Andre Labonte
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.2 #8 · Thoughts on a d5100 DX lightweight setup | |
On FX, the 28-300 covers just about everything you need for a family walk around lens, so rather than spend more money on getting a DX body and thus other DX lenses, just go with a D700 / 28-300 combo.
The other option, if you want even lighter than the D700 / 28-300 combo, would be to go with a D5100 / 18-200 combo. Same deal, covers it all, but significantly ligher and smaller than any FX setup.
In my mind, the "family walk around" kit should be as simple as possilbe, so switching lenses is not desired. I suppose a 35 f/1.8 or a 50 f/1.8 would be a nice compliment to the 18-200, but anything more than that seems to defeat the purpose in my mind.
Just my thoughts offered as something to ponder. I hope this helps.
Cheers,
Andre
millsart wrote:
Dave,
How do you think something like the newest 28-300 works vs a 55-2/300 over the same range ?
I've used the so called superzooms ages ago and they were always pretty poor. I'm sure things may have changed a bit though in the past few years.
I've always experienced that less zoom range on a given lens usually leads to better quality too. Easier to make a 55-300 range than trying to squeeze 28-300 into it, but who knows if that still holds true.
As a whole though, I've never really been all that into the wide range zooms just because they are a bit slow, and never quite liked the overall look or rendering of those type of lenses.
I'm thinking for me, something like the 35mm f1.8 could work better as I can shoot with a bit shallower DOF and what I'd guess would be better overall optics.
With my Leica, and then NEX, I got pretty spoiled by the overall looking of lenses like the Zeiss 25 and 35mm ZM and their amazing wide open sharpness. I do realize their are Zeiss for Nikon, but given the $1000+ per lens price tags and being MF only, I just don't think its very good bang for the buck for me.
I could afford it I guess, but on the other hand, buying a $200 lens with AF sure does beat a $1500 lens. Just have to remember the overall big picture of what I'm looking for, what I'm doing with the photos etc. Easy to get caught up in wanting "the best" on internet forums, but then when out taking travel snaps with the family that MF only uberlens leads to feeling rushed as you trying to focus carefully etc while everyone else is a block ahead of you already or going into the restaurant without you lol.
I am sad to see Nikon doesn't have any short DX tele though. They have a 85mm f1.8 but its AF-D
Did see the 60mm f2.8 Macro. Anyone have experience with this one ??
I've usually found macro lenses sort of slow to focus but having a 90mm f2.8 equiv prime paired up with the 35mm f1.8 and a wide zoom could make a nice overall city/street shooting kit.
Little pricey at around $500 though, and given I don't really do macro, flowers etc, might not make a lot of sense for me, just as the Panny 45mm f2.8 macro I had in m4/3 didn't really seem worth $800, though I did like the focal length
Choice, choices, choices....
...Show more →
|
) and I do like that its internal focus unlike the 10-24 which extends. 
How the hell did I miss that one?
- that picture is pretty funny. The D5100 is such a nice step up from the D3xxx cameras I think most of us here would be disappointed with it.