Got a DSLR!

[Phaedrus2129]

Ripster will be pleased to know that my first SLR (aside from that Pentax K1000) is a Nikon. The D3000 to be precise, with the AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm 1/3.5-5.6 kit lens. Yeah yeah, entry level crap, but miles better than that Kodak point and shoot.


Gonna be snapping pictures all day today.

[Azuremen]

Yup, dSLR > PNS, provided you don't leave it on auto mode.

And Nikon. Hmm. I hear sociopaths like Nikons

[Azuremen]

Congrats!!  Welcome to the Nikon Club.

Did you get the VR version of the 18-55? - it's actually quite good and certainly better than the Canon kit lens.

I really like my 35mm 1.8 as well.  It has some barrel distortion problems but Lightroom takes that right away.

The Canon kit lens is pretty bad, I'll give it that.

I think a 35mm F/1.8 would be a perfect lens to have on a crop sensor. My 50mm f/1.8 lets me escape using the flash fairly often, but kind of hassle with the crop sensor.

[Azuremen]

Yeah, my 1.8 50mm doesn't get as much use.

Yeah I can imagine. I need to figure out what I want to do with my setup. I've just got a couple of lenses with my 400D (XTi) and I can't make up my mind if I want to get a few EF-S lenses and later upgrade to like a 50D or such, or just do it live and go for a 5D or 5DmkII.

Guess I can always sell the glass to someone if I do for full frame at some point.

Camera gear is worse than keyboards in this regard. . .

[WhiteRice]

makes your wang look HUGE!

[Azuremen]

I'm not that big on full frame.  If you want razor sharp get a medium format film camera.  I'd spend the money on good Flash.

Yeah, nothing really compares to a medium format camera. Worked with an old Mamiya when I was doing some class work a few years back. Mind blowing sharpness, but I was too green to really know how to take advantage of it. Hindsight is 20/20 as they say.

Have to say I am just a touch jealous of all the toys you have. Though you seem to have everything documented (and watermarked).

But where are the Lego photographers?

[firestorm]

Congrats!  There's plenty of times I wish I had gone with Nikon.  If nothing else, just so my 70-200mm f/2.8 wouldn't be off white.  It's big enough to make people go, "Holy crap!"  Being off white, it stands out and I've had people ask me who I'm shooting for.  Nobody seems to notice the $400 (i.e. cheap) Rebel XT on the back end of the lens.

[Phaedrus2129]

So, any recommendations for a decent macro lens <$500?

[RoboKrikit]

Another D60 shot, this time of my ancient but fine D200.

I'm still using my D200.  It is noisier than newer cameras in low light but still pretty sweet.

[Half-Saint]

I'm getting that 80-200 f2.8 next.

[Pylon]

55-200 VR is good. I use one with my N90 film camera and it actually works quite well despite being a DX lens.

[firestorm]

You might consider the Tamron or Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8.  I know it's a bit out of your listed budget, but the Tamron can be found for $650-700 if you shop around.  The Sigma is a bit more.  Either will have better optics, and a faster and constant aperture across all focal lengths and both are macro lenses.

I looked at both, as well as the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L non-IS.  I initially gave the Tamron a shot.  IIRC, the Tamron is sharper than the Sigma and I was quite happy with the optics.  People say it is slow to focus, but as with my Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, I think the noise of the motor is misleading.  I haven't found the Canon to be appreciably faster at focusing, certainly not $500 faster.  The Tamron is also significantly lighter and has a 6 year warranty.

The Tamron has a nice auto/manual focus collar that you simply have to shift forward and back and worked fine for me, which is a reasonable compromise over having full-time-manual.  You might lose a little focus lock when shifting the collar, if you're into auto focusing and then manually tweaking.

3rd party lenses aren't for everyone though, but I believe they're fine for the hobbyist on a budget.  I'm not sure how well Tamron's play with Nikon's, but I love my Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 - that's vastly better than the kit lenses.  I ended up with the Canon version, mostly because I didn't want to second guess my purchase when I had the cash for the Canon and I wanted the full-time-manual that the USM motor provides.  I gave up macro by doing so, which I do miss.  The min focus distance for the Canon is a whopping 3 feet!

