Reading mode: Light Dark

Switch to Pentax from Nikon

Go to last post
S

Stephen Hopkins

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
277
Reaction score
0
Location
Powder Springs, GA, US
I'm giving strong consideration to a switch from Nikon to Pentax. The K10D shows me that Pentax can put more pro features in a semi-pro body for less than Nikon... especially since it will likely be a LONG time before Nikon puts VR in-body since they sell plenty of VR lenses.

I was originaly going to wait for the K10D to do this but now I'm really thinking about going ahead and doing it with the K100D, the reason being I can make back enough money back to cover a new laptop for my wife which we unexpectedly had to buy when hers died last week. I'll probably upgrade to the K10D later, hoping the price will drop a little more in the next year.

Here's what I currently have and what I think I can sell it for:

Nikon D50 - $400
Tokina 12-24mm f/4 - $400
Tokina 28-80mm f/2.8 - $350
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR - $1300
Nikon 50mm f/1.8 - $75
Sigma EF-500 DG ST - $100
Kenko 1.5x SHQ TC - $50
Kenko 2.0x MC7 TC - $50

Total - $2725

Here's what I plan to get and what I think I can get it for:

Pentax K100D w/ 18-55mm - $575
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 - $325
Sigma 100-300 f/4 - $700
Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 - $140
Sigma 1.4x TC - $125
Pentax 360FGZ Flash - $200

Total - $2065

The difference in price of the Nikon 70-200mm VR and Sigma 100-300mm represents the profit I'm making. The anti-shake on the K100D won't completely make up for the VR on the 70-200mm but should be enough. I also think the 100-300mm's reach fits my shooting style more.

I would love to get another Tokina 28-80mm f/2.8 but in Pentax mount they're rare and expensive (only paid $300 for my f-mount version). The Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 looks like a good option, or I may go w/ the Tokina 28-70mm f/2.8 which is only $250.

I've never really used either the 12-24mm f/4 or the 50mm f/1.8 much so i think i'll let the pentax kit lens make due for any wide-angle i may need and my main lens do any portraiture.

With the K100D's anti-shake on-body I think the Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 will be a great walk-around lens. This was the first lens I had for my D50 and loved it but sold it to move on to better glass. I think it will be even better as a super-convinient walk-around lens when coupled with anti-shake.

Since this is an entire system shift I'm hoping you folks that have been around Pentax and maybe some who've been around Nikon as well can comment on my lens choices and overall decision.

Thanks!
 
Stephen Hopkins wrote:
[...]
Stephen Hopkins said:
Nikon D50 - $400
Tokina 12-24mm f/4 - $400
Tokina 28-80mm f/2.8 - $350
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR - $1300
Nikon 50mm f/1.8 - $75
Sigma EF-500 DG ST - $100
Kenko 1.5x SHQ TC - $50
Kenko 2.0x MC7 TC - $50

Total - $2725

Here's what I plan to get and what I think I can get it for:

Pentax K100D w/ 18-55mm - $575
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 - $325
Click to expand...
You should also consider the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8.
Stephen Hopkins said:
Sigma 100-300 f/4 - $700
Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 - $140
Sigma 1.4x TC - $125
Pentax 360FGZ Flash - $200
Click to expand...
Note that the AF360FGZ does not swivel. The AF540FGZ does.
Stephen Hopkins said:
Total - $2065
Click to expand...
[...]
--
GMT+1 (summertime)
 
Stephen Hopkins said:
I'm giving strong consideration to a switch from Nikon to Pentax.
The K10D shows me that Pentax can put more pro features in a
semi-pro body for less than Nikon... especially since it will
likely be a LONG time before Nikon puts VR in-body since they sell
plenty of VR lenses.
Click to expand...
I don't think they will, same case with Canon. Even Canon official said at Photokina that in camera IS is not even considered.
Stephen Hopkins said:
I was originaly going to wait for the K10D to do this but now I'm
really thinking about going ahead and doing it with the K100D, the
reason being I can make back enough money back to cover a new
laptop for my wife which we unexpectedly had to buy when hers died
last week. I'll probably upgrade to the K10D later, hoping the
price will drop a little more in the next year.
Click to expand...
Great. I will go all the way to the K10D from the Digital Rebel.
Stephen Hopkins said:
Here's what I currently have and what I think I can sell it for:

