NoFear and BB, step inside, please...

[keithdog]

I think your going to like that camera settup Daniel. I started out with a Nikon F100 film camera AFTER switching from Canon, hahaha. Now I'm mostly shooing my Nikon D90. I had 3 lenses already from my F100 and they all work on my D90. Thats one nice thing about Nikons, they're lenses for the most part are interchangable. It's like the Garcia vs Shimano war when Nikon and Canon guys get together, haha. I keep toying with the idea of buying the Nikkor 70-300VR zoom lens. I already have the Nikkor 80-400VR and it's a great lens, but pretty heavy and bulky for toting around all day. In case you would be interrested there is a web site you should visit that I belong to. Members post their photos based on many catagories, and there are many forum sections to read through. TONS of usefull info there and plenty of folks who want to help the beginners and the pros alike. You can even click on a tab for photos shot by a certain lens or camera body for comparrison. It's called photosig.com.

[BigBassin144]

I don't think it's overkill at all, especially if they don't make a comparable 50mm for the APS-C sized sensor. I think the main thing is the fast lens for low light situations. If it was about having the actual 50mm focal range, I'd go with a 35 to compensate for the crop factor of the APS-C sensor.

Originally Posted by gonefishin3

Not to twist this convorsation or anything but.... what about video cameras in the 600 price range? Just curious..... I figure a good video camera can take decent pictures.

I think that really depends on what you want to do with it. If you'll be shooting a lot of video with the occasional photo, then that should be fine. But if you are wanting to take picture, get a camera. It doesn't have to be an expensive DSLR if you really don't need one. There are plenty of great, easier to use, and less expensive point and shoots out there.

BB

[nofearengineer]

Originally Posted by BigBassin144

I don't think it's overkill at all, especially if they don't make a comparable 50mm for the APS-C sized sensor. I think the main thing is the fast lens for low light situations. If it was about having the actual 50mm focal range, I'd go with a 35 to compensate for the crop factor of the APS-C sensor.
BB

I just mean it's a shame that he has to pay an extra $100 over the f/1.8 50 mm D lens that would have exactly the same quality, plus an aperture ring. All because the camera body doesn't have an AF motor.

And please remember, compensating for a crop factor by changing focal length is sort of a fallacy. The two different focal lengths will have different aperture characteristics. Focal length has to do with magnification, not image size. If you want a large image, get a full-frame sensor.

Either way, the G lens will do what he wants to do; he will just be restricted to "thru camera" aperture control.

[MississippiBoy]

Good shots, Chris. Lookin' good...

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

I just mean it's a shame that he has to pay an extra $100 over the f/1.8 50 mm D lens that would have exactly the same quality, plus an aperture ring. All because the camera body doesn't have an AF motor.

And please remember, compensating for a crop factor by changing focal length is sort of a fallacy. The two different focal lengths will have different aperture characteristics. Focal length has to do with magnification, not image size. If you want a large image, get a full-frame sensor.

Either way, the G lens will do what he wants to do; he will just be restricted to "thru camera" aperture control.

I guess I'm kinda stuck with these two options...either the 35mm DX lens, or the 50mm FX lens. Or I could get an AF lens like Bender has, and just deal with having to manually focus it....I don't really like that option, and I KNOW my wife won't.
I'm really having a hard time deciding between those two lenses, assuming I wind up getting one of them....I know the DX lens is "made for" my camera, but I won't want to use a DX lens on an FX camera, if I decide to upgrade sometime in the future. So if I sell the lens with the camera, lose money in the process, and buy another lens, I'll pay more for it then than I would if I bought it now, so I'm better off buying the full FX lens now....IF I ever decide to upgrade. But if I don't upgrade, I'll have spent the extra money on the full size lens, to no real benefit....

Why, oh why, did I ever get started on cameras? Fishing stuff is bad enough, without adding in all of this to it....

I guess I'm going to try looking around for a used AF-S lens somewhere that may work for me. Anybody have any ideas on a particular lens? Something with AF-S, f/1.8 or 1.4, and maybe even an aperture ring? I hadn't thought of that until you brought it up, Bryce. It is a pain adjusting that with the little thumbwheel this camera has....I bet it's a lot easier to just rotate the ring to where you want it.

[nofearengineer]

Originally Posted by MississippiBoy

Good shots, Chris. Lookin' good...



I guess I'm kinda stuck with these two options...either the 35mm DX lens, or the 50mm FX lens. Or I could get an AF lens like Bender has, and just deal with having to manually focus it....I don't really like that option, and I KNOW my wife won't.
I'm really having a hard time deciding between those two lenses, assuming I wind up getting one of them....I know the DX lens is "made for" my camera, but I won't want to use a DX lens on an FX camera, if I decide to upgrade sometime in the future. So if I sell the lens with the camera, lose money in the process, and buy another lens, I'll pay more for it then than I would if I bought it now, so I'm better off buying the full FX lens now....IF I ever decide to upgrade. But if I don't upgrade, I'll have spent the extra money on the full size lens, to no real benefit....

Why, oh why, did I ever get started on cameras? Fishing stuff is bad enough, without adding in all of this to it....

I guess I'm going to try looking around for a used AF-S lens somewhere that may work for me. Anybody have any ideas on a particular lens? Something with AF-S, f/1.8 or 1.4, and maybe even an aperture ring? I hadn't thought of that until you brought it up, Bryce. It is a pain adjusting that with the little thumbwheel this camera has....I bet it's a lot easier to just rotate the ring to where you want it.

Daniel, I hope I didn't give you the impression that you should get a different lens. That is the best 50mm lens you can get for your D3100, as it is the only one that will autofocus. I was merely lamenting that it had no aperture ring. (All "G" lenses lack an aperture ring, even the $5,000 ones.) My favorite lens (18-200 VR) is a"G". But I like prime lenses to have one. Also, my opinion of the 50mm G lens is that the build quality is kind of crappy...a lot of plastic in it (the 18-200 is waaaay better built).

I also want to go ahead and nuke your plan on using it in the future, if only based upon it being full-frame capable. Yes, it will work, but if you ever spend the cash to upgrade to an FX sensor camera, you will not be using this lens. All Nikon FX cameras have an AF motor. You will then be able to use two of the finest lenses Nikon has ever produced, the f/1.8D AF (~$110), or the f/1.4D AF (~$300). The f/1.4 is mind-blowing in low-light situations.

Don't take any of this as a criticism. Nikon's upgrade path is a confusing nightmare. Heck, half of the time, I don't think there even is a path. It's almost like they're just throwing things out randomly, or even worse, deliberately creating conflicts that make you buy extra products. Welcome to hell, buddy.

[MississippiBoy]

Originally Posted by nofearengineer

Don't take any of this as a criticism. Nikon's upgrade path is a confusing nightmare. Heck, half of the time, I don't think there even is a path. It's almost like they're just throwing things out randomly, or even worse, deliberately creating conflicts that make you buy extra products. Welcome to hell, buddy.

Soooooo, you're saying I should've gone with a Canon instead?

I think I may ask for one of these lenses for Christmas this year. Still debating back and forth between the 35mm and the 50mm. I'm confused as to how the DX/FX thing works as far as the field of view...35mm will give me a wider view, the 50mm will be more zoom. From what I've read, the 50mm FX lens on my DX camera will magnify (probably not the right word, but it's the best I could come up with) up to the equivalent of a 75mm lens. I don't want to get the 35mm and then find out that I would really like a little more zoom, or get the 50mm and find out that I'm always having to step away from my subject (camera terminology! Aren't you proud?) to capture what I want.
An idea hit me while I was typing that...I could use my current 18-55mm lens, keep it at 35mm and use it for a while, then swap to my 55-200mm lens and try it at 75mm. I predict I'll like the 35mm better....

[Bender]

Daniel, I have the 50mm lens without the AF motor so it is all manual. The lens is great for the cost and the photos are extra crisp. With f1.8 you can really get a shallow depth of field. It isn't the lens that I keep on my camera all the time though since it is fixed, but when you are able to adjust your position to get the right photo it is great. Here are a few photos I took last summer with that lens:



and a cropped bumble bee, click the photo to see the big original:



I do wish that I had paid attention and bought the one with the motor, but I don't mind the manual focus most of the time.

[Bender]

And just to add to the confusion I found this 40mm lens: http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Produc...%252F2.8G.html

I've been contemplating upgrading too, but not sure I want to jump all the way to an FX camera since they start around $3,000. I've been looking for a macro lens and trying to decide between the 85mm and 105mm, the $450 difference might make the decision easy though. That's where I came across that 40mm listed above. It's an extra $50 over the 50mm you were looking at but gives you the ability to focus much closer and take 1:1 macro photos.

And I agree, this stuff is really addictive. I think that I spend more time shooting than I do fishing now.

[nofearengineer]

Originally Posted by Bender

And just to add to the confusion I found this 40mm lens: http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Produc...%252F2.8G.html

I've been contemplating upgrading too, but not sure I want to jump all the way to an FX camera since they start around $3,000. I've been looking for a macro lens and trying to decide between the 85mm and 105mm, the $450 difference might make the decision easy though. That's where I came across that 40mm listed above. It's an extra $50 over the 50mm you were looking at but gives you the ability to focus much closer and take 1:1 macro photos.

And I agree, this stuff is really addictive. I think that I spend more time shooting than I do fishing now.

Go for the 105! DO IT!!!!

I've been sweating that lens for years. I really want to do some macro work, but that is a ton of cash.

[Bender]

I don't know if I will go that far or not. The lens over which I drool is the 24-70mm general purpose lens. Many of the professional photos I see are taken with this lens.

I just saw some photos taken with this Canon macro lens that were awesome, but Nikon does not have an equivalent lens.

The next big issue for me is figuring out some lighting. That stuff is also pretty expensive.

[nofearengineer]

My "California-mom," Janis...has the 24-70, the 105 micro, and the 200 prime. We both have D300's. Every time I visit there I have to pry my fingers off of those lenses. She takes some really nice photos.

[BigBassin144]

The Nikon built in AF motor thing is confusing.

I've also been wanting a macro (Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro) for a while, but $580 is a lot to drop for me. however, it is supposed to be one of the sharpest non L series lenses Canon makes.

Camara gear is much worse than fishing gear...

BB