theres a seller on kijiji selling a 24-120mm VR zoom nikon lens for 200 dollars, is that a good deal? lol
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.
Nikon 50mm Prime lens (1.4g or 1.8g) to big (tight FOV) for nikon d5200?
- Thread starter Chuck-Norris
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
theres a seller on kijiji selling a 24-120mm VR zoom nikon lens for 200 dollars, is that a good deal? lol
No idea. Best to have a look at ebay prices and dealers that deal with used equipment to see what they offer this lens for. A quick google of this lens shows that both versions are generally considered to be pretty close to the worst performing lens Nikon has ever made. I'm just repeating what I've read. I've never seen, touched, or used one of these lenses.
yes i saw a review on it saying its one of nikons worst lens LOL, i was wondering if you guys had experiences with it or have heard of it.
thanks for the reply attonine!
Chuck-Norris said:
Chuck-Norris said:
I have heard of it, but like Attonine, have never used one and have read some not-so-great reviews. Shop around and compare prices, but keep in mind that it's not a good deal if you aren't going to use it.
in my search for a second lens with my 35mm 1.8g, i found a Nikon 17-55mm 2.8g lens for 750 dollars. Is that a good deal and would it be something you guys have experience with and/or range?
I have the 17-55mm f/2.8 and think highly of it. If you are looking for a standard zoom on a DX body, I think it is a good choice, giving you similar fields of view to what you would have with a 24-70 on a full-frame body.
It is a DX lens, so it won't work (at least with full functionality) on a full-frame body, but you could always sell it if you decide to go that way in the future.
In terms of whether it is a "good deal," that depends on whether you are in the market for and will use a standard zoom (as opposed to primes or a wide or tele zoom) and its condition, etc. Shop around to compare prices. It is worth noting that your 35mm is basically right in the middle of the 17-55mm range, so you might not need/want to carry both.
oh you already ahve this? thats awesome! I'm assuming you purchased it yourself, from your perspective, is 750 a good deal for it? it looks like there 1400 brand new.
also, is it something that would replace my 35mm? in terms of better performance or jsut beter overall lens to have? I can easily sell the 35mm again and break even lol
thanks for your help!
the 17-55 2.8, both Nikon and Canon versions are highly regarded lenses, for DX bodies. I only have experience of Canon's version of this lens and it was fine. Equivalent to 24-70 in FX terms, and so covers the most widely used focal lengths for general photography. I believe the 17-55 2.8 is one of the "must have" DX lenses for most people.
As for price, I have no idea what they go for used, again check ebay (there are always lots available) and dealers who have used stock.
As for price, I have no idea what they go for used, again check ebay (there are always lots available) and dealers who have used stock.
"Good deal" is all relative (condition, do you need/want it, etc.). As far as price for that specific lens, I can't tell you what the used market is right now. Be sure to inquire about condition, return policy, etc.
For me, the 17-55mm does not replace the 35mm. Sometimes I grab one, sometimes the other, but I typically would not carry both.
Could it replace your 35mm? Sure, if you don't need anything faster than f/2.8. Also, keep in mind that the 17-55mm is a bigger, heavier lens than the 35mm. It stands out more in a crowd, especially once you throw the lens hood on.
Performance-wise, I have been very happy with the 17-55mm. About the only bad thing I can say about it is that there is occasional flare/ghosting if there is a bright light source in the frame.
For me, the 17-55mm does not replace the 35mm. Sometimes I grab one, sometimes the other, but I typically would not carry both.
Could it replace your 35mm? Sure, if you don't need anything faster than f/2.8. Also, keep in mind that the 17-55mm is a bigger, heavier lens than the 35mm. It stands out more in a crowd, especially once you throw the lens hood on.
Performance-wise, I have been very happy with the 17-55mm. About the only bad thing I can say about it is that there is occasional flare/ghosting if there is a bright light source in the frame.
Many good replies already, but I'll add my 2 cents.
I have a D5100 (very similar to the 5200) and was looking for a prime lens mainly to be able to better isolate my subjects (usually, the kids, where background crap often destroys pictures.) I initially settled on the 50mm f/1.8. I'm actually really glad I didn't go with the f/1.4, because it's very hard to find practical situations where f/1.4 is useable due to the extremely narrow depth of field at usual people-shooting distances. I found that indoors, I am often "too close" with the 50mm, unless the kids are posing in place or I just want a face shot. Outdoors, the tricky part is that wide apertures keep you from using anything but extremely fast shutter speeds, which becomes an issue because the flash won't sync faster than 1/250 sec, and bright sunlight will cause even a 1/4000sec photo to be overexposed. (You can fix this with filters, of course, but it adds a level of complexity.) However, the bokeh is FABULOUS and really lets you isolate a subject. I've gotten some stunning shots of the kids, nature, etc.
I also wound up buying a 35mm f/1.8, which is easier to use in close quarters, but the bokeh isn't nearly as good. I use the 50 when I can, and 35 when I can't.
I have a D5100 (very similar to the 5200) and was looking for a prime lens mainly to be able to better isolate my subjects (usually, the kids, where background crap often destroys pictures.) I initially settled on the 50mm f/1.8. I'm actually really glad I didn't go with the f/1.4, because it's very hard to find practical situations where f/1.4 is useable due to the extremely narrow depth of field at usual people-shooting distances. I found that indoors, I am often "too close" with the 50mm, unless the kids are posing in place or I just want a face shot. Outdoors, the tricky part is that wide apertures keep you from using anything but extremely fast shutter speeds, which becomes an issue because the flash won't sync faster than 1/250 sec, and bright sunlight will cause even a 1/4000sec photo to be overexposed. (You can fix this with filters, of course, but it adds a level of complexity.) However, the bokeh is FABULOUS and really lets you isolate a subject. I've gotten some stunning shots of the kids, nature, etc.
I also wound up buying a 35mm f/1.8, which is easier to use in close quarters, but the bokeh isn't nearly as good. I use the 50 when I can, and 35 when I can't.
what do you think of the nikon 17-55mm lens ? im considering selling my current/only 35mm 1.8g prime lens and getting that
well i noticed that anytime i shoot with the 35mm, as well as on auto, it never uses 1.8g
Something I haven't seen here yet, you need to keep in mind: crop factor does not only affect focal length, it also affects aperture. A lens mounted on a crop camera will give less background blur than the same lens mounted on a full frame camera for the same aperture. For example: the mentioned 40/f2.8 will actually behave like a 60/f4 on a crop body when looking at field of view and background blur.
You may want to read this site to learn all there is to learn about crop and equivalence. Very informative, even if it is a bit technical at times.
Also, background blur is not only caused by aperture, but also distance. The closer you are to your subject, the more background blur you will get. And vice versa. Do a search on hyperfocal distance and you will find some calculators that will tell you exactly what will be in focus at what aperture for a given focus distance and focal length.
You may want to read this site to learn all there is to learn about crop and equivalence. Very informative, even if it is a bit technical at times.
Also, background blur is not only caused by aperture, but also distance. The closer you are to your subject, the more background blur you will get. And vice versa. Do a search on hyperfocal distance and you will find some calculators that will tell you exactly what will be in focus at what aperture for a given focus distance and focal length.
I assume you mean that crop factor affects the depth of field (relative to a full frame, all else being equal), rather than the aperture? The aperture is what it is in terms of the amount of light that it lets in.
And I'm not sure I agree with the suggestion that a given lens, when mounted on a crop sensor body, will yield a different depth of field at a given aperture than it would on a full-frame body. That is only true if you change another variable -- i.e., the distance to the subject. Otherwise, the image through the lens remains unchanged. It is just that the crop sensor only captures the middle of the image (resulting in a narrower field of view). Once you change the distance to the subject (or change to a different focal length) in an effort to match the original field of view, then the depth of field will change as a result.
In any event, I suppose this is something of an academic discussion, since the OP (as I understand it) already has a D5200 and is trying to determine what lens(es) best fit his needs.
In any event, I suppose this is something of an academic discussion, since the OP (as I understand it) already has a D5200 and is trying to determine what lens(es) best fit his needs.
You are correct; I assumed the same framing, but without cropping (=different distance)
Summary from my own link:
- For the same perspective, framing, f-ratio, and display size, larger sensor systems will yield a more shallow DOF than smaller sensors in proportion to the ratio of the sensor sizes.
- For the same perspective, framing, aperture diameter, and display size, all systems have the same DOF.
- If both formats use the same focal length and f-ratio (and thus also the same aperture diameter), but the larger sensor system gets closer so that the subject occupies the same area of the frame, and the images are displayed at the same dimensions, then the larger sensor system will have a more shallow DOF in proportion to ratio of the sensor sizes.
- For the same perspective and focal length, larger sensor systems will have a wider framing. If the same f-ratio is used, then both systems will also have the same aperture diameter. As a result, if the image from the larger sensor system is displayed at a larger size in proportion to ratio of the sensor sizes, or the image from the larger sensor system is cropped to the same framing as the image from the smaller sensor system and displayed at the same size, then the two images will have the same DOF.
this is a bit of a random question but, say you were at a party with friends, and you had a few friends you trust with your camera (lets aassume indoor house if you want a scenerio) , what would you set the camera for your friends? such as full auto mode? live view vs view finder? etc.
I was just curious what you guys would do to let your friends who know nothing more then just a point and shoot lol
I guess it depends on what you expect them to be taking pictures of.
If I were just handing the camera to a friend to take a group photo, I might try to shoot some test shots and dial everything in using manual mode (M) before turning the camera over. Alternatively, I might use aperture priority (A) so I could pre-select an aperture that would give me the DOF that I wanted. Hopefully I would already have a sense, based on previous shots, as to what ISO I would need to get a decent shutter speed and would have that dialed in. I would choose between metering modes based on the lighting conditions -- if the lighting is decent, I'd probably use 3D matrix, but if it was challenging (strongly backlit, for example), I'd probably use spot metering. Either way, I would probably use a single AF point and tell my friend to look through the viewfinder and keep the rectangle on my face (or on whomever's face I set the AF point for) and press the shutter release. And I would make sure I am shooting RAW.
If I were handing the camera to a friend to walk around and take a bunch of photos, I might be more inclined to just drop it into Auto and tell them to point and shoot. But I probably wouldn't do that.
If I were just handing the camera to a friend to take a group photo, I might try to shoot some test shots and dial everything in using manual mode (M) before turning the camera over. Alternatively, I might use aperture priority (A) so I could pre-select an aperture that would give me the DOF that I wanted. Hopefully I would already have a sense, based on previous shots, as to what ISO I would need to get a decent shutter speed and would have that dialed in. I would choose between metering modes based on the lighting conditions -- if the lighting is decent, I'd probably use 3D matrix, but if it was challenging (strongly backlit, for example), I'd probably use spot metering. Either way, I would probably use a single AF point and tell my friend to look through the viewfinder and keep the rectangle on my face (or on whomever's face I set the AF point for) and press the shutter release. And I would make sure I am shooting RAW.
If I were handing the camera to a friend to walk around and take a bunch of photos, I might be more inclined to just drop it into Auto and tell them to point and shoot. But I probably wouldn't do that.
ay particular reason why u would suggest for them to use the vieqfinder over live view?
Because liveview sucks?
Don't get me wrong, it has its uses. But general handheld photography isn't one of them. It's not a P&S. If you want to use your camera as one, you're better off getting a P&S.
Don't get me wrong, it has its uses. But general handheld photography isn't one of them. It's not a P&S. If you want to use your camera as one, you're better off getting a P&S.
Personal choice, I guess. I find AF to be slower and less accurate using live view. And using live view seems to induce shutter lag.
But if using live view helps you make the photos you want, go for it.
But if using live view helps you make the photos you want, go for it.
Last edited:
I have the 1.8 I have had for years and it's one of the best purchases (for the price) I have made. There is no comparison between it and a "kit" lens at 50mm, it's very sharp. I did not notice enough difference in the 1.4 and 1.8 to warrant the price difference.
I never picked one up when it came out, but some say the 35mm 1.8 is more flexoble with the wider lens. If it were out when i got mine i may have opted for it.
Either way, these cheap prime lenses are VERY much worth the price.
i only ever use live view when video recording
i mean by in the context of lending of friends the camera which they are more accustomed to point and shoot that maybe live view would be better
Well, you asked what I (or others) would do in that context. I would tell my friend to use the viewfinder. But that's me.
- I wouldn't take my 5200 to a party unless I was the designated photographer. I would take my P&S and party on.
- If I did take it, I wouldn't lend it to my friends who don't know how to handle a thousand bucks worth of camera, let alone use it.
- If I did lend it to my friends, I would stick it on Auto. If they are only used to P&S cameras, my friends wouldn't know what to set to get a great pic. Besides, it's a party, so they wouldn't care.
- If they complained they couldn't see what they're shooting, I'd stick Live View on.
- If they complained everything was blurry and the room was spinning, I'd retrieve the camera before they jumped in the pool with it, then I'd sit them down and get them another drink. And take photos of them.