Nikon D50 - $400
Tokina 12-24mm f/4 - $400
Tokina 28-80mm f/2.8 - $350
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR - $1300
Nikon 50mm f/1.8 - $75
Sigma EF-500 DG ST - $100
Kenko 1.5x SHQ TC - $50
Kenko 2.0x MC7 TC - $50

Total - $2725
Click to expand...
Hmm, I also have a 70-200 f:4 L wich is my most valuable posession, but also the one that'll sell for more.
Stephen Hopkins said:
Here's what I plan to get and what I think I can get it for:

Pentax K100D w/ 18-55mm - $575
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 - $325
Sigma 100-300 f/4 - $700
Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 - $140
Sigma 1.4x TC - $125
Pentax 360FGZ Flash - $200

Total - $2065
Click to expand...
You have too much overlapping, for my liking. Give the 18-55 a good try, I've heard great things from it. The 100-300 and 28-300 simply doesn't makes sense to me. I'd go with a DA 50-200 and wait next year for a good prime tele. You have nothing for Macro work. I will get the 100mm macro.

I plan to get the 360 too. I know it doesn't rotate, but I plan to use it more outside the camera with a cord, for macro work.
Stephen Hopkins said:
The difference in price of the Nikon 70-200mm VR and Sigma
100-300mm represents the profit I'm making. The anti-shake on the
K100D won't completely make up for the VR on the 70-200mm but
should be enough. I also think the 100-300mm's reach fits my
shooting style more.

I would love to get another Tokina 28-80mm f/2.8 but in Pentax
mount they're rare and expensive (only paid $300 for my f-mount
version). The Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 looks like a good option, or I
may go w/ the Tokina 28-70mm f/2.8 which is only $250.

I've never really used either the 12-24mm f/4 or the 50mm f/1.8
much so i think i'll let the pentax kit lens make due for any
wide-angle i may need and my main lens do any portraiture.

With the K100D's anti-shake on-body I think the Tamron 28-300mm
f/3.5-6.3 will be a great walk-around lens. This was the first
lens I had for my D50 and loved it but sold it to move on to better
glass. I think it will be even better as a super-convinient
walk-around lens when coupled with anti-shake.
Click to expand...
Since is so unexpensive, I'll go for it too.
Stephen Hopkins said:
Since this is an entire system shift I'm hoping you folks that have
been around Pentax and maybe some who've been around Nikon as well
can comment on my lens choices and overall decision.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
--
visit



at http://www.ocando.net or http://mocando.myftp.org
Martin Ocando
 
I don't think overlap with the Sigma 100-300mm constant f/4 and Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 is a bad thing, both lenses have specific purposes. The 100-300mm f/4 is a large, faster, high quality lens meant for times when image quality and speed are paramount. It would be used in conjunction with the 24/28-70mm at events where I'm the primary photographer, mainly cheerleading competitions and other high school sporting events. Also any time it would be used in conjunction with the 1.4x TC.

The 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 would be used as a casual walk-around lens for times I don't want to carry multiple or heavy lenses... theme parks, vacation/trips, any time convinience and weight are more important than speed and absolute image quality.

I don't do macro work and if I decided to try i'd likely go with a Phoenix/Vivitar 100mm f/3.5 or something else inexpensive before investing in something i may not use often.
 
If I wanted to go that route I'd just sell the 70-200mm VR and pick up a used Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 or 100-300mm f/4. This would give about the same difference in cash but leave me with no form of stabilization AND speed in telephoto. VR can't stop action. f/2.8 can, f/4 usually can.
 
Some sugestions:
Stephen Hopkins said:
Here's what I plan to get and what I think I can get it for:

Pentax K100D w/ 18-55mm - $575
Click to expand...
Try and get the Pentax 16-45mm F4, better peformer, though the kit lens is still good. Also consider for a "travel lens" set-up the Pentax DA 50-200mm
Stephen Hopkins said:
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 - $325
Click to expand...
GET THE TOKINA you had with the nikon, much sharper!!! I had the sigma for 2 days, it was JUNK at aything below F5.6, build of the tokina is much better too.
Stephen Hopkins said:
Sigma 100-300 f/4 - $700
Click to expand...
Herd nothing but praise for this lens.
Stephen Hopkins said:
Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 - $140
Click to expand...
SAVE YOUR MONEY, get the new 17-135-ish from pentax next year.
Stephen Hopkins said:
Sigma 1.4x TC - $125
Click to expand...
Good TC, I got one. its solid.
Stephen Hopkins said:
Pentax 360FGZ Flash - $200
Click to expand...
GET THE Sigma 500DG super, more everything for your $$
Stephen Hopkins said:
Total - $2065
Click to expand...
I't may cost you a little more, but it will be worth it. Also have you considered the new K10D, I am guessing you have and thats why your switching. Planing to upgrade a little later.

