Lenses for D80

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mikey, Feb 12, 2007.

  1. Mikey

    Mikey Guest

    I'm in need of free advice.

    Just brought a Nikon D80 and I looking for lenses to work with it.

    I'm thinking about brands. Your thoughts on other brands for the D80?

    I do a little of everything, except weddings.
     
    Mikey, Feb 12, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mikey

    Freedom55 Guest

    Mikey wrote:
    > I'm in need of free advice.
    >
    > Just brought a Nikon D80 and I looking for lenses to work with it.
    >
    > I'm thinking about brands. Your thoughts on other brands for the D80?
    >
    > I do a little of everything, except weddings.
    >

    Why not stick with Nikon and while you are at it, buy quality, after all
    the D80 is an excellent camera. You should never compromise on glass!
    Above all, get a good prime.

    Ron

    --
    And it really doesn't matter if
    I'm wrong I'm right
    Where I belong I'm right
    Where I belong.

    Lennon & McCartney
     
    Freedom55, Feb 12, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mikey

    Tom Hise Guest

    On 12 Feb 2007 12:46:22 -0800, "Mikey" <> wrote:

    >I'm in need of free advice.
    >
    >Just brought a Nikon D80 and I looking for lenses to work with it.
    >
    >I'm thinking about brands. Your thoughts on other brands for the D80?
    >
    >I do a little of everything, except weddings.


    Why anything but Nikon's Nikkor lenses?
     
    Tom Hise, Feb 12, 2007
    #3
  4. "Freedom55" <"joinertake this out"@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
    news:u35Ah.5638$...

    > Mikey wrote:
    >> I'm in need of free advice.
    >>
    >> Just brought a Nikon D80 and I looking for lenses to work with it.
    >>
    >> I'm thinking about brands. Your thoughts on other brands for the D80?
    >>
    >> I do a little of everything, except weddings.
    >>

    > Why not stick with Nikon and while you are at it, buy quality, after all
    > the D80 is an excellent camera. You should never compromise on glass!
    > Above all, get a good prime.


    I'd say that the Nikkor 35mm f/2 would be an ideal "first lens", as this is
    the equivalent of the classic 50mm f/1.8 for film. If I were to have my
    entire kit stolen and had to start from scratch then this would be the first
    lens I would buy, and could happily live owning just this lens.

    My second most favourite lens is the 17-55 f/2.8 zoom, but this cost me
    about 5x what the prime cost, but then decent zooms don't come cheap. The
    18-70 f/3.5-4.5 kit zoom is also an option costing about the the same as the
    35mm prime which is also worth considering as a first zoom lens. This was
    the lens that got me started and came bundled with my D70s body.

    cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk
     
    Adrian Boliston, Feb 12, 2007
    #4
  5. Tom Hise wrote:
    > On 12 Feb 2007 12:46:22 -0800, "Mikey" <> wrote:
    >
    >> I'm in need of free advice.
    >>
    >> Just brought a Nikon D80 and I looking for lenses to work with it.
    >>
    >> I'm thinking about brands. Your thoughts on other brands for the D80?
    >>
    >> I do a little of everything, except weddings.

    >
    > Why anything but Nikon's Nikkor lenses?


    Indeed, over the last couple of decades, their zooms have improved to
    the point where they're worth consideration, along with the top
    independent developers (Tokina, Tamron, and I guess Sigma these days)
    (the independents dominated the zoom market from when it became
    significant until sometime in the 90s, I'd say, maybe later).

    I acquired my first body-manufacturer zoom last spring, but I doubt it's
    typical of Nikon's designs; it's the 18-70mm kit lens, so it was cheap;
    but I find it quite flare-prone, in ways no other zoom I've used
    (recently that's at least the Tokina 12-24mm f/4, Tokina 80-200mm f/2.8,
    and Tokina 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8, Tamron 28-105mm f/2.8), has been.

    Which brings me to the point -- if you're considering the cheap
    consumer-grade Nikkor lenses, by all means consider the major
    third-party designers as well. If you're buying the top-grade
    professional lenses, well, often there's nothing comparable from any of
    the third-party designers (no 400mm f/2.8, no 600mm f/4, no VR in the
    80-200mm f/2.8, etc.).
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 12, 2007
    #5
  6. Mikey

    Yoshi Guest

    One of the best reasons for buying a Nikon DSLR is to be able to use Nikkor
    lenses.

    Yoshi


    "Mikey" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I'm in need of free advice.
    >
    > Just brought a Nikon D80 and I looking for lenses to work with it.
    >
    > I'm thinking about brands. Your thoughts on other brands for the D80?
    >
    > I do a little of everything, except weddings.
    >
     
    Yoshi, Feb 12, 2007
    #6
  7. Yoshi wrote:
    > One of the best reasons for buying a Nikon DSLR is to be able to use Nikkor
    > lenses.


    But they can be used on Canon bodies, so for some folks, that's no
    reason at all. Mind you, this is not meant to bash N or promote C.

    --
    john mcwilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Feb 12, 2007
    #7
  8. Adrian Boliston wrote:

    > My second most favourite lens is the 17-55 f/2.8 zoom, but this cost me
    > about 5x what the prime cost, but then decent zooms don't come cheap. The
    > 18-70 f/3.5-4.5 kit zoom is also an option costing about the the same as the
    > 35mm prime which is also worth considering as a first zoom lens. This was
    > the lens that got me started and came bundled with my D70s body.