Just something to consider.  It's pricey, and no IS/VR, but very sharp and faster (the f/2.8 makes up for the lack of IS/VR somewhat.)  FWIW, I use my 70-200mm a lot more than I originally expected.

[woody]

My first DSLR lens were Tamron zoom. Hell, they were sweet sharp, but auto focus was off by a huge degree. What I read over the web turned right - Tamron have big QC issues. Not feeling adventurous, I returned it and got prime 50mm Canon f/1.4 instead.
Good brand that fell into the "Made in China" trap?

[McLaren]

Camera bodies come and go, but you will accumulate lenses.

Recommendations:
1. Buy the lenses you shoot with. For example, I've had long lenses and short lenses, for everything from a SLR up to large format, but I find myself shooting with just three focal lengths for 90% of my shots: a wide (24-28mm 35mm equivalent), a standard (45-50mm) and a long (85-100mm). However, that's the way *I* shoot. You probably shoot different subjects - buy what you need for those subjects.

2.  Buy the best lenses you can. Cheap lenses (consumer-grade by the camera manufacturer or third-party) are rarely a bargain. I'd recommend buying a better quality used lens over those. Keep in mind that your camera bodies will come and go as you upgrade, but lenses - good lenses - are something that you hang on to. Most of my early lens purchases got sold off long ago as I learned to recognize their shortcomings. I now shoot with professional-grade non-zoom lenses. Expensive? No, not necessarily, but probably somewhat more expensive than a new cheap lens. KEH Camera Brokers is a good source for top-notch used equipment.

3.  Try some 'fast glass'. If your camera can take an inexpensive old 50mm lens (F1.4-F1. get one and use it. People just getting into photography start off with (ahem) inexpensive (ahem) zooms with a max aperture of F4-F5.6, and have *no idea* of what they're missing by being able to let in 8x the light (difference between an F4 and F1.4 lens) and ability to have a narrow depth of field. A 50mm lens is just about the perfect focal length for portraits with most DSLRs. Another advantage of the 'fast glass' is that it's easier to focus accurately with a wide aperture. Zooms are more convenient to use, but I much prefer having the wider aperture. YMMV however.

The other thing I'd recommend it to learn how to make the most of the lenses you have. Even a mediocre lens will perform well if you know how to get the most out of it. Shoot with moderate apertures. Control flare. Take the damn 'scratch' filter off the end of the lens. Use a good tripod unless you're doing photojournalism. Make *sure* you (or the camera) have focused on the most important part of your subject - the eyes if you're shooting a person.

  -- Bill

[mike]

My first DSLR lens were Tamron zoom. Hell, they were sweet sharp, but auto focus was off by a huge degree. What I read over the web turned right - Tamron have big QC issues. Not feeling adventurous, I returned it and got prime 50mm Canon f/1.4 instead.
Good brand that fell into the "Made in China" trap?

Tamron got started in the 1950s when Japan was categorised as the China of the times. If you manufacture to a generous enough price, even China can produce reasonable quality goods.

Of course most mass-market lens manufacturers have quality control issues; even Canon (and probably Nikon too). Most people don't notice the issues.

There's a story about Leica outsourcing the manufacturing of one of their lenses to Minolta who weren't exactly in the bargain basement market. When Leica performed their own quality control on the delivered lenses, they rejected 75% as being too far out of specification.

[RoboKrikit]

Haha - Ken Rockwell hates the new Nikon 85mm DX Micro lens.

If he hates it on one page, he probably likes it on the other page, but tells you not to buy it in the same sentence 'cause you don't need it. The 5-500mm goes everywhere and it's just as good unless you shoot architecture.

[Pylon]

Well, this is basically the summary for KR's site:

1.) Super saturated photos are awesome.
2.) Use Fuji Velvia for #1. And negative film isn't that great.
3.) You don't need a good camera (despite the fact that he owns extremely good gear, and a ton of it, yet takes photos that most would actually consider mediocre)
4.) The D40 D3100 is all you need for good photos.
5.) Third party lenses (except Tokina of course) suck and I'm going to use double standards to judge them against Nikkor.
6.) Leica is awesome.
7.) Don't use tripods.
8.) Large format view cameras (mounted on a tripod, of course) are best for landscape shots.
9.) Macs are awesome.
10.) You don't need anything more than an 18-55 and a 55-200 VR for most shots.