--
I Want my, I want my , I want my K10D
(oh and of course Get MY money for nothin and chicks for free :)
 
Hi Stephen

Just some suggestions:
Stephen Hopkins said:
Here's what I plan to get and what I think I can get it for:

Pentax K100D w/ 18-55mm - $575
Click to expand...
I have got the kit lens with DS and it is quite a performer but I have heard that DA16-45/4 is even better. If you budget allows it, I would go for it instead. You can probably try bargaining it a bit if you are getting it with your camera.
Stephen Hopkins said:
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 - $325
Click to expand...
I have got Tamron 28-75/2.8 based on the feedback from this forum and have been very happy with it.
Stephen Hopkins said:
Sigma 100-300 f/4 - $700
Click to expand...
If you can wait, I would wait for the Pentax DA* 60-250/4 before making a decision. However do expect to pay a little bit more.
Stephen Hopkins said:
Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 - $140
Click to expand...
Other options include Pentax 28-105/3.2-4.5, Sigma 24-135, Sigma 18-125.
Stephen Hopkins said:
Pentax 360FGZ Flash - $200
Click to expand...
Just in case you are not aware, there is a 540FGZ that has a swivel head and more powerful. Beware of the Sigma flash as they will/might need to be re-chipped to work with K100D/K10D.

cheers
Kenny
 
I may go with either the 16-45mm f/4 instead of the kit lens but I'll likely put that money in to a better normal zoom. I just wish the 16-50mm f/2.8 were available, and at the price the Tokina version will be in other mounts. I also rarely feel the need to go wider than 28mm (42mm equivalent) and when I do I think the kit lens at 18mm f/3.5 would do the job. The kit lens would never be on unless it was being used in the 18-30mm range.

I'm still on the fence about the different options in the normal zoom category. The Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 is highly regarded in other mounts as well... I'm simply not thrilled with the build quality for a f/2.8 lens. I've heard good and bad about the sigma 24/28-70mm f/2.8. Can anyone clue me in to which of the two sigmas is better and if either are inherantly flawed... it seems to be more a case of getting a good copy, which is true for alot of Sigma lenses. In a perfect world I'd be able to get the Tokina 28-80mm f/2.8 for the same price I got it in Nikon mount, $300 shipped like new in box... but that seems highly unlikely. I know it's worth the retail price ($475) but I rarely pay retail for anything whether it's grey, used, or just a good deal. How about the Tokina 28-70mm f/2.8? It's available much cheaper, around $250. Seems to be the same build but with different finish. How is it opticly?

No-one has anything bad to say about the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 which makes me think it's a solid choice. Same with the 1.4x TC. I'd consider the 60-250mm f/4 if it were out and affordable but my gut tells me it's going to top $800 and may hit $1000 when it first becomes available. I like the range but price is a big factor in all of this. Plus if I'm going to give up f/2.8 i'd like to get atleast out to 300mm. I'm still considering a 70/80-200mm f/2.8 from one of the third parties if the right deal presented itself, though I think the 100-300mm reach would be beneficial and the loss of f/2.8 will be somewhat offset by IS though not completely.

I'm going to keep defending the Tamron 28-300mm. It was my first dSLR lens and even with the great glass I currently have I wish I still had it for the times i only want to cary one light lens that can do everything, even if not particularly well (it'll still be better than a P&S). I'm considered the Sigma 24-135mm, though I had a Nikon 24-120mm VR at one point that never seemed long enough. I think the 28-300mm w/ the in-body IS will be a great combo, kinda along the lines of a beefer up consumer super-zoom (i.e. Panasonic FZ7 or FZ30) without all the ISO noise.

