime example of this). Other than this, a lot of the difference is really about convenience, which can be catered for with your SOP with the lens. IF/ EF can be a deciding factor when it gets down to a lens, but it shouldn't be that high on your list.

I would like to ask what do you expect to shoot? A 35mm on a digital body (with crop factor) is roughly equivalent to a 50mm normal, which makes it ideal for a walkabout lens. (A 50mm on a digital makes to 75mm, which isn't that great.) It can be a starting point, but that depends on what your intended subjects are.

An issue I have specifically with the 35mm f/1.8 is that (IIRC) it's a DX lens. But let's put it one side for now...

I won't really recommend the 24-120mm as a starter. It translate to a 36mm to 180mm lens on a digital body -- the short end is not quite short enough, the long end not quite long enough, so it suffers from being in a range easily covered by other lens. 36mm isn't a "natural" feel, and a lot of times you want wider, to capture a wider field of vision while being close in. There is also this issue with the f/3.5 to f/5.6, constraining the long end (IMO quite a bit).

The 18-105mm is a decent place to start though. The digital 27mm-155mm isn't quite ideal, but the short end is wide enough and the long end is good for medium range work. It's a convenience lens, good to learn some habits on, and it's flexible enough to be a walkabout lens. Pity about the DX, but it does help to bring costs down.

eugimon's suggestion of the 18-200mm also has merits, but to be perfectly honest, I started with a 18-70mm, and that's a great range to start learning from. Telephotos have a different skillset to learn (breath control/ posture becomes much more important, for one), which you might not want to bring into the picture yet.

Thanks Lynx7725. I plan on shooting my Macross stuff with some tabletop lighting and a box. I also plan to take family photos which most events will be indoors with basic indoor lighting. Some events might be outdoors, but they will mainly be on the inside. When my son starts back playing football I also plan to shoot his ball games. I'm looking for a good, general purpose, all around lens that I can use to learn, grow, and develop my skills.

I made my own!

Damn pondo! Those look like they would hold a tank! Nice!

your welcome! I learned a lot from that site and I like to browse their member submitted photos, some of them are spectacular.

I hope you enjoy the D90! What lenses did you end up getting for it?

Still enjoying the forum man. I only purchased the body. I'm still undecided on the lens. I'm really leaning towards the 35mm f1.8 (if I entered that right). It runs for a couple hundred bucks and has the internal moving parts that I am seeing is a better quality to have vs. extending parts. My next lens is probably going to be something with internal focusing, but more powerful for what i plan on shooting.

http://photo.net/learn/making-photographs/exposure

and check out the other "learning" articles off of the front page of photo.net

I would also recommend a good book:

Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson is a great resource for beginners

and I also like

Perfect Exposure by Michael Freeman

Thanks eugimon! Excellent information on this forum. I now know about aperature and how it affects depth of field. Now on to ISO settings. D90 is en route and has a scheduled arrival for Tuesday the 15th.

I know, right? Rapping delivery boys!

Now that is funny! Yo 'Q' I've gotta package for you!

I can use a lil humor..

Say, bro you leave yourself wide open for some of the wisest cracks! They've still got you tagged Head Pilot!

With this new sale offer, I practically get free EMS shipping and save some without buying anything else

Exactly what he said! My available funds for Macross? Zero! Damn what I wouldn't do for about $1000.00 right now.

Absolutely incredible!!!

Sorry for gloating.

Damn I offered $250 also but she didn't take it. When I saw the other set sold I panicked and use the bing to buy it.

Damn you guys are some cheap basitds! I mean, I'm all for a getting a great deal, which $300 for those three pieces were a steal, but come on, losing out for the sake of saving fifty more bucks? There is something inherently wrong and greedy here fellas. I can do nothing but celebrate the awesome catch, but I would have been all over that deal for $300.

What sort of information are you looking for? I prefer community sites like photo.net. Most of the posters are either professionals or serious hobbyists and if you avoid the flame wars (which is better, X or Y?) then you'll get some great information.

I was initially looking for some assistance on making the best selection of camera. I actually got that here from you guys as well as going into a local store and getting my hands on some bodies. When I see you guys mention stuff like depth of field or suggest lenses I have to go and look these things up and see what they are and they affect photos. Stuff like ISO settings, exposure, f ratings and what not. I'm completely ignorant to the field so I am really just trying to learn all the lingo. I plan on registering for a beginner's photography course at my local Bedford Camera and Video store. I think that will give me a nice foundation to build on.

By the way, I picked up the Nikon D90 and hope to have it next week some time.

Thanks to Depthcharge. Items packed nicely and shipped quickly. Easy transaction!

take *everything* he says with a huge grain of salt... he's almost universally not respected.

really rangefinders like that are more for serious, experienced photographers than for the casual shutterbug/guy just getting into photography. that said, I'd sell my soul and take out an advance on the souls of my future children to get my hands on one.

also, Ken Rockwell is an arrogant, self-righteous tool.

I could sense the guy's arrogance in reading some of his reviews. Not knowing much about photography, the information seemed "good" to me as a source for it. Do you guys know of any reputable and reknowned photographers with similar websites?

You guys might already know about this website, but I have been reading this guys' reviews and reccomendations. I've been learning a lot from reading the information here. The website is: www.kenrockwell.com

I was reading about the Leica M9 and that camera reminds me so much of when I used to sell home audio equipment for a living. The higher stuff didn't have all the bells and whistles that you see on the lower stuff. Everything in the higher end audio gear had a clear purpose. There was nothing there to get in the way of comprimising the sound. They're always plain looking and to those that didn't know any better they would look right over it because there is no "flash" or "wow" factor when looking. But man oh man when you fire it up and turn on the sound?!?!? Schweet!!!

I'm still ignorant about this photography stuff, but if I had the money I swear I'd drop it for that M9!

Waiting on some 1/48 goodness to arrive. Roy's VF-1S with a set of Super & Strike Parts.

1/48's.....WOOH-SAH!!!!

Just like anything else, the price is subjective to whoever is buying. Look at the 1/48 Thunder Hammer kit that just sold for $600.00 in the for sale threads. There are still die-hard 1/48 fans of Yamato Valks and I happen to be one of them. $250.00 is a good price.