[firestorm]

Good brand that fell into the "Made in China" trap?

I don't know about the whole line, but not as far as I know.  My Tamron says "Made in Japan" on it.  

I haven't read reviews on lenses in a while, but I got the impression that the problems with Tamrons are generally a result of their unlicensed 3rd party designs.  Since they reverse engineer the Canon EOS mount, they can't guarantee that it will work on all EOS bodies at all times.  This was one of the reasons I took the Tammy 70-200 back... I'm itching to upgrade from the Rebel XT and didn't want to risk having to give up a lens for a few weeks like Tamron updates/repairs the lens.

I don't know if it matters which Tamron we're talking about either.  I paid $420 for my 17-50mm f/2.8.  I would automatically imagine the build quality and QC on it would be better than the $250 18-200mm.  They certainly can be a gamble (any lens can be), but we have a local camera shop that has prices that are virtually the same as bhphoto.com and amazon.com, with a no hassle 2 week return/exchange period.

[woody]

I don't know about the whole line, but not as far as I know.  My Tamron says "Made in Japan" on it.  

...

I don't know if it matters which Tamron we're talking about either.  I paid $420 for my 17-50mm f/2.8.

It was exactly this 17-50mm, f/2.8. From internet, the success ratio seems to be around 1/3 AFAIR. Mine had "Made in Japan", too, but from what I've read they outsourced the production to China (of course, just internet rumors).

The local support told me it's probably an EEPROM inside which is wrongly calibrated. Sucks, because I liked the lens, but since I paid for AF it better be there.

To make some keyboard reference with Costar, it doesn't matter that much where it's manufactured, but all the rest like materials, equipment, workflow, QC, etc.
Lens are too delicate machinery to be taken lightly.

[Earth Worm Jim]

Congratulations, Have fun.

I've lost count of how many cameras I've got.

[Earth Worm Jim]

I think you lost a "n" and a "t" too.

So do I!

[firestorm]

From internet, the success ratio seems to be around 1/3 AFAIR. Mine had "Made in Japan", too, but from what I've read they outsourced the production to China (of course, just internet rumors).

The local support told me it's probably an EEPROM inside which is wrongly calibrated. Sucks, because I liked the lens, but since I paid for AF it better be there.

Mine is an older version of that lens (I don't recall the "XR" in the description, but it is probably the same thing.)

I'd assume it's a software calibration issue too, possibly related to the reverse engineered mount.  I'm not sure about 1 in 3 ratio though.  I would assume that many of the people who went through multiple copies had to do so because most in-stock came from the same batch of production.  Otherwise, it has a very high rating on Amazon.  Sure, most of are probably people who don't know any better, but there's also plenty of people who would give it 1 star if the tape on the box was crooked (exaggeration of course.)

You know... I've never checked mine.  I've never noticed any issues, but I didn't really know any better when I got it, and I haven't really thought about it since I read about the issues when I bought it.  If it the AF is off, it can't be by much.  I think I'll check it someday soon though.

[firestorm]

I have the Nikon 18-200.  That is an awesome walk around lens for  travel.

Not my sharpest lens but photography is not about sharpness.   Often it's timing.

Show Image

There are times I've thought I should pick up something similar, for the same reasons.  Pack one lens, no need to swap lenses (I repeatedly do so at zoos), and if it is lost or damaged, it's vastly cheaper than my current 3 lenses combined.

[woody]

If it the AF is off, it can't be by much.  I think I'll check it someday soon though.

Mine AF was off by too much (hmm, subjectively) compared to a good MF. You'd better check yours.
Funny how they could produce good lens and screw up on some calibration data.

[Supergleep]

DX at 105mm Macro for increased DOF!  Another D60 shot, this time of my ancient but fine D200.  

Show Image

Mmmmm... Gitzo tripod and Really Right Stuff ballhead...  /jealous

Nice setup Ripster :)

[RoboKrikit]

That is my ideal setup. Haven't pulled the trigger on it as I've been spending less time doing nature stuff since we had our lilkrikit.

[Pylon]

And I don't use a tripod anymore since my last one broke. Improvising on site FTW (though I have missed a huge number of shots because I don't have a tripod).