«

Hello all. Can some of you good folks here help me out here? I am thinking
about buying the Nikon D80. I don't want to start or hear flames either for
or against Canon/Nikon, just looking for some advice here.

I will probably go for the D80 mostly because it fits my hand much better
than say, the Canon 30D. There are other little "pleasantries" I like,
especially the viewfinder. I'm at a loss though, of the type of lens or
lenses to purchase with the body. There are two types of shooting that I
do: (1) family shots of my two little girls (indoor and outdoor) and (2)
landscape style photography, mostly of my vineyards here in Priorat (Spain).
Along those lines I like to do shots of vines, overall vine/row shots,
background "mountain" shots, and I would also like to do very close-up
(macro?) shots.

So what to do here? I have the feeling that buying just one lens (I assume
a tele-wide) will NOT be a one-size-fits-all solution. I get the feeling I
will need two, but simply don't know which way to go here. Of course, my
budget is not unlimited and I simply can't plop down another $2000 in glass
on top of the $900 I will be spending on the body.

Thoughts anyone? TIA.

G7

Gary,

I bought the D80 basic set with 2 kit lenses in December last year - 18-55
and 55-200. These kit lenses are very convenient. I will definitely buy
something else, probably 18-200VR, its price is going down and I'm expecting
it to be very acceptable pretty soon. I also bought couple close-up lenses
2X and 3X as well as couple filters. I got a ring allowing me to use 58mm
Wide lense derived from my Canon GL2 camcorder. It works more or less
acceptable excluding some vinieting in the corners. I also bought two
remotes, wired and IR, very convenient devices!

If you want to run through a quick review/advice just visit
www.kenrockwell.com - this guy publishes his new experience as soon as he
gets a new device, lense, etc.

Just D.

Gary Seven wrote:
[]
> So what to do here? I have the feeling that buying just one lens (I
> assume a tele-wide) will NOT be a one-size-fits-all solution. I get
> the feeling I will need two, but simply don't know which way to go
> here. Of course, my budget is not unlimited and I simply can't plop
> down another $2000 in glass on top of the $900 I will be spending on
> the body.
>
> Thoughts anyone? TIA.
>
> G7

In the long run, you will probably spend that $2000 and far more.

David

Hi Gary,

You will be more than pleased with the 18-200VR, if you get it you do
not need the kit lenses at all. However if you plan doing landscapes and
macro photography I would go for two additional lenses, in total would
be:

- 18-200VR is your walkaround lens of choice and family photographing etc.
If you go for this one you do not need kit ones, it is really lightweight
and
the zoom range is very convenient.

- 12-24mm f/4 for landscapes since the 18-200 is not really a wide angle.
I personally do not like the slight distorsion of the Nikkor 12-24mm but
I think
it is the one for the job.

- Proper macro lenses are very expensive and I have read that macro filters
do not
really match the performance. Since I pressume you want macro photography
for static lifeless subjects where you can get as close as you want, why
not
using a prime super fast super cheap lens like the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4? I
would
be curious about responses on using this lens as macro. One great
advantage
is that because it is very fast you will blur backgrounds as much as you
want
and get good results even in dim lighting conditions.

HTH,

Regards,
Giovanni

"Gary Seven" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Hello all. Can some of you good folks here help me out here? I am
> thinking
> about buying the Nikon D80. I don't want to start or hear flames either
> for
> or against Canon/Nikon, just looking for some advice here.
>
> I will probably go for the D80 mostly because it fits my hand much better
> than say, the Canon 30D. There are other little "pleasantries" I like,
> especially the viewfinder. I'm at a loss though, of the type of lens or
> lenses to purchase with the body. There are two types of shooting that I
> do: (1) family shots of my two little girls (indoor and outdoor) and (2)
> landscape style photography, mostly of my vineyards here in Priorat
> (Spain).
> Along those lines I like to do shots of vines, overall vine/row shots,
> background "mountain" shots, and I would also like to do very close-up
> (macro?) shots.
>
> So what to do here? I have the feeling that buying just one lens (I
> assume
> a tele-wide) will NOT be a one-size-fits-all solution. I get the feeling
> I
> will need two, but simply don't know which way to go here. Of course, my
> budget is not unlimited and I simply can't plop down another $2000 in
> glass
> on top of the $900 I will be spending on the body.
>
> Thoughts anyone? TIA.
>
> G7
>

A real "sleeper" of a lens, is the 28-105mm. It is incredibly sharp, covers
most people's most often used range, has nice bokeh, and has a good macro
mode and even better is that it is about $250 US, has no queue of people
waiting to pounce on every one that becomes available, and no battery
draining VR mode (nor does it "need" one). I suggest you go to
www.dpreview.com and search on 28-105mm and see the sample shots people have
posted. It is a very impressive bargain Nikon lens.

George

george wrote:

> A real "sleeper" of a lens, is the 28-105mm. It is incredibly sharp,
> covers most people's most often used range, has nice bokeh, and has a
> good macro mode and even better is that it is about $250 US, has no
> queue of people waiting to pounce on every one that becomes
> available, and no battery draining VR mode (nor does it "need" one).
> I suggest you go to www.dpreview.com and search on 28-105mm and see
> the sample shots people have posted. It is a very impressive bargain
> Nikon lens.

Good call on this lens. It's a bit slow and the front rotates which makes
it a bit of a pain under some situations, but an overall excellent lens.
It's definitely the 18-200mm VR killer for a third of the price. I've got a
lot a use out of mine back in the day.






