Lowyat.NET Forums

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

LYN wins Intel-Lenovo-Tangs Blogathon challenge. Thank you everybody!
126 Pages « < 57 58 59 60 61 > »  
RSS feedBump TopicClosed TopicStart new topicStart Poll

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

> Nikon D40/D40x/D60/D5000 V5, Best entry level DSLR from Nikon (Photography)

alpha_company
post Jul 5 2009, 10:16 PM
Show posts by this member only |This post's rating (0+, 0-) | Post #1161


One Hand Punch Mega
*******

Group: Senior Member
Posts: 3,734
Ratings earned: 0+, 0-
Ratings given: 0+, 0-

Joined: Mar 2005
From: ★SP KDH MY★ Status: Nikoning







QUOTE(project-o @ Jul 5 2009, 01:33 PM)
I think it is a good idea to go for D90 with kit lens. Most lenses work with Raynox. There is another solution for close up work which is an extension tube (Kenko) which you can mount behind the lens rather than in front of it. 2 SB 600 is ok also b'cos you have the built in CLS trigger with D90. Also, it is good to keep a spare flash if you are doing weddings/events or also can consider getting 1 SB 600 and use the Cybertik as a slave.
*



the kit 18105VR can use with kenko extension ka? u mean teleconverter?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
project-o
post Jul 5 2009, 10:22 PM
Show posts by this member only |This post's rating (0+, 0-) | Post #1162


PROJECT-O
******

Group: Senior Member
Posts: 1,089
Ratings earned: 0+, 0-
Ratings given: 0+, 0-

Joined: Nov 2005




Extension tube ... yes .. teleconverter I don't think so. Teleconverter has elements but a extension tube is hollow. A telecoverter will add 1-stop to your aperture which means if your aperture is f 3.5 it becomes f7 and if f2.8 it becomes f5.6. The AF system generally can't handle apertures smaller than f5.6. Which is why teleconverters are not used with "slower" lenses that have smaller apertures.
Anyway I've tested the Kenko 25 tube with the 18-55VR and the 18-70. AF works and it goes much closer.
QUOTE(alpha_company @ Jul 5 2009, 10:16 PM)
the kit 18105VR can use with kenko extension ka? u mean teleconverter?
*


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
calvin_gsc
post Jul 5 2009, 11:07 PM
Show posts by this member only |This post's rating (0+, 0-) | Post #1163


Look at all my stars!!
*******

Group: Senior Member
Posts: 9,807
Ratings earned: 0+, 0-
Ratings given: 0+, 0-

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Currently in KL





QUOTE(project-o @ Jul 5 2009, 10:22 PM)
Extension tube ... yes .. teleconverter I don't think so. Teleconverter has elements but a extension tube is hollow. A telecoverter will add 1-stop to your aperture which means if your aperture is f 3.5 it becomes f7 and if f2.8 it becomes f5.6. The AF system generally can't handle apertures smaller than f5.6. Which is why teleconverters are not used with "slower" lenses that have smaller apertures.
Anyway I've tested the Kenko 25 tube with the 18-55VR and the 18-70. AF works and it goes much closer.
*



TC and extension tubes cannot be compared this way. Once extends the focal length, while another decreases the focusing distance. Also, it is important to know that light loss is also associated with extension tubes, I am not sure how the light loss is computed though.

Extension tubes are primarily as an alternative for macro photography.

Again, newcomers, TC and extension tube are not interchangeable terms.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shinjun
post Jul 5 2009, 11:26 PM
Show posts by this member only |This post's rating (0+, 0-) | Post #1164


Starting is always a hard one
******

Group: Senior Member
Posts: 1,573
Ratings earned: 0+, 0-
Ratings given: 0+, 0-

Joined: Jan 2007





Any comment on both the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 and Tamron 17-50 F2.8?

Seems hard to find review for the 28-75 and both of it's price is almost same, wan to make a move to replace my kit lens 18-55. smile.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
calvin_gsc
post Jul 6 2009, 12:20 AM
Show posts by this member only |This post's rating (0+, 0-) | Post #1165


Look at all my stars!!
*******

Group: Senior Member
Posts: 9,807
Ratings earned: 0+, 0-
Ratings given: 0+, 0-

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Currently in KL





QUOTE(shinjun @ Jul 5 2009, 11:26 PM)
Any comment on both the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 and Tamron 17-50 F2.8?

Seems hard to find review for the 28-75 and both of it's price is almost same, wan to make a move to replace my kit lens 18-55. smile.gif
*



You wont go wrong with any Tamron f/2.8 lenses. It just depends on the reach you need from the lens. If you find yourself needing more zoom than the 18-55 kit lens, then go for the 28-75mm lens. Otherwise, go for the more common and widely used 17-50mm f/2.8 lens.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
alpha_company
post Jul 6 2009, 12:31 AM
Show posts by this member only |This post's rating (0+, 0-) | Post #1166


One Hand Punch Mega
*******

Group: Senior Member
Posts: 3,734
Ratings earned: 0+, 0-
Ratings given: 0+, 0-

Joined: Mar 2005
From: ★SP KDH MY★ Status: Nikoning







yeah i understand now.. that's y teleconverters are used on f2.8 lenses..the big2 tele lens right?

Extension tubes decreases the MFD right? i guess it would make the subject bigger but the problem is that even if it's bigger, doing macro shots on insects get more difficult because we need to get close to them.

1. Does extension tubes decrease IQ?
2. Does ext tubes lower the light that gets into the lens?
3. What if i used ext tubes for the purpose of decreasing the MFD of 18105VR so that i can take pics of people/subjects much closer to them?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
hanieyf
post Jul 6 2009, 12:34 AM
Show posts by this member only |This post's rating (0+, 0-) | Post #1167


eating spicy maruku~oom noom noom
******

Group: Senior Member
Posts: 1,571
Ratings earned: 0+, 0-
Ratings given: 0+, 0-

Joined: Feb 2007
From: www.tudung.co.nr







d40 still got meh?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
calvin_gsc
post Jul 6 2009, 12:38 AM
Show posts by this member only |This post's rating (0+, 0-) | Post #1168


Look at all my stars!!
*******

Group: Senior Member
Posts: 9,807
Ratings earned: 0+, 0-
Ratings given: 0+, 0-

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Currently in KL





QUOTE(alpha_company @ Jul 6 2009, 12:31 AM)
yeah i understand now.. that's y teleconverters are used on f2.8 lenses..the big2 tele lens right?

Extension tubes decreases the MFD right? i guess it would make the subject bigger but the problem is that even if it's bigger, doing macro shots on insects get more difficult because we need to get close to them.

1. Does extension tubes decrease IQ?
2. Does ext tubes lower the light that gets into the lens?
3. What if i used ext tubes for the purpose of decreasing the MFD of 18105VR so that i can take pics of people/subjects much closer to them?
*



1. Not entirely sure. But I'd say, not a lot since there are no optical conversion involved.
2. Definitely, since there is an extension, for sure there is loss of light. For more info: here and here.
3. Extension tubes are usually used with prime/fixed focal lenses. (in that sense, I think it may decrease IQ in relation to question 1)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
alpha_company
post Jul 6 2009, 12:55 AM
Show posts by this member only |This post's rating (0+, 0-) | Post #1169


One Hand Punch Mega
*******

Group: Senior Member
Posts: 3,734
Ratings earned: 0+, 0-
Ratings given: 0+, 0-

Joined: Mar 2005
From: ★SP KDH MY★ Status: Nikoning







thanks for the answers.. so it means in the case of 18105, i shouldnt use either extension tubes (for prime lens) nor teleconverters (f2.8 tele lenses)

but in the post above, project-o said he used the kenko 25 tube on 1855vr and 1870 .. guess the downsides are more than the advantages ...
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
calvin_gsc
post Jul 6 2009, 01:08 AM
Show posts by this member only |This post's rating (0+, 0-) | Post #1170


