dullesguy
Posts: 243
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2000 12:12 am

Nikon Body And Lense

Wed Dec 20, 2000 2:14 am

Hello All,
Well I've been in the process of choosing which new camera body to save for and lenses. I currently use my dads old OM-1..and a saigon 70-160mm f3.5. I couldn't thank my dad enough for the quality camera and equipment he got, i just think its time to move on to take it to another level. Which type of Nikon should I buy, theres so many freakin versions im clueless..thats what I've decided to go with though, the Nikons seem great. I know it'll cost about 1000 bucks for a good Nikon body and an excellent fast glass 70-200mm lense. Is there anywhere I can get a real real good price, or is it about 1000 universal? Thanks for the info.





Stephen
"..the joy of the Lord is your strength" Nehemiah 8:10
 
vaman
Posts: 316
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2000 12:27 pm

RE: Nikon Body And Lense

Wed Dec 20, 2000 2:35 am

May I make a suggestion. i'm not sure what level you are looking for. But here are some different ones.

Level One(what i have)
N60/65- 300-350usd for body
28-80 Sigma lens-100usd
70-300 nikkor ed-300-400
total-700-850 not including bag batteries uv fillters etc.

Level 2
N80- 450-500
70-300 nikkor- 300-400 or 80-200 nikkor ed 2.9 1300-1500.
nikkor 28-80- 130
total(depending on the lens) around 1000 for first option
2000 with other.

If you really want to get up there in price you can go for the N90s of the F5 with the 2.8 lens and other accesories.
The options are unlimited and you can pretty much let your imagination rome. You can spend any where from 800 or so up to whatever you can afford. I just got through buying my camera so I have been doing thorough research now for the past month or so.
Hope this helps
Vaman
 
FastGlass
Posts: 273
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2002 1:01 pm

RE: Nikon Body And Lense

Wed Dec 20, 2000 12:30 pm

Vaman is right, the options ARE unlimited. If you opt for an entry-level body such as the N65 or N80, you can plan on that 80-200 2.8 to cost almost twice as much as the body...
 
n949wp
Posts: 1398
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2000 3:45 pm

RE: Nikon Body And Lense

Wed Dec 20, 2000 1:34 pm

Stephen,

What kind of budget do you have in mind? Do you intend to make the jump to auto-focus, or do you intend to stay with MF? The possibilities are endless with Nikon. Let us know!

'949
 
vaman
Posts: 316
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2000 12:27 pm

RE: Nikon Body And Lense

Wed Dec 20, 2000 2:22 pm

Yeah if you gave us some more information on what exactly you have and what you want to get it would narrow down the possibilities. You can almost count on finding something that fits what you want within the nikon line of cameras/lenses.
I will be happy to help you narrow down your search a little bit
VAMAN
 
dullesguy
Posts: 243
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2000 12:12 am

RE: Nikon Body And Lense

Thu Dec 21, 2000 1:53 am

Hello,
THANKS for all the replies, I plan on saving around 1000 bucks once I get a job that pays. I've heard so many mixed feelings about AF i donno what to get. Ive been using MF and havnt had any trouble with it..all you hafta do is set it to unlimited on app shots that its..(for me). What is the difference between an entry model like N65 rather than those fancy ones? Are the extra features relevant for aviation photography? The lense is more important to me..like the f2.8..



Stephen
"..the joy of the Lord is your strength" Nehemiah 8:10
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Nikon Body And Lense

Thu Dec 21, 2000 2:10 am

Remember that Nikon is considered the number one brand name in popular photography, and you pay for that brand name. It's rather like Mercedes. (Leica is Rolls Royce.)

Well, I can tell you that I paid a lot of money for a Mercedes, and it is a piece of crap that I would never buy again. I'm not saying that Nikons are as well, but my point is that you might end up paying more than what the camera is really worth, just because it says 'Nikon' on the viewfinder.

If money is no object, go for it, by all means. But if you make a post such as you have, it says that money IS an object. Have you considered other brands? You might find that you will get more for your dollar with a Canon or a Minolta.

To further Illustrate, I've also owned 3 BMWs, which are considered less up-market than Mercedes, and each has been absolutely flawless, and I paid a lot less too.

