What should I put my $500 on? - DPChallenge Forums

12/17/2011 05:59:00 PM · #1

I received a gift card to use from giftcertificates.com and would like to spent it on a new lens or 2. As usual I want to get the most bang for my buck and would like to try to squeeze 2 lens out of it. Only because the used Sigma that I bought has malfunctioned and every time I try to use it it only shows an -E- on the display. I will try to fool with the lens and read up on it before I give up all hope that it broke but if it is I would like to purchase another zoom but think I would really enjoy a macro if I can get it within my $500 allowance.

Was thinking about the the Nikkor 55-300 4.5 but what do you guys think is the best Nikkor lens for the amount that I have?

BYW the only 2 sites that it looks like I can choose from is tigerdirect and crutchfield

Message edited by author 2011-12-17 23:00:39.

12/17/2011 06:06:39 PM · #2

Kind of leaning towards a 60mm 2.8??

IAmEliKatz

Nikon D5

12/17/2011 06:17:15 PM · #3

60mm 2.8
I want that lens. Badly!

ShutterRev

Nikon D610

12/17/2011 06:26:00 PM · #4

I bought a used D200 2 years ago for $500 (food for thought). LOVED it, it has more AF areas, faster shutter, and much more over the D70... just an Idea. Buying used is A-OK! I loved my D200 used it until I bought my D300s, and I sold it for about $500 :)

Other outside the box option... get a prime like 35mm or 50mm f1.8 AND a SB-700 Flash...

Just some ideas! Have fun with whatever you chose to do!

IAmEliKatz

Nikon D5

12/17/2011 06:31:32 PM · #5

I was going to say a 50mm prime but he already has the 35mm and the crop factor of the 35mm on the d70 is about 53mm so I don't think its a needed purchase at the moment. A new/used body might be an interesting idea.

12/17/2011 06:38:40 PM · #6

I considered a used body but the gift card ties my hands to those 2 sites.

Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G

12/18/2011 10:05:47 AM · #7

Originally posted by IAmEliKatz:

60mm 2.8
I want that lens. Badly!

WOW B&H has it much cheaper than crutchfield. Is this the same lens. One says micro and the other says macro? Whats the difference?

Message edited by author 2011-12-18 15:09:25.

egingras

Nikon D5100

12/19/2011 06:45:07 AM · #8

Originally posted by SEG:

Originally posted by IAmEliKatz:

I want that lens. Badly!

WOW B&H has it much cheaper than crutchfield. Is this the same lens. One says micro and the other says macro? Whats the difference?

Nikon refers to macro lenses as "micro". They're the same thing.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

12/19/2011 02:07:08 PM · #9

Wish I wasnt tied down to this gift card. There are only 3 electronic sites to choose from and they all have a shitty selection.

Neil

Fujifilm X-T20

12/19/2011 03:29:12 PM · #10

Originally posted by SEG:

Originally posted by IAmEliKatz:
60mm 2.8
I want that lens. Badly!

WOW B&H has it much cheaper than crutchfield. Is this the same lens. One says micro and the other says macro? Whats the difference?

No, those aren't the same lenses. The one at Crutchfield is a newer model, with electronic focus for compatibility with all Nikons. Both are good lenses, I believe.

Here's something nice at Crutchfield that works. Good portrait lens. (I don't have it, but I have read good things...look it up!)

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

12/19/2011 04:14:27 PM · #11

RE: What should I put my $500 on?

19 Red.

12/19/2011 04:30:34 PM · #12

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

RE: What should I put my $500 on?

19 Red.

27 is my number

12/20/2011 06:04:00 AM · #13

Originally posted by Neil:

Originally posted by SEG:

Originally posted by IAmEliKatz:
60mm 2.8
I want that lens. Badly!

WOW B&H has it much cheaper than crutchfield. Is this the same lens. One says micro and the other says macro? Whats the difference?

No, those aren't the same lenses. The one at Crutchfield is a newer model, with electronic focus for compatibility with all Nikons. Both are good lenses, I believe.

Here's something nice at Crutchfield that works. Good portrait lens. (I don't have it, but I have read good things...look it up!)

Hmmm. Thats a good idea. If I ordered this one I would have a good 35mm and a good 85mm along with my kit lens. Tough decision though as the 60 2.8 looks tempting but a little out of my free money range.

What kind of pros and cons does one get from the 60 2.8 macro vs. the 85mm 1.8?

snaffles

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

12/20/2011 08:58:49 AM · #14

I sure could use a 1.4x teleconverter. Only $429.99 CDN so you would still get back some change :-)

spiritualspatula

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

12/20/2011 10:29:47 AM · #15

Originally posted by SEG:

Originally posted by Neil:

Originally posted by SEG:
[quote=IAmEliKatz] 60mm 2.8
I want that lens. Badly!