Look at all my stars!!
*******

Group: Senior Member
Posts: 9,807
Ratings earned: 0+, 0-
Ratings given: 0+, 0-

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Currently in KL





QUOTE(alpha_company @ Jul 6 2009, 12:55 AM)
thanks for the answers.. so it means in the case of 18105, i shouldnt use either extension tubes (for prime lens) nor teleconverters (f2.8 tele lenses)

but in the post above, project-o said he used the kenko 25 tube on 1855vr and 1870 .. guess the downsides are more than the advantages ...
*



I guess only photos can do justification.

I had used extension tubes (kenko 25mm) with my 50mm f/1.8 but results were bad. I ended up buying a tamron 90mm f/2.8. I don't know how good will extension tubes work with zoom lenses.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shinjun
post Jul 6 2009, 10:43 AM
Show posts by this member only |This post's rating (0+, 0-) | Post #1171


Starting is always a hard one
******

Group: Senior Member
Posts: 1,573
Ratings earned: 0+, 0-
Ratings given: 0+, 0-

Joined: Jan 2007





QUOTE(calvin_gsc @ Jul 6 2009, 12:20 AM)
You wont go wrong with any Tamron f/2.8 lenses. It just depends on the reach you need from the lens. If you find yourself needing more zoom than the 18-55 kit lens, then go for the 28-75mm lens. Otherwise, go for the more common and widely used 17-50mm f/2.8 lens.
*



Which do you think is a better lens to cover a wedding event? Or maybe a SP AF 90mm F2.8? smile.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
calvin_gsc
post Jul 6 2009, 10:57 AM
Show posts by this member only |This post's rating (0+, 0-) | Post #1172


Look at all my stars!!
*******

Group: Senior Member
Posts: 9,807
Ratings earned: 0+, 0-
Ratings given: 0+, 0-

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Currently in KL





QUOTE(shinjun @ Jul 6 2009, 10:43 AM)
Which do you think is a better lens to cover a wedding event? Or maybe a SP AF 90mm F2.8? smile.gif
*



For wedding I foresee more wide shots. So having 17mm would be a benefit. You can also opt for prime lens if you don't mind fixed focal.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shinjun
post Jul 6 2009, 10:58 AM
Show posts by this member only |This post's rating (0+, 0-) | Post #1173


Starting is always a hard one
******

Group: Senior Member
Posts: 1,573
Ratings earned: 0+, 0-
Ratings given: 0+, 0-

Joined: Jan 2007





QUOTE(calvin_gsc @ Jul 6 2009, 10:57 AM)
For wedding I foresee more wide shots. So having 17mm would be a benefit. You can also opt for prime lens if you don't mind fixed focal.
*



Like say maybe the AF-S 35mm F1.8? smile.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
project-o
post Jul 6 2009, 11:03 AM
Show posts by this member only |This post's rating (0+, 0-) | Post #1174


PROJECT-O
******

Group: Senior Member
Posts: 1,089
Ratings earned: 0+, 0-
Ratings given: 0+, 0-

Joined: Nov 2005




Let me try to find the test photos of the Kenko tube. It's just a lower cost way of shooting macro as compared to getting a dedicated macro lens but compared to a real macro lens totally no contest but is much better than those close up filters. Anyway... as for the tube...after testing I didn't buy it. There are a few lengths of tubes depending on how close you want to go to the subject.
QUOTE(alpha_company @ Jul 6 2009, 12:55 AM)
thanks for the answers.. so it means in the case of 18105, i shouldnt use either extension tubes (for prime lens) nor teleconverters (f2.8 tele lenses)

but in the post above, project-o said he used the kenko 25 tube on 1855vr and 1870 .. guess the downsides are more than the advantages ...
*



This post has been edited by project-o: Jul 6 2009, 11:04 AM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
calvin_gsc
post Jul 6 2009, 11:08 AM
Show posts by this member only |This post's rating (0+, 0-) | Post #1175


Look at all my stars!!
*******

Group: Senior Member
Posts: 9,807
Ratings earned: 0+, 0-
Ratings given: 0+, 0-

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Currently in KL





QUOTE(shinjun @ Jul 6 2009, 10:58 AM)
Like say maybe the AF-S 35mm F1.8? smile.gif
*



I wouldn't stick to just one lens for a wedding. This lens would be a good addition. But I think you'd be using the wideangle most of the time.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
project-o
post Jul 6 2009, 11:12 AM
Show posts by this member only |This post's rating (0+, 0-) | Post #1176


PROJECT-O
******

Group: Senior Member
Posts: 1,089
Ratings earned: 0+, 0-
Ratings given: 0+, 0-

Joined: Nov 2005




Will need a lot of "leg zoom" if you were to use 35mm alone.
QUOTE(calvin_gsc @ Jul 6 2009, 11:08 AM)
I wouldn't stick to just one lens for a wedding. This lens would be a good addition. But I think you'd be using the wideangle most of the time.
*


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
shinjun
post Jul 6 2009, 11:14 AM
Show posts by this member only |This post's rating (0+, 0-) | Post #1177


Starting is always a hard one
******

Group: Senior Member
Posts: 1,573
Ratings earned: 0+, 0-
Ratings given: 0+, 0-

Joined: Jan 2007





QUOTE(calvin_gsc @ Jul 6 2009, 11:08 AM)
I wouldn't stick to just one lens for a wedding. This lens would be a good addition. But I think you'd be using the wideangle most of the time.
*




QUOTE(project-o @ Jul 6 2009, 11:12 AM)
Will need a lot of "leg zoom" if you were to use 35mm alone.
*



I see, maybe can recommend some lens budget around 1k+?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
alpha_company
post Jul 6 2009, 11:30 AM
Show posts by this member only |This post's rating (0+, 0-) | Post #1178


One Hand Punch Mega
*******

Group: Senior Member
Posts: 3,734
Ratings earned: 0+, 0-
Ratings given: 0+, 0-

Joined: Mar 2005
From: ★SP KDH MY★ Status: Nikoning







a suitable wedding lens imo would be any of these : 18-55VR, sigma 18-50 f2.8 HSM, tamron 17-50 f2.8, or the expensivo and big Nikon AF-S 17-55 f2.8

for me primes would suit one person shots..
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jsc_tidus
post Jul 6 2009, 11:57 AM
Show posts by this member only |This post's rating (0+, 0-) | Post #1179


Regular
******

Group: Senior Member
Posts: 1,359
Ratings earned: 0+, 0-
Ratings given: 0+, 0-

Joined: Nov 2006
From: Kuantan, Pahang






QUOTE(calvin_gsc @ Jul 6 2009, 11:08 AM)
I wouldn't stick to just one lens for a wedding. This lens would be a good addition. But I think you'd be using the wideangle most of the time.
*


yup, weddings mosly use wide lenses..
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
beetee
post Jul 6 2009, 11:58 AM
Show posts by this member only |This post's rating (0+, 0-) | Post #1180


Newbie
*

Group: Junior Member
Posts: 6
Ratings earned: 0+, 0-
Ratings given: 0+, 0-

Joined: Jul 2009




may i know where can i still buy the d40 (new unit)?

This post has been edited by beetee: Jul 6 2009, 11:59 AM
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

126 Pages « < 57 58 59 60 61 > » 
Bump TopicClosed TopicTopic OptionsStart new topic
 



----debug section please ignore----
Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd November 2009 - 09:28 AM
All Rights Reserved 2003-2009 Vijandren Ramadass (~living on a prayer~)