Just something to consider...

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
dullesguy
Posts: 243
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2000 12:12 am

RE: Nikon Body And Lense

Thu Dec 21, 2000 2:41 am

Charles,
Thats true..i have a 1988 528e BMW that mom bought me last spring..best car in my opinion. Someone just told me that Nikon makes the best quality lenses thats why I was thinking Nikon in that post.






Stephen
"..the joy of the Lord is your strength" Nehemiah 8:10
 
thomasphoto60
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 1:04 pm

RE: Nikon Body And Lense

Thu Dec 21, 2000 3:10 am

Best quality lenses......CANON!

As a Leica M4 owner I can confirm that these are indeed the Rolls Royce of 35mm!

Thomas
"Show me the Braniffs"
 
vaman
Posts: 316
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2000 12:27 pm

RE: Nikon Body And Lense

Thu Dec 21, 2000 3:33 am

I am very happy with me nikon. And the best quality lenses are from Nikon in my opinion. I think it really is a thing of brand loyalty. Since we are using cars, it is kinda like buying a Chevrolet truck vs. a ford truck. They are both great and probably about the same less some features here and there but ford loyalists will say that they are the best and visa versa so in my opinion Nikon would be the best for you but you should go to a store like wolf camera of ritz and ask them to take out some cameras for you ot handle and feel and see what you like. As far as lenses the 70-300 ed nikkor is very very very good lense.
VAMAN
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Nikon Body And Lense

Thu Dec 21, 2000 4:54 am

I would add that, in my limited experience, Canon makes a wide range of lenses, from cheap and crappy to truely excellent. For zooms, I've used a cheap 70-300 mm zoom that gave me some grief, and now I use a USM 100-300 which is much better. They have a grade or two above that, and the top of the line is the 'L' series, which is the kind of thing you buy for African safaris for National Geographic layout shoots. I've tried it out once (I think it was the 35-350mm version) and the results were like crystal and the lens itself built like a tank (weighed about as much too  ).

I have no experience with Nikkor lenses, so I can't compare the two.

My 2 cents worth,

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
mikephotos
Posts: 2887
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2000 12:52 am

RE: Nikon Body And Lense

Thu Dec 21, 2000 6:47 am

Both Canon and Nikon lenses are top quality. Yes, I prefer Nikon but that doesn't mean Canon is of less quality. Honestly, I don't think you could tell the difference between a slide taken with a Canon 70-200/f2.8 and a Nikon 80-200/f2.8. Both lines have there pros and cons, so go with what you feel comfortable. I would suggest spending more on glass rather than body. So going with the N65 and a better lens will probably work out better than the N80 and cheap lens, depending on your budget of course. You can always upgrade to the N80/F100/F5 later, when you get that better paying job  

Michael
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: Nikon Body And Lense

Thu Dec 21, 2000 7:15 am

Just piping in again to confirm what Mike just said. Invest in the lens - a good lens and cheap body will make better pics than a cheap lens and a top-of-the-line body. I saw that when I used the Elan II with the crappy 70-300mm lens I was talking about, and using my new lenses on my cheap EOS 500N body.

Charles
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
dullesguy
Posts: 243
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2000 12:12 am

RE: Nikon Body And Lense

Thu Dec 21, 2000 7:55 am

Hello Again,
First of all, I can't say thanks enough to all who reply within such a short amount of time with nice tight explanations of what I'm asking. Ive decided to go with the N65 and a nikon 70-200mm 2.8. I have no true desire to have a big fancy body with all these functions that'll take me another year to figure out what they do, and probally are irrelevant to flying. As far as AF goes, I don't think I need it since I've been managing with my dads oldie. What is the advantage of a real good AF? Just the less amount of workload when it comes to snapping the action shots?


Stephen
"..the joy of the Lord is your strength" Nehemiah 8:10
 
vaman
Posts: 316
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2000 12:27 pm

RE: Nikon Body And Lense

Thu Dec 21, 2000 9:13 am

I tihnk that is a very good descision and if i had that much money is what i would do as well. My mudget was about 700 so that is why i went with my package. Good choice but it will run you about this.
N65-300
Lens-either 900 or 1400 depending
my two cents
VAMAN

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests