choosing DSLR - Nikon/Canon @ <32K
- Thread starter choudang
- Start date
-
- Tags
- choosing dslr nikon/canon
Sounava
In the zone
You are confusing image stabilization.isnt 70-300mm@ 24k costing 3 times of tamron & sigma 70-300mm
I dont think for casual photography someone want a 24k lens..thats cost of D3100 body
if u have money go for 100-500mm HSM sigma lens ...great VFM for birding
1. The Tamron and Sigma lenses which cost around 7.3k do not have any kind of image stabilization.
2. The Sigma 70-300 DG Macro is not sharp > 200mm. Plus awful amount of chromatic aberration.
3. The Tamron 70-300 is slightly sharper than the Sigma but the autofocus system is tacky.
The Sigma APO DG Macro reduces CA to some extent but that lens costs 10.5k which is not worth it because you have 55-200 VR available at that price point.
Ofcourse this lens is not for "casual" photography but enthusiasts who do not have all the money in the world to spend on a lens (24k is cheap in lens pricing terms). Here price of body does not matter
Both of you are right. Its 47k without warranty and 60k with warranty. And there is a lot of difference between 24k and 47k or 60k
sujoyp
Grand Master
I understand that here people got lots of money to spend on lenses...But I just want to say that when u r new to dslr system and u r not doing wildlife photography but taking casual shoots around then 24k is too much to invest
let me take my own example...I would love to have a 70-300mm zoom , a macro for insects, an autofocussing prime lens, at the start ...
That would make Nikkor 70-300vr+ tamron 90mm macro+ Nikkor 35mm prime = 24+15+12 = 51k + a body
if I compromise a bit
= Tamron 70-300 APO DG+Nikkor 50mm prime+ET for macro = 10+6+0.6=16-17k only
I am not a pro and take pics only on sundays when I get chance...soo my thoughts
let me take my own example...I would love to have a 70-300mm zoom , a macro for insects, an autofocussing prime lens, at the start ...
That would make Nikkor 70-300vr+ tamron 90mm macro+ Nikkor 35mm prime = 24+15+12 = 51k + a body
if I compromise a bit
= Tamron 70-300 APO DG+Nikkor 50mm prime+ET for macro = 10+6+0.6=16-17k onlyI am not a pro and take pics only on sundays when I get chance...soo my thoughts
kjuvale
Pharmaguru
Nikon has launched D5100. Its around 699€ (in Germany) just body and 809€ with 18-55 VR kit. While D3100 is for 480€ with 18-55 kit.
I am a very new to DSLR photography.
So, i need suggestion, if I should go for cheaper D3100 or invest more in D5100, which looks more advanced.
Please let me know if its really worth for long time to buy D5100.
I am a very new to DSLR photography.
So, i need suggestion, if I should go for cheaper D3100 or invest more in D5100, which looks more advanced.
Please let me know if its really worth for long time to buy D5100.
Sounava
In the zone
I agree with sujoyp. Buying 550D at 35k is the most sensible decision at this point.
Of course money is a factor. That's why I said those who wished to buy the 55-300 for 19k, should spend some more and buy this 70-300VR instead. And of course this lens is not for casual shooters unless you have a "money" plant at home
Tamron themselves have the 70-300 VC lens, available at almost the same price of the Nikon 70-300VR. That lens is good too (sharper than the Nikon @ 300mm) but lacks in the department of autofocus speed and accuracy and also the build quality.
If one do not have much money, he will buy the 55-200VR for 11k. That is the best buy in the low range. The Tamron and Sigma 70-300's image quality are far inferior to the Nikon 55-200VR, and also the Nikon comes with VR where as the Tamron and Sigma variants do not.
P.S. : You said Tamron 70-300 APO DG but no such lens exists. It will be the Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro (10.5k), Sigma 70-300 DG Macro (7.1k), Tamron 70-300 Di LD Macro.
You forgot the basic fact dude: I said the Nikon 70-300VR is a better alternative to those who wished to buy the 55-300 VR.I understand that here people got lots of money to spend on lenses...But I just want to say that when u r new to dslr system and u r not doing wildlife photography but taking casual shoots around then 24k is too much to invest
let me take my own example...I would love to have a 70-300mm zoom , a macro for insects, an autofocussing prime lens, at the start ...
That would make Nikkor 70-300vr+ tamron 90mm macro+ Nikkor 35mm prime = 24+15+12 = 51k + a body
if I compromise a bit
I am not a pro and take pics only on sundays when I get chance...soo my thoughts
Of course money is a factor. That's why I said those who wished to buy the 55-300 for 19k, should spend some more and buy this 70-300VR instead. And of course this lens is not for casual shooters unless you have a "money" plant at home
Tamron themselves have the 70-300 VC lens, available at almost the same price of the Nikon 70-300VR. That lens is good too (sharper than the Nikon @ 300mm) but lacks in the department of autofocus speed and accuracy and also the build quality.
