We're working on a new Slickdeals. Click here to check it out.
You last visited: Today at 01:26 AM
|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|04-10-2013 09:37 AM|
i'll keep this in mind next time i see such a deal again
|04-10-2013 09:15 AM|
Has anyone gotten the IWANT20 code to work? I have the 35mm from Adorama in my cart. It says invalid code when I try to use it. I also tried the trick of adding something to my cart that someone mentioned in an earlier post and that doesn't work either.
edit: nevermind, the code expired.
|04-10-2013 06:39 AM|
So next time when the price drops to $180, don't think, buy it!
|04-10-2013 06:27 AM|
Anyone considering these lenses should check out Ken's Nikon reviews:
That bokeh comment by shnitz was pretty much spot on. Hope the reviews help!
|04-09-2013 11:56 PM|
|04-09-2013 09:36 PM|
Do you guys think i should pull the trigger on the 35mm? I've justo got a d3100 with the kit lens and have read that i should use it extensively and see what kind of shots i like and then decide on lenses
Do you think we will see a better deal later on? Say black friday?
|04-09-2013 06:08 PM|
You are mis-speaking; perhaps you don't know as much about cameras as you think that you do. The AF-I lenses were super expensive lenses from the mid 1990's.
And I don't know why you think that the "50 1.8D and 70-300mm here are better lens," because they aren't. The 50mm, while sharp in the center, has ATROCIOUS bokeh, and it also doesn't deliver the expected performance across the frame that you'd expect. So, even if your camera, such as the D7000 or the D600 autofocuses with this, then for the image quality alone you owe it to yourself to spend the extra money.
The 70-300mm similarly is rather disappointing optically. If you MUST have a cheap telephoto lens, get yourself the 55-200mm VR or 55-300mm VR, which don't SUCK like the 70-300mm G. The 70-300mm VR actually IS much much much better optically, not to mention the VR and the SWM autofocus. The 70-300mm G with its dinky 13 elements just can't keep up with the resolving capabilities and the increased demand of digital sensors.
The reason that these two lenses are an anachronism is because they are cheap, but none of the cheap cameras can use them. You seem to think that I disregard all non AF-S lenses, but that isn't true. There are many gems. Unfortunately, these two plastic fantastics aren't included in that list.
Also, the D7000 is absolutely not entry level, and you have to be out of your mind to think that a camera that came out with a $1,200 MSRP deserves to be regarded anywhere near "entry." Plus, that's only the CHEAPEST camera that one would consider today with a focus motor. Stepping up from there, you're telling people that bought the $2,000 D600 or $3,000 D800 that it's okay to skimp on lenses, when it's just not okay. You're better off buying a D5100 and great lenses than buying a full frame camera and crappy lenses.
Last, you're a fool for blowing off anything not made by Nikon. Nikon's engineers aren't privy to any laws of physics not available to anyone else; last I checked they were still just hiring engineers that graduated from the same schools as everyone else. A lens is simply a collection of glass, metal, and plastic that focuses a subject onto a plane. You're drinking the Kool-Aid if you think that by virtue of being a Nikon lens, it is any better than the competition. The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is a prime example, as it has shamed Nikon and Canon for a fraction of the cost. I'd put Sigma's and Tamron's macro lenses up against anything from the first party makers as well. Plus, the Tamron 70-300mm VC beats the Nikon 70-300mm VR, sorry buddy. It is better performing optically, has an incredible image stabilization system, AND it's cheaper. Wake up, because you're stuck in the matrix, happily living in ignorance.
As to whether to get a lower end SLR or an interchangeable mirrorless camera, that's a whole 'nother can of worms. A mirrorless camera doesn't have the system of an entry-level SLR, i.e. when you start adding the flash, dizzying array of lenses, capability to shoot sports and wildlife (go try and shoot a soccer or baseball game with a micro 4/3 camera, or birds in flight, and then come back here so that I can laugh at your keeper rate), etc. I have a micro 4/3 camera, by the way, and really enjoy using it. There are many times that I take it out, but it is no replacement in many ways to an SLR.
|04-09-2013 03:23 PM|
|04-09-2013 02:13 PM|
|squall8960||For the 35mm, how does the distortion compare to it's 50mm counterpart?|
|04-09-2013 02:09 PM|
A Nikon with built AF motor that is required to use AF for these lenses starts from D7000, not really a "high end" but the entry level serious DSLR, whereas D5100/3100 are consumer point & shoot DSLR who use it as P&S. My personal opinion, instead of D5100/3100, might as well get NEX or M43 which make more sense to these type of buyers.
Sigma or tamron's lenses, are always lower quality than Nikon or Canon's own, that's well known fact. The price difference is well justified. Or if it is any good it aren't cheap. So ther is not much a short in lens choices, except the old AF-I Nikon lenses, which is a bargain.
|04-09-2013 02:06 PM|
|04-09-2013 01:51 PM|
|upoy||would 70-300mm work for D5100?|
|04-09-2013 01:44 PM|
|04-09-2013 01:26 PM|
|berto||Nice, too bad CA tax kills it|
|04-09-2013 01:21 PM|
|This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|