    Since you've owned both, would you happen to have an opinion on the
    behavior of the 17-55 f/2.8 relative to the 18-70 kit lens in terms of
    flare? I'm finding the kit lens quite annoyingly flare-prone, and am
    considering replacing it with the 17-55. Besides, the kit lens is
    annoyingly slow, and f/2.8 is at least a decent step in the right
    direction.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 12, 2007
    #8
  9. David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

    > Since you've owned both, would you happen to have an opinion on the
    > behavior of the 17-55 f/2.8 relative to the 18-70 kit lens in terms of
    > flare? I'm finding the kit lens quite annoyingly flare-prone, and am
    > considering replacing it with the 17-55. Besides, the kit lens is
    > annoyingly slow, and f/2.8 is at least a decent step in the right
    > direction.


    You really ought to try out a 17-35/2.8 instead of the 17-55. The17-55 is a
    bit soft on the wide end. Ritz Camera usually stocks both. Take your
    camera and try both out and see which one you like. I know you will be very
    limited to what you can put the lenses through in-store, but it's better
    than nothing.







    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Feb 12, 2007
    #9
  10. "David Dyer-Bennet" <> wrote in message
    news:45d0f670$0$15007$...

    > Since you've owned both, would you happen to have an opinion on the
    > behavior of the 17-55 f/2.8 relative to the 18-70 kit lens in terms of
    > flare? I'm finding the kit lens quite annoyingly flare-prone, and am
    > considering replacing it with the 17-55. Besides, the kit lens is
    > annoyingly slow, and f/2.8 is at least a decent step in the right
    > direction.


    Here in the UK there are not that many sunny days, or at least the few sunny
    days we get I'm usually at work stuck in some gloomy office. This usually
    means I don't get to encounter that many situations with flare. I guess
    you always use the hood to help prevent flare (as well as to protect the
    lens!) I don't bother with a filter and suspect that using one could make
    flare worse.

    cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk
     
    Adrian Boliston, Feb 12, 2007
    #10
  11. Mikey

    Bill Guest

    "David Dyer-Bennet" <> wrote in message
    news:45d0f670$0$15007$...
    >
    > the 18-70 kit lens in terms of flare? I'm finding the kit lens quite
    > annoyingly flare-prone


    I've been using the 18-70 for months now and have never noticed any
    flare worth mentioning unless a light source is directly hitting the
    front element and entering the lightpath. Reviews I've seen of the 18-70
    tend to say the same thing - it's not overly prone to flare like some
    other lenses.

    Do you use the hood? If not, that could be your problem - light hitting
    the front element.

    Do you use a UV or similar "protection" filter? If yes, the filter may
    not be well coated and causing flare. Try it without the filter to
    compare results.
     
    Bill, Feb 13, 2007
    #11
  12. Bill wrote:
    > "David Dyer-Bennet" <> wrote in message
    > news:45d0f670$0$15007$...
    >>
    >> the 18-70 kit lens in terms of flare? I'm finding the kit lens quite
    >> annoyingly flare-prone

    >
    > I've been using the 18-70 for months now and have never noticed any
    > flare worth mentioning unless a light source is directly hitting the
    > front element and entering the lightpath. Reviews I've seen of the 18-70
    > tend to say the same thing - it's not overly prone to flare like some
    > other lenses.
    >
    > Do you use the hood? If not, that could be your problem - light hitting
    > the front element.


    Yes, I always use the hood. And I'm not counting extreme situations
    where flare is a high probability with *any* lens against it; just
    unexpected ones. No serious light sources in the picture or anything.

    > Do you use a UV or similar "protection" filter? If yes, the filter may
    > not be well coated and causing flare. Try it without the filter to
    > compare results.


    No extra glass in the light path, either.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 13, 2007
    #12
  13. Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
    > David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >
    >> Since you've owned both, would you happen to have an opinion on the
    >> behavior of the 17-55 f/2.8 relative to the 18-70 kit lens in terms of
    >> flare? I'm finding the kit lens quite annoyingly flare-prone, and am
    >> considering replacing it with the 17-55. Besides, the kit lens is
    >> annoyingly slow, and f/2.8 is at least a decent step in the right
    >> direction.

    >
    > You really ought to try out a 17-35/2.8 instead of the 17-55. The17-55
    > is a
    > bit soft on the wide end. Ritz Camera usually stocks both. Take your
    > camera and try both out and see which one you like. I know you will be
    > very
    > limited to what you can put the lenses through in-store, but it's better
    > than nothing.


    17-35 is less than a 2:1; I'm not at all sure it's worth carrying a zoom
    that does that little. I've already got a 35mm f/2, and had a 17mm
    f/3.5 (but sold it).
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 13, 2007
    #13
  14. David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

    >> You really ought to try out a 17-35/2.8 instead of the 17-55. The17-55 is
    >> a
    >> bit soft on the wide end. Ritz Camera usually stocks both. Take
    >> your camera and try both out and see which one you like. I know you
    >> will be very
    >> limited to what you can put the lenses through in-store, but it's
    >> better than nothing.

    >
    > 17-35 is less than a 2:1; I'm not at all sure it's worth carrying a
    > zoom that does that little. I've already got a 35mm f/2, and had a
    > 17mm f/3.5 (but sold it).


    Yes, I felt the same way, but when I realized that the 17-35 performs better
    than the 17-55 this was the right choice for me. I have both the 17-35 and
    28-70 and I'll tell you I would never consider going to the 17-55. The
    17-35's short zoom range really isn't a problem. Like I said, if you can
    try both side-by-side you will definitely like the 17-35, I'm sure of it.







    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Feb 13, 2007
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. jonathan

    stabilizing lenses (what lenses to get w/10D)

    jonathan, Oct 6, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    469
    Ken Alverson
    Oct 6, 2003
  2. Robert

    Lenses for 20D. I have older ef lenses

    Robert, Nov 18, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    505
    JohnR
    Nov 19, 2004
  3. mike

    nikon d80 battery lenses

    mike, Mar 13, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    498
    Oliver Costich
    Mar 14, 2007
  4. Matthew M \(UK\)
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    372
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,446
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page