To Nikon or Not to

[maggyparker]

I am new to this field can anyone and I am a modeling photographer. tell that substituting Nikon Lenses (Yuck Costly~!) with Sigma or Tamron will work good. Or I am going to loose quality. I have a set old Nikon 200mm and 50 to 70 mm lens. Secondly in my opinion prime lenses deliver much better quality but Yuck~again they are costlier……

http://www.modelcruz.com

[Jon]

I know a full-time pro who's only camera is a 10D and his only lens for it is a Tamron 28-105.

I know full-time pros who will only shoot with OEM lenses for the camera.

I know full-time pros who will shoot whatever they can get to hang on their camera that will do the job properly.

Every person that answers you is going to give you a different answer.

My personal opinion (from my personal experience) is that after having (very good) success and happiness with Sigma lenses, I'll never buy another Nikkor again. The difference cannot be seen. There are, however, those that have had some useability issues with non-oem lenses on their cameras. Most of them seem to be Canon people.

[Mark McCall]

I'm a Canon guy, and I'll tell you emphatically that my Tamron 28-200 ($300) consistently outperforms my Canon 70-200 F2.9 IS "L". ($1700).

I think Tamron or Sigma will give you excellent results.

[maggyparker]

can anybody give me some more photography tips which can help me??

[Max@Home]

Hi maggyparker,

Yes, we can:

1. always remove the lenscap before shooting.

joking, off course, but your question is a bit too wide

If you have more specific questions regarding 'the tools' we have forums per-brand, also for computer software/hardware, and for lighting questions, etc.

If you have questions about a particular field of photography, or want to ask something about a picture you took ('how to improve/sharpen/crop it "better" - always subjective ) we have forums for that, too.

Especially regarding portraiture, we have a great series of Tutorials (how to light/how to pose a person) running started by Benji, one of the Moderators of the Portraits / People forum, I am sure these will help you to 'get your feet wet' in portraiture .

Oh, and Welcome to the Camel!

...*my* €0.02 worth...

Kindest regards!

Max@Home

[Gbee]

Lenses are the most important part of the traditional imaging setup.

Digital cameras have somewhat upset this apple tart, but given equal cameras, IMO the relationship returns.

Prime lenses are a good way to go as they are generally not appreciated outside the real photography community. Hence they appear in many places at reasonable prices. The very expensive primes are also the fastest, so these are not immediate purchases.

As lenses tend to retain value I’d recommend buying any lens at all, you won’t build up an appreciation of the super quite Canon USM and blindly fast AF and magical tracking of fast moving objects if you have no experience to gauge by.

I’ve used AFS and L from both major camps and have use Sigma lenses too, they have given even better image quality, however, I could list another dozen reason why I’d [almost] never touch one again. But you have to have some understanding of what the various lenses do, unfortunately, despite great forums like this one, you’ll just have to buy and see if it fits.

[gaopa2]

I am a Nikon guy and will only use Nikkor lenses. I have tried third party lenses in the past, but now only Nikkor. Yes, they are expensive, but IMHO worth it. My two favorite lenses are my Nikkor 17-55/2.8 and my Nikkor 70-200/2.8VR. I use these lenses on a D200 body and get tack sharp images. Check the groups and you may be able to pick up a used copy of the Nikkor you want at a reasonable price. Happy Shooting, Bill P.

[trentchau]

Originally Posted by Mark McCall

I'm a Canon guy, and I'll tell you emphatically that my Tamron 28-200 ($300) consistently outperforms my Canon 70-200 F2.9 IS "L". ($1700).

I think Tamron or Sigma will give you excellent results.

Mike I tihnk your 70-200 might be the special version if it's 2.9...very special.

Joking aside.

I've had some pretty nice lenses, but the 24-70 2.8 Canon has been my winner for a long time now. Even after getting the 70-200 and using some higher ups like the 85 1.2, the 24-70 (on the 5d no less) is my lens of choice

[JohnPaul]

When I first started out, I owned a Minolta SLR body, and a Quanteray..(spelling?) lens, which was an offshoot of Sigma.. and it was just perfect for my needs, as I was learning the f-stops, and compositions, and how to develop my eye for taking a decent looking shot..

Yes, a better lens can give you better results,...

I guess it boils down to what is in your budget, what your needs are as far as performance goes, and if you will be happy with your decision...

Today,.. I have ......I think 13 lenses now.. All Canon,.. Either L zooms & primes, or non L primes,... because my needs today are much different than they were before..and my equipment is paid for by it's self.. When you are starting out,...that probably isn't the case,...and I'd suggest buying a lesser lens, so you have more money to buy other lenses or accessories, so you can at least "get your feet wet", and learn how to do other things in photography..

Good luck with what ever you do!

J{

[JohnPaul]

Originally Posted by Mark McCall

I'm a Canon guy, and I'll tell you emphatically that my Tamron 28-200 ($300) consistently outperforms my Canon 70-200 F2.9 IS "L". ($1700).

I think Tamron or Sigma will give you excellent results.

Hmm.....you might just want to send that in to Canon to get it looked at... and show them some examples of what you are referring to..

Best of luck!

JP