WOW B&H has it much cheaper than crutchfield. Is this the same lens. One says micro and the other says macro? Whats the difference?

Hmmm. Thats a good idea. If I ordered this one I would have a good 35mm and a good 85mm along with my kit lens. Tough decision though as the 60 2.8 looks tempting but a little out of my free money range.

What kind of pros and cons does one get from the 60 2.8 macro vs. the 85mm 1.8?

I own the 85, but not the 60.

The 85 is GREAT. Very fast AF, very fast aperture, great bokeh, great sharpness. It's small and does what it does very well. Great for portraits, and actually, many people can't justify the increase in cost to buy the 1.4 because the IQ is so similar. It is not as versatile as the 60 2.8 due to the focus distance. The focus on the 60 will search more, because it's a macro lens and has a WAY bigger focus range to go through. It does have a limiter, but macro lenses still sorta suffer from it periodically. That's just life. It's front element also extends as your focus, so be careful and aware of that. It, too, is a great portrait lens.
The 85 is good for portraits on APS-C but a bit long sometimes. You need some room to shoot with it unless you're doing just headshots. The 60 would be better at this, but it is also only 2.8. Do you need low light? Get the 85. Do you like macro? Get the 60.
Also consider that the 85 can be fitted very well with extension tubes for macro capability.

ETA: I would shy away from high max aperture zoom lenses. Sure, they tend to have a great range, are light and small, and perform decently, but they are a poor investment of money (lose value quickly), have worse contrast, and perform great at nothing. I got the 18-200 because it was touted as so wondrous, and sure, it's a GREAT travel/do everything lens, but it really does nothing Great. If you don't know what you shoot, these sorts of lenses are great. If you do know what you shoot/you just sorta shoot whatever, they're not really worth your time unless you want to have a travel lens.

Message edited by author 2011-12-20 16:44:33.

ShutterRev

Nikon D610

12/20/2011 11:42:40 AM · #16

"ETA: I would shy away from high max aperture zoom lenses. Sure, they tend to have a great range, are light and small, and perform decently, but they are a poor investment of money (lose value quickly), have worse contrast, and perform great at nothing. I got the 18-200 because it was touted as so wondrous, and sure, it's a GREAT travel/do everything lens, but it really does nothing Great. If you don't know what you shoot, these sorts of lenses are great. If you do know what you shoot/you just sorta shoot whatever, they're not really worth your time unless you want to have a travel lens. [/quote]"

I agree, I sold my 18-200 VR, and the kit lenses on Craigslist after getting a couple primes and my 70-200 f/2.8... the image quality was incomparable to the latter, when I got my primes and my 70-200 it was almost bad becaus eI look back at my kit lens photos and now I want to go back and re-shoot everything! Good glass seems to be everything.

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

12/20/2011 12:21:19 PM · #17

I have extension tubes that I could never figure out how to work with them on my kit lens. I would like to try macro for fun but don't think it is currently my style.

I'm thinking with the 35 and 85 1.8's I will have 2 good lens with good range. I would have to continue to swap them out for different application's but I get that's the price you pay for being a poor photog. I am going for the 85.

Thanks for all the help guys and gals.

spiritualspatula

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

12/20/2011 04:11:33 PM · #18

Originally posted by SEG:

If you've got any questions on extension tubes, I may be able to help you out with them. They can be a little frustrating to use, but I'd say they're easier to use with a prime than a zoom typically. The key is that your just lose infinity focus, so you have to get accustomed to how far away they are limited to.

12/20/2011 05:20:30 PM · #19

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Originally posted by SEG:
I have extension tubes that I could never figure out how to work with them on my kit lens. I would like to try macro for fun but don't think it is currently my style.

I'm thinking with the 35 and 85 1.8's I will have 2 good lens with good range. I would have to continue to swap them out for different application's but I get that's the price you pay for being a poor photog. I am going for the 85.

Thanks for all the help guys and gals.

If you've got any questions on extension tubes, I may be able to help you out with them. They can be a little frustrating to use, but I'd say they're easier to use with a prime than a zoom typically. The key is that your just lose infinity focus, so you have to get accustomed to how far away they are limited to.

I'll take you up on the offer when the lens comes in. When I put the tubes on my kit lens all I got was very out of focus images and could use no features on my camera with it. I may have been doing something wrong or have the wrong kind of tubes. I got them from ebay pretty cheap (no brand name on them either) so that could explain it.

I ordered it and a lens cleaning pen and only had $.02 left at the end of the transaction.