Re: lens for D100

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by WMAS 1960, Aug 30, 2003.

  1. WMAS 1960

    WMAS 1960 Guest

    I can't say too much on how to select a lens other than what I did when I
    bought my D100. I ran into the same predicament that you are having. For
    every positive post about a given lens there were negative posts as well and
    vice versa. It got to be very confusing.

    I went from a Coolpix 990 to the D100 and can say that I don't think you will
    be dissappointed. You will definately get better pictures once you get
    familiar with the camera. I never want to put down the 990 and 995 because in
    my opinion they are great cameras and I, for one, am still getting great
    pictures with my 990. I use it for certain things where it is easier to just
    get it out and snap off a few shots or for where the D100 and all it's gear is
    not practical. However the flexibility for using good quality glass, a better
    flash, shooting nature with a good telephoto or airliners or sports which are
    all subjects that the 990 and 995 might have difficulty with. There was a
    learning curve with all the features and color balancing and exposure settings
    etc. Be patient and work with it and you will find it better than the 995
    regardless of the glass.

    The way I decided on my lenses was based on an assessment of my budget and
    needs. There were a few lenses that I would have liked to have but I figured
    that with the body and flash I would only be able to spend so much. My choice
    came down to 2 lenses that fill out most of the range that I would use and
    overlapped only minimally. Thus avoiding a gap in the middle and not wasting
    too much territory on redundency. I chose the 24-85mm AF-S G lens for it's
    light weight and quiet focusing. It is almost instantaneous in focusing and is
    totally silent. Thus from the "Silent Wave" technology. That is my primary
    lens that I use about 90% of the time. It's only fault that I have noticed is
    that it might not be wide enough for me at times. However those times are rare
    and that is an area that I can invest in later when I have more to spend. I
    also enjoy, as I said earlier, taking pictures of Airliners, Wildlife and some
    Sports. Thus I needed something fast and powerful. I decided on the 80-200mm
    2.8 AF D lens that is quite a bit heavier than the other lens. Made of a
    heavier metal than the G lens which is supposed to be a metal alloy but feels
    in weight like it is plastic. The D lens also has an aperature ring which the
    D100 does not require and the G lenses don't have. That is not a worrry though
    as the camera fully operates with both types of lenses. The 80-200 D lens was
    a little cheaper than another lens of the same power and fit better into my
    budget. It is all well balanced with the D100 and not that difficult to hand
    hold when lighting and all is good. I have shot Airliners from 3 or 4 miles
    out and about 4000' with it and have shot hockey as well as soccer. It works
    well in fairly well lit municipal rinks but might be a little too powerful when
    shooting from the boards or penalty boxes. From the stands might be better.
    The 24-85 G at 3.5/4.5 actually worked well with the hockey also and allowed
    wider shots that were more managable and easy to follow but the 3.5 max
    aperature was just too slow for the conditions. I still got some great shots
    but they required some manipulation in Photoshop. I might have been able to
    use a higher ISO also but don't recall how high I went that evening. It was my
    first sports attempt with the D100.

    SO, I would simply suggest your needs. What types of photos do you take and
    what your budget is. If you are like me, you should not be too dissappointed
    with whatever you select as long as it is functional and useful for your needs.
    I did, I would add, for my innitial purchase stick with Nikkor glass. I
    suppose I could have saved some by going with other brands but for my innitial
    purchase I fealt like I might be getting better quality staying with Nikon
    equipment. Incidentally the Flash I bought was the SB-80DX

    Hope this helps you some.
     
    WMAS 1960, Aug 30, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. WMAS 1960

    Terry Guest

    WMAS

    I see that you were in a similar situation to mine. Thanks for the comments.
    What would be a good set of settings to start the D100 off with?

    What do you see as a few of the improvements you see to using your D100 over
    your 990(since I have the 995)?

    Terry




    "WMAS 1960" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I can't say too much on how to select a lens other than what I did when I
    > bought my D100. I ran into the same predicament that you are having. For
    > every positive post about a given lens there were negative posts as well

    and
    > vice versa. It got to be very confusing.
    >
    > I went from a Coolpix 990 to the D100 and can say that I don't think you

    will
    > be dissappointed. You will definately get better pictures once you get
    > familiar with the camera. I never want to put down the 990 and 995

    because in
    > my opinion they are great cameras and I, for one, am still getting great
    > pictures with my 990. I use it for certain things where it is easier to

    just
    > get it out and snap off a few shots or for where the D100 and all it's

    gear is
    > not practical. However the flexibility for using good quality glass, a

    better
    > flash, shooting nature with a good telephoto or airliners or sports which

    are
    > all subjects that the 990 and 995 might have difficulty with. There was a
    > learning curve with all the features and color balancing and exposure

    settings
    > etc. Be patient and work with it and you will find it better than the 995
    > regardless of the glass.
    >
    > The way I decided on my lenses was based on an assessment of my budget and
    > needs. There were a few lenses that I would have liked to have but I

    figured
    > that with the body and flash I would only be able to spend so much. My

    choice
    > came down to 2 lenses that fill out most of the range that I would use and
    > overlapped only minimally. Thus avoiding a gap in the middle and not

    wasting
    > too much territory on redundency. I chose the 24-85mm AF-S G lens for

    it's
    > light weight and quiet focusing. It is almost instantaneous in focusing

    and is
    > totally silent. Thus from the "Silent Wave" technology. That is my

    primary
    > lens that I use about 90% of the time. It's only fault that I have

    noticed is
    > that it might not be wide enough for me at times. However those times are

    rare
    > and that is an area that I can invest in later when I have more to spend.

    I
    > also enjoy, as I said earlier, taking pictures of Airliners, Wildlife and

    some
    > Sports. Thus I needed something fast and powerful. I decided on the

    80-200mm
    > 2.8 AF D lens that is quite a bit heavier than the other lens. Made of a
    > heavier metal than the G lens which is supposed to be a metal alloy but

    feels
    > in weight like it is plastic. The D lens also has an aperature ring which

    the
    > D100 does not require and the G lenses don't have. That is not a worrry

    though
    > as the camera fully operates with both types of lenses. The 80-200 D

    lens was
    > a little cheaper than another lens of the same power and fit better into

    my
    > budget. It is all well balanced with the D100 and not that difficult to

    hand
    > hold when lighting and all is good. I have shot Airliners from 3 or 4

    miles
    > out and about 4000' with it and have shot hockey as well as soccer. It

    works
    > well in fairly well lit municipal rinks but might be a little too powerful

    when
    > shooting from the boards or penalty boxes. From the stands might be

    better.
    > The 24-85 G at 3.5/4.5 actually worked well with the hockey also and

    allowed
    > wider shots that were more managable and easy to follow but the 3.5 max
    > aperature was just too slow for the conditions. I still got some great

    shots
    > but they required some manipulation in Photoshop. I might have been able

    to
    > use a higher ISO also but don't recall how high I went that evening. It

    was my
    > first sports attempt with the D100.
    >
    > SO, I would simply suggest your needs. What types of photos do you take

    and
    > what your budget is. If you are like me, you should not be too

    dissappointed
    > with whatever you select as long as it is functional and useful for your

    needs.
    > I did, I would add, for my innitial purchase stick with Nikkor glass. I
    > suppose I could have saved some by going with other brands but for my

    innitial
    > purchase I fealt like I might be getting better quality staying with Nikon
    > equipment. Incidentally the Flash I bought was the SB-80DX
    >
    > Hope this helps you some.
    >
    >
     
    Terry, Aug 30, 2003
    #2
    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. Mike McWhinney

    Using a Medical Nikkor Lens with Nikon D100

    Mike McWhinney, Jul 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    4,079
    Karl Stauffer
    Mar 28, 2011
  2. Todd Walker

    Re: lens for D100

    Todd Walker, Aug 30, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    320
  3. nick
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    442
  4. john chapman

    Rechargeable AA Batteries in MB-D100 for Nikon D100

    john chapman, Aug 19, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    721
    Ed Ruf
    Aug 19, 2004
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,051
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page