I'm still considering the EF-500 DG Super for the flash. I don't mind having it re-chipped if need be (and it looks like it likely will). I didn't realize the 360FGZ didn't rotate. The 540FGZ seems a bit expensive. Are there any older model Pentax brand flashes that work properly with the K100D? I know in Nikon you basicly had to have one of their 2 newest models to work automaticly w/ most of their dSLRs. That's why I went with the Sigma.

And wlachan...

As for "why bother asking"... I'm new to Pentax as a whole and I'm looking for input from those who know the system better. I am looking for other options or some red flags if something i've picked out is just horrible. I do some work more serious than what an 18-200mm VR would be acceptable for and it's also an overpriced lens that's hard to find under $1000, much less its retail price of $699. I think the lenses I've picked out will keep my level of quality high as well as give me some casual options. There are still options in every category of equipment I'm looking at, I'm just trying to get the best information to make the decision. Everyone else who's posted in this thread have been extremely helpful and well intentioned... I'm not sure why you feel the need to be condescending and borderline-rude, so if you do, don't bother posting in my thread.

Everyone else thank you so much for your help so far and keep your comments/opinions coming. Thanks!
 
2 points I can make regarding this little lot.

1, The 16-50 is supposedly coming out in March (not long really). I was thinking about getting the DA16-45 (having recently sold my 18-55) but I figure I will want the weather proofing and extra stop of the 16-50, so I'm gonna pass on it and wait. Instead, I shall be getting the DA21 - why not do this instead?

2, I've had the Tamron 28-75 and it produces very good images, but I found the AF incredibly slow, even by DS standards

Can't help you with the rest :)
Stephen Hopkins said:
I may go with either the 16-45mm f/4 instead of the kit lens but
I'll likely put that money in to a better normal zoom. I just wish
the 16-50mm f/2.8 were available, and at the price the Tokina
version will be in other mounts. I also rarely feel the need to go
wider than 28mm (42mm equivalent) and when I do I think the kit
lens at 18mm f/3.5 would do the job. The kit lens would never be
on unless it was being used in the 18-30mm range.

I'm still on the fence about the different options in the normal
zoom category. The Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 is highly regarded in
other mounts as well... I'm simply not thrilled with the build
quality for a f/2.8 lens. I've heard good and bad about the sigma
24/28-70mm f/2.8. Can anyone clue me in to which of the two sigmas
is better and if either are inherantly flawed... it seems to be
more a case of getting a good copy, which is true for alot of Sigma
lenses. In a perfect world I'd be able to get the Tokina 28-80mm
f/2.8 for the same price I got it in Nikon mount, $300 shipped like
new in box... but that seems highly unlikely. I know it's worth
the retail price ($475) but I rarely pay retail for anything
whether it's grey, used, or just a good deal. How about the Tokina
28-70mm f/2.8? It's available much cheaper, around $250. Seems to
be the same build but with different finish. How is it opticly?

No-one has anything bad to say about the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 which
makes me think it's a solid choice. Same with the 1.4x TC. I'd
consider the 60-250mm f/4 if it were out and affordable but my gut
tells me it's going to top $800 and may hit $1000 when it first
becomes available. I like the range but price is a big factor in
all of this. Plus if I'm going to give up f/2.8 i'd like to get
atleast out to 300mm. I'm still considering a 70/80-200mm f/2.8
from one of the third parties if the right deal presented itself,
though I think the 100-300mm reach would be beneficial and the loss
of f/2.8 will be somewhat offset by IS though not completely.

I'm going to keep defending the Tamron 28-300mm. It was my first
dSLR lens and even with the great glass I currently have I wish I
still had it for the times i only want to cary one light lens that
can do everything, even if not particularly well (it'll still be
better than a P&S). I'm considered the Sigma 24-135mm, though I
had a Nikon 24-120mm VR at one point that never seemed long enough.
I think the 28-300mm w/ the in-body IS will be a great combo, kinda
along the lines of a beefer up consumer super-zoom (i.e. Panasonic
FZ7 or FZ30) without all the ISO noise.

I'm still considering the EF-500 DG Super for the flash. I don't
mind having it re-chipped if need be (and it looks like it likely
will). I didn't realize the 360FGZ didn't rotate. The 540FGZ
seems a bit expensive. Are there any older model Pentax brand
flashes that work properly with the K100D? I know in Nikon you
basicly had to have one of their 2 newest models to work
automaticly w/ most of their dSLRs. That's why I went with the
Sigma.

