New D300

Willis

Willis

Willis

Soldato
Joined
17 Oct 2006
Posts
2,544
Location
Aviemore, Cairngorms, Scottish Highlands
Well I've just sold my D200 and have a lovely D300 now. Loving the bigger LCD display and just feels a little bit more up to date. Not really taken any good shots yet as not had the time. Got it with me this weekend at my girlfriends so looking to shoots something then. Got the Nikon 18-200mm VR lens at the moment but looking to get some more glass for it.

Anyone recommend a good fast/wide angle walk about lens :D
 
robertgilbert86 said:
Is it worth the upgrade/what made you want to upgrade?

Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is great.
Click to expand...

Sold my D200 with 18-200mm VR for £750 no warranty

Purchased my D300 with 18-200mm VR and 8GB 300x speed card and 3 year warranty for £900

£150 upgrade would have been mad not to ;)

Will take a look at the Tamron.
 
alexisonfire said:
It was most probably 95% stolen, at that price. Or they owe bad people money and needed it fast.
Click to expand...

Well it was not stolen as the lady I purchased just didnt know how to use it and had more money than sense. You be surprised what bargins you can get on ebay if you know what your doing ;)
 
Willis said:
Well I've just sold my D200 and have a lovely D300 now. Loving the bigger LCD display and just feels a little bit more up to date. Not really taken any good shots yet as not had the time. Got it with me this weekend at my girlfriends so looking to shoots something then. Got the Nikon 18-200mm VR lens at the moment but looking to get some more glass for it.

Anyone recommend a good fast/wide angle walk about lens :D
Click to expand...

Nikon 17-55 f/2.8
 
Willis said:
My brother has that lens, looking at £600-800 :eek: Nice lens though

How's it compare to the Tamron 17-50 f2.8.
Click to expand...

Its better than the Tamron and is a very good lens, it is the best you can get for DX Nikon Cameras. But it is not a classic Nikon and whether the extra money is worth it or not id debatable.However they hold their value well and are very well made so will last well. If you buy second hand then you could sell it on in a few years for much the same price. In that respect the lens is quite cheap. The Tamron will loose its value much quicker than the Nikon.


Against the Tamron the brokeh is better, the contrast, colour and saturation is better. perhaps slightly sharper but this is probably more like sampling variance in the Tamron. It is much much better built and the focus is massively faster.
 
D.P. said:
Its better than the Tamron and is a very good lens, it is the best you can get for DX Nikon Cameras. But it is not a classic Nikon and whether the extra money is worth it or not id debatable.
.
Click to expand...

Hi what do you mean by classic Nikon is there another cheaper version in the nikon range :confused:
 
Willis said:
Hi what do you mean by classic Nikon is there another cheaper version in the nikon range :confused:
Click to expand...

Some Nikon lenes are just so good they become a "Classic" lens and will be popular for the next 10-20 years. Lenses like the 14-24,24-70,200-400. etc.

The 17-55 2.8 is not on par with these outstanding lenses. However, it is still the best possible lens to buy for Nikon DX format wide to normal zoom.

There is nothing cheaper form Nikon that compares and has the same functionality. The 16-85 VRI is very sharp but also slow glass.
 
Ok thanks for that info. I have a Nikon 18-200mm at the moment but thinking of selling it and getting the 17-55mm and then get a better zoom after that. Any thoughts on the 18-200mm.
 
Soft, lots of distortion & often complex, some CA. Loose zoom .

But useful zoom range.

Basically, there is massive trade offs in imagq quality ot get that kind of zoom range. This basically defeats the purpose of a DSLR anyway, the whole purpose is you can change lenses., otherwise just buy a bridge camera.

Something much better would be a 16-85 + a 70-300 VR lens combo. More rnage and better image quality .
 
D.P. said:
Soft, lots of distortion & often complex, some CA. Loose zoom .

But useful zoom range.

Basically, there is massive trade offs in imagq quality ot get that kind of zoom range. This basically defeats the purpose of a DSLR anyway, the whole purpose is you can change lenses., otherwise just buy a bridge camera.

Something much better would be a 16-85 + a 70-300 VR lens combo. More rnage and better image quality .
Click to expand...


Just read a review (KenRockwell) of the 16-85mm vs my 18-200mm and it seems that the 16-85 is not that much better and if he had a choice he would stick with the 18-200mm :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom