Nikon D50 lens question

[wasq]

May I suggest a fixed focal length lens.. I'd say in the 300 mm range they are both a lot cheaper than the zooms and also usually of higher quality. I have 2 fixed focal lenght lenses and each one of them is of a different magnitude of quality than the comparable zoom lenses. My lenses are wide-endish, but I believe the effect is even more pronounced on longer lenses. Mine are 14mm/2.8, 30mm/1.4.

I have a $200 Sigma 70-300 APO Macro II lens and all I can say about it is that don't buy this one. For a long zoom lens, I say minimum investment for a good one is $2000. For that, you can get a good 70-200 and maybe a tele-converter.

[Mini D]

Nilson.. the 70-300 means it's a telephoto lens capable of 70mm to 300mm focal lengths (varying magnifications). Mag is a bit tougher to explain with 35mm cameras, so your best bet is to go into a camera shop and see what mag the lenses get you.

[Nilsen]

Ill go down to a photoshop on monday, I just wanted to get some input here first so i dont get tricked into spending too much if something just as good can cost less elsewere. The guy running "my" potoshop is a real pro, but you know how they can be when it comes to shelling out for the good stuff.





thanks anyway

[Fishu]

Honestly, I think the cheap 70-300mm lenses are downright crap. I have the cheapo Nikkor 70-300, non-ED, and I kind of hate it.. although, what more can I ask for the few bucks it costs. I have it if I really need to shoot frames of something further away. The quality however is rather bad.
The cheap 70-300's of all brands are almost the same. The ED doesn't improve the quality much.

If you don't really need the millimeters, then save the money for a better lens. If you're not going to spend four times more money on a lens in a near future, then you don't really have any other options left than the cheapo lenses.
Theres almost no thing that isn't wrong with these cheapo 70-300's. Chromation, distortion, inaccurate and slow auto focus... (especially the bad AF becomes annoying!)

If you can save some more money and don't need the millimeters in the near future, then you could save up for a lens like Sigma 100-300mm F4 or 80-400mm F4-5.6 with stabilizer, which of the both are in range of 1000-1200 bucks. Nikon too has a 80-400mm lens, with stabilizer, but it costs 1600-1700 bucks (with much better quality though).

I'm going to try save up money for Nikon's 70-200mm F2.8 VR lens, it costs 2000 euros.. yipee.. albeit I must first use 2000 euros for an another thing.