And wlachan...

As for "why bother asking"... I'm new to Pentax as a whole and I'm
looking for input from those who know the system better. I am
looking for other options or some red flags if something i've
picked out is just horrible. I do some work more serious than what
an 18-200mm VR would be acceptable for and it's also an overpriced
lens that's hard to find under $1000, much less its retail price of
$699. I think the lenses I've picked out will keep my level of
quality high as well as give me some casual options. There are
still options in every category of equipment I'm looking at, I'm
just trying to get the best information to make the decision.
Everyone else who's posted in this thread have been extremely
helpful and well intentioned... I'm not sure why you feel the need
to be condescending and borderline-rude, so if you do, don't bother
posting in my thread.

Everyone else thank you so much for your help so far and keep your
comments/opinions coming. Thanks!
Click to expand...
--
I'm so bored!
 
I have two friend who use the Sigma 24-70 - one on 350D and the other on Dynax 5D. Both have mixed feelings about it. On one side, they value the build quality and image quality generally, but on the other hand they do not like the image quality wide open (even talking about it being unusable at that aperture) and also they hate the weight. I have not had the chance to compare that lens to my Tamron yet but just comparing the weight and handling the Tamron wins IMHO. And for me, the built quality is not that bad either. Nevertheless, the Sigma is capable of taking very nice images, indeed.

--
Take care!

Ondrej 'Andaar'

Life is a game, so lets play!
 
Stephen Hopkins said:
Here's what I plan to get and what I think I can get it for:

Pentax K100D w/ 18-55mm - $575
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 - $325
Sigma 100-300 f/4 - $700
Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 - $140
Sigma 1.4x TC - $125
Pentax 360FGZ Flash - $200
Click to expand...
Welcome to the forum. I think the MOST important reason most people (atleast on this board) use Pentax, is for it's lenses/Glass. Why get the body and not get some of the best lenses around. Also, keep in mind (from what I've read in many places) SIGMA has not licensed Pentax K mount, and they have just reversed engineered the compatibility. Many SIGMA lenses have minor/major problems as a K mount.

By all counts the SIgma 24-70 F/2.8 is NOT a good lens

Many people here have had problems with Sigma 100-300 F/4 (front/back focus), NOT a good choice on a Pentax body.

So here is my recommendation:
  • Pentax K100D + Kit 18-55 lens (a great starting point)
  • If you want the 28-300 get the latest model Tamron (again NOT Sigma)
  • Pentax DA 50-200 ($180) (fantastic & SMALL)
  • Pentax FA 50 F/1.4 ($160)
  • The best affordable F/2.8 zoom lens for normal lengths is the Tamon 28-75 F/2.8 Macro ;-)
For longer glass if you can find a used Pentax F* or FA* 300mm F/4.5 prime, then you will never go back ;-)

Here are some of my sample images:
Pentax F*300mm : http://shadzee.smugmug.com/keyword/f300
Tamron 28-75 F/2.8: http://shadzee.smugmug.com/keyword/tam28to75
Pentax FA 50 F/1.4: http://shadzee.smugmug.com/keyword/fa50

--
.Sam.

PhotoBlog: http://www.shadzee.com/ - Gallery: http://shadzee.smugmug.com/

 
I'm still definitely considering the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. I guess I've pretty much started to rule out the Sigma 24/28-70mm f/2.8. I still haven't heard any input on the Tokina 28-70mm f/2.8. I LOVE my Tokina 28-80mm f/2.8 and the 28-70mm seems to have the same build but a slightly different finish... can anyone comment on the Tokina 28-70mm's optical characteristics?

For what I do (cheerleading team photography) I need a long faster zoom so the 50-200mm won't cut it for me (especially coming from the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR). I like the range of the 100-300mm f/4 since I currently find myself constantly using my Kenko 1.5x TC on my 70-200mm f/2.8 VR which degrades the lenses exceptional sharpness.
 
Stephen Hopkins said:
If I wanted to go that route I'd just sell the 70-200mm VR and pick
up a used Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 or 100-300mm f/4. This would give
about the same difference in cash but leave me with no form of
stabilization AND speed in telephoto. VR can't stop action. f/2.8
can, f/4 usually can.
Click to expand...
Frankly, you're not being very consistent. You want to swap one of the best telephoto zooms ever made for lenses that don't have the wide aperture, yet then you turn around and imply you need telephoto lens speed.

