D300 + cheap lenses? or 350D + expensive lenses?

[White16valver]

I might be able to get a great price on a D300 (not sure if it's the D300 or D300s, but both look good) but I don't think I can then afford the lenses that would do it justice...

Would the 18-105mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX be a good day to day lens to start with?

Or the 18-55 f3.5-5.6 VR lens?

With a 55-200mm f4.5-5.6 DX VR for the longer stuff?

They're pretty cheap and would cover most bases until I could save up for a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 and a Sigma 70-200 f2.8...

Or has anyone any experience with the Tokina 16-50mm F2.8 AT-X165 at c.£450? That would cover wide-ish angle landscapes and urbex stuff, through to portrait shots.



I have also seen that the Canon 350D with kit lens up may go for £200 new, although I'm not so keen on it tbh as it feels 'cheap' and it's also a bit small, even for my girly hands.


Any help much appreciated as there's like a million different options and I don't want to miss out on a good body just because I can't afford ££££ glass at the moment!

Cheers all

 

[Andy.]

There is a world of difference between the D300 and the 350D. There is also some decent cameras between the two such as a D90 or 500D/ 50D. It might mean that you don't have to make such a compromise on glass.

It's worth remebering that glass will hold its value well but cameras will drop fairly quickly.

I was in a similar situation to you and had the opportunity to pick up a 5D MkII for a bargain price and sold all my glass and old camera to get it, so I'd probably get the D300 and pick up glass over the next year.

 

[theduck]

Always better glass imo. Though as said, I would go somewhere in the middle, or older better camera, and newer better glass.

 

[White16valver]

Thanks for the input

I am not sure if I can get the D300 or not, I'm awaiting confirmation about whether it's available at the good price I'm hoping for, but I think I probably will go for it if I can get it...

I might have to stick with a standard-type lens for the moment though

I think I've read that, of the Nikon lenses, 18-200mm > 18-70mm > 18-55mm > 18-105mm / 18-135mm.

Would you agree with that?

 

[Feirny]

350D is really old kit now, I'd be tempted by the dark side

 

[Derelict-UK]

I have the D300, how much is cheap? I bought mine for £1100 2 years back and after having a Fuji S2, S3 & S5 Pro I have finally found a digital SLR I am happy to live with until I jump to full frame.

Have you used a DSLR before? Canon 350D, 400D 450D etc are easy to use but full of plastic and made for people with girly hands (unless you buy the grip).

Nikons are more expensive, but built better (anything from the D80 on are built better than the Canon's). Their menus are also harder to understand.

if you are using the 350D with an expensive lens, it will be top heavy, if you sell the 2 nikon lenses and buy a nikon 18-200mm VR then you get best of both worlds.

If you are looking at an Urbex lens, then get the Tokina 12-24mm (you can get the old version as the only diff with the new one is an in built motor for the D40/D40x/D60 cameras.) It is pin sharp for images & quiet in focussing (its pretty much the only lens I have used for the past 3 years whilst on explores).

 

[ukaskew]

Always better glass imo. Though as said, I would go somewhere in the middle, or older better camera, and newer better glass.

I agree with this, although my D90 is a lot nicer to use than my D50, if I had the choice of my D50 and some nice fast glass, or my D90 and a fairly standard lens...I would go with the D50 and decent glass every single time with a seconds hesitation.

The body is realistically going to make about 1% of the difference to most peoples photography needs, yet a difference in glass will be immediately apparent and obvious on even the smallest prints etc.

 

[White16valver]

Thanks for the replies

I was thinking about the 11-16 tokina as it's supposed to be awesomely sharp and would be good for the occasional explore that I do, but it's just a bit short for day to day... lol

I haven't really looked at the 12-24 as I was ideally wanting f2.8 for maximum light capture, although I guess that the D300 has better higher-ISO performance than my current bridge Fuji S6500fd so should be fine, and the extra length would be handy. (I was impressed with the Birmingham Fire Station photo's by the way, Derelict, makes me realise that I have to get out and do more stuff!)

I think I might have to go for the 18-200 Nikon glass if I do get the D300 as I'm not sure I can stretch to a wide angle and another lens just yet The wide angle can come later once I've paid off the D300 and saved some money... lol

Anyway, it may all come to nothing. I will let you know how much if I can get the D300!

 

[Andy.]

f2.8 - f4 is only one stop. = 1/60 instead of 1/30. Not a huge difference TBH. A lot of urbex photographers tend to take tripods with them as the light is always bad in disused places anyway (AFAIK).

 

[White16valver]

This is true, but sometimes shots require handheld (and a tripod can be a PITA tbh lol) and one stop can be all it needs! :clown:

Can anyone tell me how big the DoF difference can be between 2.8 and 4.0? Big DoF is good sometimes but on my Bridge, pretty much all apertures come out the same LoL so I don't know what difference it makes on a proper camera!

 

[Revels]

Will depend on the mm too.

f2.8 at 50mm will look different to f2.8 at 200mm.

 

[Omid]

Will depend on the mm too.

f2.8 at 50mm will look different to f2.8 at 200mm.

Wow! I never knew that!! Is that like a big difference or just minimal?

 

[Andy.]

Wow! I never knew that!! Is that like a big difference or just minimal?

Huge difference. At the wide end, there is a much wider DOF than at the long end. I'll post some pics to show you in a bit.

It's all related to the perspective that you have on the subject and the relative distances.

 

[Omid]

Huge difference. At the wide end, there is a much wider DOF than at the long end. I'll post some pics to show you in a bit.

It's all related to the perspective that you have on the subject and the relative distances.

Thank you.

My 55-250mm seems to get as shallow a DOF at f5.6 (when really close up) as my 50mm does at f1.8, is that what you are explaining, because I am confused, I am sure your photos will explain it though.

 

[Andy.]

You'll have to excuse the quality, I have had a couple of beers.

Its not very scientific as I couldn't be bothered with measuring tapes etc, but I have taken a couple of shots and put them together.

1,2 & 3 were all shot on a tripod from the same spot. The focal length changes, as does the perspective. I have cropped down to the same section of each image. You can see the impact on the bookeh.

4 & 5 were shot at different focal lengths with the camera moved closer to get a similar perspective on the box. (minimal focal distance meant that I could not get quite close enough). Even though the perspective is similar, it is clear that the wider the lens, the larger the DOF is.

I have linked the original images to help visualise what I have done.

Originals:
1 2 3 4 5

Disclaimer: I could be completely off the mark but it makes sense to me in my beery haze. :clown:

 

[Omid]

Wow, amazing, most valuable thing I learnt in a while about aperture and DOF!

Thanks Andy.

 

[Andy.]

Welcome. Glad to be of service.

 

[White16valver]

Unnngh, my head hurts! lol

I knew that lower f number = wider aperture = shallow DoF = lots of bokeh, but I never knew that greater focal length = shallower DoF and more bokeh for any given aperture!

That's my one new thing you learn everyday for today LoL

Thanks for the illustrative pics!

 

[Revels]

Lol. Top marks for that, Andy.

I tried looking for pics to compare but couldn't find anything.

 

[Andy.]

Lol, cheers. Beer & boredom.

 

[Omid]

Lol, cheers. Beer & boredom.

Haha, I just ordered a 70-200mm f4 l after putting it off for a long time thinking I won't get that shallow DOF. Good choice or not? :S Boredom did it

 

[Andy.]

Fantastic value for money. I loved mine and have never heard a bad word against them. I had a hard time choosing between the f4 & f2.8, but an extra stop at 200mm is worth having for me so I got the 2.8.

 

[Paul_G]

Aye any of the 70-200mm lenses are cracking, I own the 'basic' f4L...

As for DOF, well 200mm, especially up close, at f4 can produce very shallow DOF, you'll be pleasantly surprised.

 

[Omid]

Fantastic value for money. I loved mine and have never heard a bad word against them. I had a hard time choosing between the f4 & f2.8, but an extra stop at 200mm is worth having for me so I got the 2.8.

I think it is good to have to, as is the IS, but the price just sky rockets when you step up from this one. I am only going to be using it as a telephoto for holiday so I don't want anything to bulky. 2.8 IS is amazing though!

I am worried I won't have enough reach, but we will see I guess!

Aye any of the 70-200mm lenses are cracking, I own the 'basic' f4L...

As for DOF, well 200mm, especially up close, at f4 can produce very shallow DOF, you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Same one I have just ordered. I get it really well with my 55-250mm at the minute, now thanks to Andy I know why

 

[Andy.]

I think it is good to have to, as is the IS, but the price just sky rockets when you step up from this one. I am only going to be using it as a telephoto for holiday so I don't want anything to bulky. 2.8 IS is amazing though!

I am worried I won't have enough reach, but we will see I guess!

Same one I have just ordered. I get it really well with my 55-250mm at the minute, now thanks to Andy I know why

yeah, the 2.8 IS is a bit of a tank, the photos make it worth it.

I also find the 200mm a bit short, especially on full frame, but have got away with it by cropping into the images so far. I am going to borrow a 2x converter soon to see how badly it affects the images. The only time I found 200mm too short on the 40D was with some kitesurfers. They were just too far away to get a decent focus lock on.

 

[Omid]

yeah, the 2.8 IS is a bit of a tank, the photos make it worth it.

I also find the 200mm a bit short, especially on full frame, but have got away with it by cropping into the images so far. I am going to borrow a 2x converter soon to see how badly it affects the images. The only time I found 200mm too short on the 40D was with some kitesurfers. They were just too far away to get a decent focus lock on.

The other thing I am unsure about.

This crop factor of 1.6x, is that just an illusion that you are closer caused by the edges of the photo being cropped or does it mean that the photo is actually magnified by 1.6x?

Because I know less is recorded on the sensor (for arguments sake 15mp) so you get 15mp of that data. Where is with a FF you may have to crop the photo manually losing like 20% or whatever. In neither are actually closer if you get me

I may end up going for the 100-400mm a bit later on :S

 

[Andy.]

It is actually to do with pixel density and sensor size.

A crop camera only uses the centre portion of the image coming through the lens, but the pixels on the sensor that it hits are more dense than those on a full frame.

In terms of pixels, the resulting image is 1.6 x closer to the subject than the same image taken on a full frame camera, even though you don't actually see the subject any closer through the viewfinder.