If one do not have much money, he will buy the 55-200VR for 11k. That is the best buy in the low range. The Tamron and Sigma 70-300's image quality are far inferior to the Nikon 55-200VR, and also the Nikon comes with VR where as the Tamron and Sigma variants do not.
P.S. : You said Tamron 70-300 APO DG but no such lens exists. It will be the Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro (10.5k), Sigma 70-300 DG Macro (7.1k), Tamron 70-300 Di LD Macro.
sujoyp
Grand Master
oops mixed up...yaah its tamron Di Ld and sigma APO DG...lots of terminology u know
I would love to get a Nikkor AFS 55-200 but 200 is very less and its not that good for birding...
I can compromise a bit on pic quality and will do post processing afterwards...but cant compromise on reach
I would love to get a Nikkor AFS 55-200 but 200 is very less and its not that good for birding...
I can compromise a bit on pic quality and will do post processing afterwards...but cant compromise on reach
Sounava
In the zone
Yeah thats trueoops mixed up...yaah its tamron Di Ld and sigma APO DG...lots of terminology u know
If I were you I would have gone for the 55-200. The only plus point of going for the 70-300 sigma and tamrons were because of the 1:2 macro capability but since you already have a macro setup this would not matter.I would love to get a Nikkor AFS 55-200 but 200 is very less and its not that good for birding...
I can compromise a bit on pic quality and will do post processing afterwards...but cant compromise on reach
I think having stabilization and better image quality plus fast focus is lot better than having a higher reach, but no image stabilization, lots of chromatic aberration, problematic and slow focus motor (noisy too). Plus they are less sharp @ 300 than at 200mm anyway.
Check this link - You will be able to visualize the difference between 200mm and 300mm. Not that much in my opinion. In most cases a simple crop will do if you want to "zoom in further". [since the image quality will be good anyway, cropping can be carried out without any hassle. Much better alternative than trying to sharpen in post processing.]
Just my 2 cents
r4gs
In the zone
Sujoyp is right. 200mm just isn't enough for birds. Birds, specifically magpies in my case, 20 feet away barely show up half a cm high on a 4x6 print. Unless you have a full frame slr, there really won't be any point in cropping. If possible, i would recommend you try and borrow a lens from somewhere and try it out first. I've tried a 200mm and a 400mm lens and the difference is considerable.
I can't really comment on a 300mm vs 200mm as i've never actually used a 300.
All i can say is, for birds, the larger the focal length the better. However, you can still take superb photos with what you have as well. I have some excellent bird shots with a 50mm prime lens as well as with my 28-200mm zoom. (i will add though that the ones with the 50mm were those of an ostrich and some geese!)
I can't really comment on a 300mm vs 200mm as i've never actually used a 300.
All i can say is, for birds, the larger the focal length the better. However, you can still take superb photos with what you have as well. I have some excellent bird shots with a 50mm prime lens as well as with my 28-200mm zoom. (i will add though that the ones with the 50mm were those of an ostrich and some geese!)
Sounava
In the zone
Please explain this to me
Agreed. I just said between the two lenses (Sigma 70-300 and Nikon 55-200 VR) the latter will be a better buy for all intents and purposes.
This lens costs a bomb >_< Though used lenses are widely available in India @ around 35k, but still that is costly.
r4gs
In the zone
@sounava: the sensors in dslrs like the d3100 or canon 550d use sensors that are actually smaller than that of 35mm film. A camera with a sensor the size of a 35mm film is called a full frame slr.
My statement was only in reference to the photo i mentioned where the magpie was barely a cm high. The cheaper slrs usually lose out on detail owing to the small sensor size, even if it has a high megapixel count, if you have to crop that much.
Cropping, in general, is not a problem no matter what camera you use, be it a point and shoot or an slr.
@faun: sorry, can't post the pics! I use a canon 50e, which means i use film and i've never bothered to get it scanned.
Also, to take pics of the moon, try using a spot meter and underexpose your shots in half stops till you get the detail. Simple rule of thumb, if the image is washed out and too bright, underexpose!
One problem with shooting the moon is that the haze in the atmosphere can make everything blurry.
My statement was only in reference to the photo i mentioned where the magpie was barely a cm high. The cheaper slrs usually lose out on detail owing to the small sensor size, even if it has a high megapixel count, if you have to crop that much.
Cropping, in general, is not a problem no matter what camera you use, be it a point and shoot or an slr.
@faun: sorry, can't post the pics! I use a canon 50e, which means i use film and i've never bothered to get it scanned.
Also, to take pics of the moon, try using a spot meter and underexpose your shots in half stops till you get the detail. Simple rule of thumb, if the image is washed out and too bright, underexpose!
One problem with shooting the moon is that the haze in the atmosphere can make everything blurry.