n3eg wrote:
Why did I get a Land Rover ad with this page? Now that's a joke.
Why didn't I get a new 911 or,staying with the numerics, a D810? That's NOT a joke.
dabbe wrote:
Yep, I've been shopping for underwear and shoes!
Just for the record dabbe, I get it. Reckon one has to have a sense of humor.
krashdragon wrote:
That's why I use Duckduckgo. Search engine that does not track you.
I checked it out on a couple subjects - not bad. I even like the format better than other search engines. How do we know they don't track us. Snopes?
Thanks.
Mr PC wrote:
I'm guessing it's coming from a third-party like Google Ads that the Admin may have no control over. We regularly get questions about these and other low-ball, high pressure, grey market (do you want some more adjectives) "dealers" here. Run as fast as you can from this one.
I did not think of that solution but it makes sense. As if everything (beyond this forum, of course) makes sense in the digital world :)
Thanks everyone.
Anyone contemplating chasing after equipment seductively advertised by this company might want to check out this Google selection of other people's (victim's?) opinions.
I've seen these low-ball ads everywhere, (a new d7100 for $400 less than one can find it ANYWHERE) but it's surprising where I found this particular ad.....on the banner of the main page of our own very favorite website, this here Photography Forum.
Ugly, indeed.
http://www.google.com/#q=digital+pros+review
http://www.bbb.org/northwest-florida/business-reviews/photographic-equipment-and-supplies-retail/thedigitalproscom-in-miramar-beach-fl-90027980/complaints
imageal wrote:
A word of caution regarding using a 35mm for portraits. When using film, a 105mm was considered an ideal lens for portraiture since it allowed the photog. to maintain a suitable distance from the subject (no intimidation). With the 35mm you are going to have to get fairly close to the subject making them very conscious of the camera and you also may introduce some distortion. Perhaps (for portraits) the 50mm with its DX factor making it an effective 70mm, it would be a better choice. All depends on how often you are doing portraits.
A word of caution regarding using a 35mm for portr... (
show quote)
You're right. If I go with the 35 I wouldn't use it for portraits.
Thanks.
sinatraman wrote:
buy used nikon lenses at keh.com they are the largest used camera equipment company in the world. you could get 2 lenses for what you would pay for new. they put a free 6 month warranty on what they sell. even lenses that are rated bgn or ug are still in excellent shape. i would get both the 35 and the 50 af. excellant company to deal with. ebay caant touch em.
Thanks for the KEH heads-up. It's quite a website.
klaus wrote:
This might help your tight budget:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-AF-S-DX-35mm-F-1-8G-Lens-FACTORY-REFURBISHED-/311206879184?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item4875601fd0
Klaus, thanks for saving me a few bucks. And thanks to everyone for the input. It's unanimous - 35 1.8 it is.
Good to hear - I'm leaning in that direction. Thanks.
OK, I'm a cheapskate. I reckon that's what you call a senior citizen who's forced to cut his frivolities budget by about 98%. I've been shooting a D7000 with the 18-200 zoom which has (surprisingly) served me well for 3 years. But now I'd like to add a faster lens and the only (new) one I can afford is one of these:
Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX
Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor
Nikon 50mm f/1.8G AF-S NIKKOR FX
They're all about the same price so that's no issue. The reason the 35mm is in there is because I'd like to stay around 50mm DX but I've read some good things about both 50mm's and could live with an equivalent 75mm.
Planned usage would be primarily for indoor, low or natural light situations and occasionally some portrait work - even though I've been pretty happy with the 18-200 (and PS 10) for outdoor portraits.
Any opinions? Does a bear.........? Yeah, I know who I'm talking to - one of the most intelligent, knowledgeable, articulate and self-aware group of individuals I've encountered online yet. I've been listening to you guys for 2 years now so now it's time to give it up. There's a couple hundred bucks at stake here!
There.
I can only hope to get just one shot of your quality in my lifetime. Such diversity of subjects - are they all indigenous to your area? What gear do you use?
Thank you for sharing - you've made my day.
Indrajeet Singh wrote:
Another lot of a variety of species - some recent, some not.
Ole wrote:
I'll be taking a trip to Alaska in June of 2015 and I'm looking for advise about getting a telephoto lens for my Nikon D-5200. Currently my longest lens is a Nikon DX 55-200mm 1.4-5.6 G zoom. Cost is a factor. I'm willing to spend the money but I would like to keep the cost down. -- Ole
Ole, if economics with decent performance is the goal, take a look at the Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S ED VR II DX - $450 (ebay) to $600 (Amazon). I put this lens on my D7000 two years ago on a two-week Alaska cruise and was pleased overall. Another option (for a couple hundred more) is the Nikon 18-300. Don't forget to take at least a monopod.
Good luck
cfhousler wrote:
I havebeen using my D7000 forabout 2 yrs, am very pleasedwith it in acomparison with my former D90. I was very upset with sveral out of focus shots untiol Doc told my eyes are weak and need to get specs. also at 82 yrs old i cant hold the camera as steady as once ago. however, i have used may cameras over the yrs ans the D7000 is the best and at my age it is the last. If you really learn how to use all the features you will get great shots.
cfhousler, thanks for your comments. I too have been contemplating an upgrade from my D7000 to the 7100. I vacillate between "I need it, gotta have it!" and "Who you kidding?" In reality, the 7000 is more than I need. You've helped rational thinking re-emerge. At my age, I ought to know better.