Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
nikon d610
Page <prev 2 of 4 next> last>>
Apr 21, 2014 13:23:29   #
amehta Loc: Boston
 
shutterbob wrote:
Gene51 wrote:
Yes, but add to that "GOOD" quality FX lenses, and faster computer with bigger hard drives. If you are going to get cheap and not-so-cheap one-size-fits-all do everything superzoom lenses, save your money and stay with DX. In particular, stay away from the 28-300. This lens has its fans, but it will never return the quality that the D610 is capable of. There are other lenses that are similarly average, the 18-35, 24-85, and the 70-300, (soft beyond 150mm). Nikon has other much better lenses, but they are more costly.
Yes, but add to that "GOOD" quality FX l... (show quote)

I disagree about the 28-300.If you are on a budget like most of us, it is a great all purpose lens. I have a 610, and do most of my shooting with the Nikon 24-70 attached. I also have the 70-200 and 16-35. But there are times when I don't want (or am able) to pack all of my gear around so the 28-300 comes with me. It can give you some pretty good shots until you can afford more lenses, and you can find great used ones for well under $1,000.
quote=Gene51 Yes, but add to that "GOOD"... (show quote)

I don't think your usage negates Gene's suggestion, if anything it supports it entirely, since you mostly use exactly the "quality FX lenses" he recommends. His point, which I completely agree with, is if you are only going to use the 28-300mm lens, then don't bother with the D610, and stick with either the D5200 the OP already has, or get the D7100 and spend the extra $2k on some really good lenses to use with it.

Reply
Apr 21, 2014 13:35:00   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
amehta wrote:
I don't think your usage negates Gene's suggestion, if anything it supports it entirely, since you mostly use exactly the "quality FX lenses" he recommends. His point, which I completely agree with, is if you are only going to use the 28-300mm lens, then don't bother with the D610, and stick with either the D5200 the OP already has, or get the D7100 and spend the extra $2k on some really good lenses to use with it.


Or get the 28-300, but use it on a 12mp D700, where it is sorta ok. The 24 and 36mp cameras just exacerbate the lens' flaws, as well as make a good lens look even better. I liked my 600mm F4 on my D300, more so on my D700, and now I am in love . . . :)

Reply
Apr 21, 2014 14:03:10   #
larryim Loc: Ohio
 
I don't want to turn this into a different topic, but a question comes to mind at this point. I have a D7000 and the 28-300 lens (hedging my bet on getting a full frame later.) I really like this lens for general use (I also have the 70-200 f4, which is clearly better.) I have been contemplating the 610, but am I getting better pictures currently with the D7000 and the 28-300 than I would get with the 610 and that lens?

Reply
 
 
Apr 21, 2014 14:14:38   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
larryim wrote:
I don't want to turn this into a different topic, but a question comes to mind at this point. I have a D7000 and the 28-300 lens (hedging my bet on getting a full frame later.) I really like this lens for general use (I also have the 70-200 f4, which is clearly better.) I have been contemplating the 610, but am I getting better pictures currently with the D7000 and the 28-300 than I would get with the 610 and that lens?


Imagine how much better the image quality will be with a better lens!


All kidding aside - the only people who like this lens are those with lower resolution sensors or using it on DX with lower res. If you have used a good lens with high mp sensors, it's really hard to go accept what comes out of this lens. I was in a quandary about what lens to take with me to Yosemite this past December. I opted for an the new 80-400. Even that lens, which is a step above the 28-300, was a disappointment. I should have stuck with my 50-500 Sigma, which gives me a wider range and decent (acceptable) image quality up to about 450mm. The 80-400 was another lens I had great expectations for. Though it is not a bad lens, it just was not good enough.

Reply
Apr 21, 2014 14:56:21   #
jim lumento Loc: Shelton, Ct
 
WHAT LENSES DO YOU HAVE FOR THE D610?

Reply
Apr 21, 2014 14:59:39   #
jim lumento Loc: Shelton, Ct
 
HOBBIES ARE VERY INTERESTING. I CAN CERTAINLY AFFORD THE PRICE OF THE LENSES BUT, I DON'T WANT TO WASTE THE MONEY ON USELESS LENSES

Reply
Apr 21, 2014 15:04:06   #
jim lumento Loc: Shelton, Ct
 
NOT TO SHOW MY INEXPERIENCE IN CAMERA'S TOO MUCH BUT THE D5200 AND THE D7100 ARE DX FORMATS.

Reply
 
 
Apr 21, 2014 15:08:03   #
jim lumento Loc: Shelton, Ct
 
WHAT IF YOU PUT THE 610 WITH THE CORRECT LENS?

WHAT IS THAT LENS?

Reply
Apr 21, 2014 15:13:47   #
amehta Loc: Boston
 
jim lumento wrote:
WHAT IF YOU PUT THE 610 WITH THE CORRECT LENS?

WHAT IS THAT LENS?

Please turn caps lock off, in the internet world this means you are shouting at us. :-)

Also, please use "Quote Reply" if there is a specific post you are replying to.

Reply
Apr 21, 2014 15:15:08   #
amehta Loc: Boston
 
jim lumento wrote:
NOT TO SHOW MY INEXPERIENCE IN CAMERA'S TOO MUCH BUT THE D5200 AND THE D7100 ARE DX FORMATS.

Yes, the D7100 is a DX camera. Both the D7100 and D610 are upgrades from the D5200, the question is whether one is better than the other for you?

Reply
Apr 21, 2014 15:17:28   #
amehta Loc: Boston
 
jim lumento wrote:
HOBBIES ARE VERY INTERESTING. I CAN CERTAINLY AFFORD THE PRICE OF THE LENSES BUT, I DON'T WANT TO WASTE THE MONEY ON USELESS LENSES

A lot of us here at UHH are big fans of spending money for equipment, and you are right, it is better if it is spent wisely. :-)

Reply
 
 
Apr 21, 2014 15:19:04   #
amehta Loc: Boston
 
jim lumento wrote:
WHAT IF YOU PUT THE 610 WITH THE CORRECT LENS?

WHAT IS THAT LENS?

For portraits and sports, the answer is still the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II as the best combination of image quality, build quality, and versatility.

Reply
Apr 21, 2014 15:46:32   #
jim lumento Loc: Shelton, Ct
 
kiss my ass. is that better

Reply
Apr 21, 2014 15:56:44   #
shutterbob Loc: Tucson
 
Gene51 wrote:
There is a reason it's not on the list of lenses for the D800, and I have personally used four different copies and found borders and edges unacceptably soft except at the longer focal lengths, but the center sharpness is never more than just ok. It is not one of the better Nikkor lenses.

a better choice might be the 24-120 F4. Faster, smaller, better image quality where it is damned sharp at the wide end, especially at F5.6, up to about 100mm, where it gets a little soft, but it is still better than the 28-300 at the same focal lengths. For an extra $200 you get an F4 lens, significantly better IQ at the shorter focal lengths, 24mm as opposed to 28mm at the wide end, and comparable IQ at 120mm. It is clearly a better lens that will show off the qualities of a high mp sensor. Can't say the same about that 28-300. And trust me, I was looking for that solution to work in the worst way. Which is why I looked at 4 of them, two of which were in Nikon's NPS inventory. They hit a home run with the 18-200 for DX, but were not able to repeat it for FX. Too bad.
There is a reason it's not on the list of lenses f... (show quote)


For the extra $200, you are in the neighborhood where you can find a very clean used 24-70, which will put them both to shame in any aspect. Plus you get f2.8. I'm not bragging about how good the IQ is with the 28-300, but it will do a good job at taking the place of several lenses until the $$$ appear for more/better lenses.

Reply
Apr 21, 2014 16:07:33   #
amehta Loc: Boston
 
jim lumento wrote:
kiss my ass. is that better

Yes, thanks, that is much better than "shouting". :lol:

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 4 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.