My take on all this: you want to switch from Nikon to Pentax and are willing to compromise lens quality and performance to do that. That's perfectly fine, but understand clearly what you're doing. Thing is, you're going from a camera (6mp D50) that is highly tolerant of modest and mediocre lens quality to one (10mp K10D) that should clearly reveal the differences between lenses of different quality. AND you're going from at least one very high quality lens (70-200mm VR) to a much less capable one (all of the telephoto zooms you've indicated). That makes no sense to me.

Personally, I wouldn't do what you suggest (and not just because I'm a Nikon guy; if someone posted the same basic thing about moving from a *ist with great lenses to a D200 with compromised lens choices I'd say the same thing).

--
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide & Nikon Flash Guide
editor, Nikon DSLR Report
author, Complete Guides: D50, D70, D100, D200, D1 series, D2h, D2x, S2 Pro
http://www.bythom.com
 
You're nuts. Seriously - stick with the big two - Canon or Nikon.

I seriously doubt Pentax will be in the game in five years.

Where are you going to be then?

You'd be better off getting a D80 and bumping up your photoshop post process skills than switching brands, to be very honest.

-m
 
Part of it is financial... I can make back around $600 in the transition and I over-extended myself to get the 70-200mm VR in the first place. Part of it is thinking that having 2 stops from IS on all of my lenses vs. 3 stops from VR on one lens makes sense.

I know the 100-300mm f/4 isn't as great a lens as the 70-200mm VR BUT it seems for the price difference as well as having in body IS along with it should mean it'll meet my needs. When I say I need speed I mean I need more than I would get from an equivalent variable aperature consumer zoom. Constant f/4 should be fine, especially w/ IS. 4.5-5.6 or worse from something like the upcomming 70-300mm VR likely would not. If there were a 100-300mm f/4 VR/OS out there in the sub-$1000 price I might go that route, but there's no such lens.

The 70-200mm VR is really alot more lens than I need and I think I can get the results I'm expecting from slightly more modest but different equipment. I over-extended myself when I bought even though I did get a great deal at the time. I'm also replacing my Tokina 12-24mm f/4 w/ the Pentax 18-55mm kit lens because currently the 12-24mm sees very little use and extremely wide isn't what I tend to shoot, so the 18-55mm kit lens should be wide enough on the rare occasions I do want something wide.

Also, for now atleast, I'm going to the K100D to facilitate financial recoupment that this switch makes possible. If the K10D turns out as great as it looks then I may upgrade in 9 -12 months once the price creeps down a bit more.
 
This isn't all about what will get me the absolute best results. It's about what will keep my quality acceptable AND make a little money back for a financial sittuation that has come up. It's also a little about giving something new a try. If I could some how keep my 70-200mm VR, get in body IS on all my lenses, and make $500 back I'd do so in a heartbeat... but I can't... plus I'm constantly finding myself using a TC on my 70-200mm VR to get it to 300mm which is likely killing a good bit of the sharpness it's known for. I want something relatively fast (f/4 seems to be), relatively high quality, image stabilized (2 stops is fine though VR's 3 stops is nice), and that puts some money back in my pocket after taking care of an unforseen need of my wife's that arose.
 
Stephen Hopkins said:
Part of it is financial...
Click to expand...
The part that's financial is taken care of by doing what an earlier poster said: sell everything but the body (and the 50mm f/1.8) and get the 18-200mm VR.
Stephen Hopkins said:
Part of it is thinking that having 2 stops from IS on
all of my lenses vs. 3 stops from VR on one lens makes sense.
Click to expand...
Using only the 18-200mm takes care of that, too. The primary loss is two stops of aperture for three stops of VR, but you're using a D50, which has a pretty darned clean ISO 1600.

It seems that you're making this much more complicated than it needs to be. Do you really need multiple lenses (you admit that the 70-200mm is overkill for you)? Do you really need to sell multiple items and buy multiple different items that are basically near item-for-item replacements? Seems like a lot of hassle for what you seem to want: stabilized images.

--
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide & Nikon Flash Guide
editor, Nikon DSLR Report
author, Complete Guides: D50, D70, D100, D200, D1 series, D2h, D2x, S2 Pro
http://www.bythom.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top