Rita

"David J Taylor" <david->
wrote in message news:anZYh.8626$ k...

> In the long run, you will probably spend that $2000 and far more.
>
> David

Not everyone is a compulsive gearhead.

"Gary Seven" <> wrote in message news:...

> Hello all. Can some of you good folks here help me out here? I am thinking
> about buying the Nikon D80. I don't want to start or hear flames either for
> or against Canon/Nikon, just looking for some advice here.
>
> I will probably go for the D80 mostly because it fits my hand much better
> than say, the Canon 30D. There are other little "pleasantries" I like,
> especially the viewfinder.

The D80 is an excellent choice for those reasons (finally a really
good viewfinder again in an affordable Nikon!) plus well laid
out controls. If it would meter easily with my many manual-focus
lenses (the more expensive D200 does...), I would have one
immediately.

> I'm at a loss though, of the type of lens or
> lenses to purchase with the body. There are two types of shooting that I
> do: (1) family shots of my two little girls (indoor and outdoor) and (2)
> landscape style photography, mostly of my vineyards here in Priorat (Spain).
> Along those lines I like to do shots of vines, overall vine/row shots,
> background "mountain" shots, and I would also like to do very close-up
> (macro?) shots.

I was surprised by most of the suggestions - with most leaning
more toward convenience than quality. If you want fairly inexpensive
convenience, get the 18-70mm Nikkor - it will do pretty much
everything you mention, and do it fairly well (27mm-105mm
equivalent in 35mm terms). Add a 60mm f2.8 (90mm) macro for
the highest quality macro work if you want. If you get that one,
you could skip the zoom and get higher quality and greater speed
with the 35mm f2 (52mm equivalent) and maybe a 20mm f2.8
for wide angle (30mm equivalent). This set with maybe a 50mm
f1.8 (75mm equivalent, fine, and cheap) or 85mm f1.8 (or 127mm
equivalent) covers all your bases very sharply, and with fast lenses
that can be used wide open (except the 20mm). For a "longish"
zoom, the 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 (36-127mm equivalent) rather
good compared with most others in its range, and it could be
combined with the Tokina 12-24mm or Sigma 10-20mm, if you
want super wide and can take a hit in image quality...

> So what to do here? I have the feeling that buying just one lens (I assume
> a tele-wide) will NOT be a one-size-fits-all solution. I get the feeling I
> will need two, but simply don't know which way to go here. Of course, my
> budget is not unlimited and I simply can't plop down another $2000 in glass
> on top of the $900 I will be spending on the body.

If you are not looking for the very highest quality, but good
useful range with a convenient, affordable lens, go with the
18-70mm - and maybe add some non-zooms later...
--
David Ruether

http://www.donferrario.com/ruether

Gary Seven wrote:
> I will probably go for the D80 mostly because it fits my hand much
> better than say, the Canon 30D. There are other little
> "pleasantries" I like, especially the viewfinder. I'm at a loss
> though, of the type of lens or lenses to purchase with the body.
> There are two types of shooting that I do: (1) family shots of my
> two little girls (indoor and outdoor) and (2) landscape style
> photography, mostly of my vineyards here in Priorat (Spain). Along
> those lines I like to do shots of vines, overall vine/row shots,
> background "mountain" shots, and I would also like to do very
> close-up (macro?) shots.

Get the 18-135mm kit lens. You can't beat the price and for a kit lens it is
a _very_ good lens, see
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/993/cat/13 for a
review.

It will cover all your needs except for the macro photos. For those look at
macro lens line from Sigma, maybe the 70mm or 105mm. For third-party lenses
they are surprisingly good, pretty much in the same ballpark as
manufacturers lenses, see http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/30.
If you can afford it, then the Nikon 105mm f/2.8D AF Micro will outclass any
other macro lens, see
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...ate/1129408622.
But it is _much_ more expensive.

Stay away from the Nikon 60mm f/2.8D AF Micro, it doesn't seem to do too
well, even the Sigma 50mm got a better picture quality.

jue

On 2007-04-29 07:02:06 -0700, "Jürgen Exner" <> said:

> Gary Seven wrote:
>> I will probably go for the D80 mostly because it fits my hand much
>> better than say, the Canon 30D. There are other little
>> "pleasantries" I like, especially the viewfinder. I'm at a loss
>> though, of the type of lens or lenses to purchase with the body.
>> There are two types of shooting that I do: (1) family shots of my
>> two little girls (indoor and outdoor) and (2) landscape style
>> photography, mostly of my vineyards here in Priorat (Spain). Along
>> those lines I like to do shots of vines, overall vine/row shots,
>> background "mountain" shots, and I would also like to do very
>> close-up (macro?) shots.
>
> Get the 18-135mm kit lens. You can't beat the price and for a kit lens it is
> a _very_ good lens, see
> http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/993/cat/13 for a
> review.
>
> It will cover all your needs except for the macro photos. For those look at
> macro lens line from Sigma, maybe the 70mm or 105mm. For third-party lenses
> they are surprisingly good, pretty much in the same ballpark as
> manufacturers lenses, see http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/30.
> If you can afford it, then the Nikon 105mm f/2.8D AF Micro will outclass any
> other macro lens, see
> http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...ate/1129408622.
But
>
> it is _much_ more expensive.
>
> Stay away from the Nikon 60mm f/2.8D AF Micro, it doesn't seem to do too
> well, even the Sigma 50mm got a better picture quality.
>
> jue

Mostly baloney, especially the bit about macro.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor