Pretty sure it sounds like you want the Hi-Fi...(judging from your posts).
I like the lens too - but get what you want
I like the lens too - but get what you want
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
HELP! Christmas... (Photographers..)
- Thread starter FocusAndEarnIt
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm not even a photographer really and I say the lens. But.. I also think the iPod Hi-Fi isn't worth it (I'm not an audiophile, and on top of that, I think it's pretty ugly), so I'm biased that way..
Although the lens is much better of a purchase (BTW, the HiFi has really bad sound if you ever listen to classical or jazz), I'd feel terrible putting my parents back $425. Well, I won't get in to that. I'd go for the lens. Just tell your mom that a lens will last you a while and 3/4 of the next 10 years will include spring, summer, and fall
Anyway, you can also take pictures of icicles until it warms up
Anyway, you can also take pictures of icicles until it warms up
The lens but with questions. Why the 60? Do you have the other prime and zooms you need or want? The 60 is great. I use one quite a lot. But I have the other wide and telephoto zooms I need. You can always patch your ipod into your mac or stereo other ways but you can't beat good glass.There is a sigma 50 macro 1:1 for $269 that might work for your needs? You can also combine a 50mm 1.8 AF lens with Kenko extension AF tubes for a nice macro combo. The Nikon 50 1.8 is quite affordable, new for $105. The tubes can be mixed and matched up to a set of three at $155. The tubes come in 12/20/36 mm. You would have to combine the 36 and 20 for a 1:1 effect or actually a little more than 1:1. The 20 give you slightly less than 2:1. The macro lenses do this without tubes and offer a flat front that is nice for copy work. But the 50 and tubes are a cheaper alternative that gives you a lens that is slightly faster and the stacked tubes can offer more than the 1:1 range that the 60 2.8 is giving you. If you use all three that is. You could simply stick with the 20/36 for a 1:1. You can find the Kenko tubes used on eBay sometime. So you could combine the tubes and 50 1.8 and come out ahead. Maybe even find an iPod speaker system for the difference.
Lens for 2 reasons
1) I heard that the HiFi wasn't even that good (i think it got bad reviews)
2) That lens is not really a consumer item but more in the high-end/professional end, thus it is MUCH less susceptible to being marked down around the holiday season. The HiFi on the other hand is a very main-stream consumer friendly product and is more likely to be marked down. Thus you can technically get both, of course having your parents get you the more expensive of the two.
1) I heard that the HiFi wasn't even that good (i think it got bad reviews)
2) That lens is not really a consumer item but more in the high-end/professional end, thus it is MUCH less susceptible to being marked down around the holiday season. The HiFi on the other hand is a very main-stream consumer friendly product and is more likely to be marked down. Thus you can technically get both, of course having your parents get you the more expensive of the two.
The lens, but I'd go for the Nikon 105 mm f/2.8 rather than the 60 mm. Yes, the 60 mm is sharper (the sharpest lens in the Nikon lineup, perhaps), but the 105 mm gives you more working distance from the subject (important for bugs or any situation where your head and camera might produce a shadow on the subject), and will produce smoother backgrounds, although I can't tell you the number of aperture blades or how the bokeh looks with either lens.
Personally, I am hoping to get the 105 mm with VR, but not until much later.
This is coming from a fellow Nikon user who owns an iPod and loves Loves LOVES listening to music.
I've got the same lens for the Canon EOS 400d, you will NOT be disappointed.
Seriously go for the lens.
Seriously go for the lens.