Question re: Buying Nikon DSLR and Nikon Manual F-Stop Lenses

B

Brian_Broz

Active member
Hi,

I want to purchase a D80 or 200 in the next couple weeks. However I'm not planning on buying a "kit" lens, as I want to go with manual Nikons (to also use with RED theoretically) such as primes or the 17-35mm F2.8 as described here:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=78527&highlight=lens

I'm confused as to whether the D80 will work fine with manual lenses. Ideally I'd just like to set the F-Stop on the lens and have the camera automatically adjust shutter speed (aperture priority?). I assume either camera can do this, but I heard there are advantages with the D200 and the way it handles manual lenses. But I'm unclear how.

Thanks for any tips / insight / comments. I would really appreciate any suggestions from you guys with Nikon experience (I'm a video shooter but this is my 1st DSLR). I'm sold because my dad just purshased the D200 and I just love it!

Cheers,


Brian Broz
 
Only the D200 will let you meter with the manual lenses that will work on Red. You can use a manual lense on the D80 but you can't meter them.

I don't believe, but could be wrong, that Red will need manual lenses, DX lenses don't have an aperature ring.
 
I got the Nikon 18-70 kits lense,,,,it was really a pretty good lense.

I have since bought the 17-55 and the 70-200vr.

When you buys a lens just make sure it will work with the new digital cameras. Some of the older ones won't work or like Jeremy said you might not be able to meter with them. You should be able to find out a lot at Nikon USA.com


Ken Rockwell is ok. Some fun reading
 
Thanks for your comments. I am actually surprised how good the 18-70 lens is...
Sounds like I should really get the D200 then...even though the D80 would be more than plenty if I didn't need to use those manual lenses.
Cheers,

Brian
 
The 18-70 is amazing for a walk about lens: sharp, light, and always performs.

The differences between the D200 and D80 aren't that many...

The reason I shoot the D200 has nothing to do with the metering on the manual lenses, although that is alright, I have mostly replaced my MF with AF glass.

The reasons to get the D200 are: better body (metal vs. plastic), better AF, and better metering. The cons of the D200 are that EVERY camera will suffer from some sort of banding, it's heavy, and it has a learning curve if you haven't used an SLR before.

The reasons to get the D80: it's lighter, it has built in effects (could appeal to some people), it has 98% of the guts of the 1.5x more expensive D200, it will work with every Nikon lens ever made. Cons against the D80: it over exposes (set to -.7 or -1.0 to compensate), it is plastic (like D50, D70, D70s, D40... this isn't a bad thing).

Oh yeah, the battery in the D80 is good for 1000+ shots. I get 400-500 out of my D200 so for weddings or events I not only use a vertical grip with an extra battery but also carry two others just in case. That makes the D200 more than $300 more than the $500 retail.

So that is pretty much it. Unless you're doing a ton of outdoor bad weather conditions (weather sealing on the D200, doesn't help with dust though), have $300 worth of CF cards (D200 uses CF, D50, D40, D80 use SD), have more than $500 worth of MF lenses then go for the D80.

They both have problems. Banding in the D200 happens and the exposure in the D80 is a constant. Banding is a pain and can cost you money, exposure is checked in the massive LCD.

I have both... D200 for studio/event. D80 for personal (why carry that extra weight?) They both produce IDENTICAL images at the end of the day. If cost is the least concern then save the money for better glass...
 
What is banding? I'm about to upgrade to the D200 w/ the 18-200 hopefully. And I had no idea about Ken being FOS. Great, that's where I've learned everything I know about lenses. lol.
 
Banding is an issue on EVERY D200. There are ways to minimize it, but there are also ways to guarantee that it shows up.

I can get it to happen when I shoot a light bulp at ISO 400, you get this long blurry line running through the middle of your image.

Nikon is aware of the product but it is a MAJOR flaw in the D200 and one of the reasons I am waiting on the D300 and have a D80 as a back up :)

Ken is completely FOS. I read his comments on the 18-200 and he is just FOS. I have that lens and use it as a general walk around lens but it isn't pro glass. He says that it replaces everything except for his ultra wide Nikon 12-24...

The 18-200 VR isn't pro glass... trust me. Put it up against ANY prime or the 17-55, 17-35, 70-200 VR, 28-70 and the 18-200 sucks. It's nice because of the VR and because of the huge range but it isn't pro glass. Against things like the 18-55 4-5.6 or 18-70 then the 18-200 is right in that league, but it isn't pro glass.

I do not like Ken and don't look at him like a working pro (not that I am). The people I work with on wedding projects (freelance through) read Ken in their down time so they have something to laugh at. Ken is just some guy with a website who gets traffic... Doesn't mean he is right.
 
So if you had a D100 would you:

a) Upgrade to the D200
b) Upgrade to the D80 or
c) wait another year+ for a D300?

I really like the idea of a metal case over plastic, but I guess it's not THAT big of a deal compared flaws in the ccd or whatver it is.
 
If I had a D100... I would most likely (in this order)

1. Keep the D100 and invest the money into glass

or

1. Upgrade to the D80 (metal body or not, it is a wicked camera and more friendly than my D200)
2. Keep that for a year and then take a 50% hit on the gear and get the D300.

Cameras don't make better shooters, that is the one thing that Ken got right. The D200 offers direct access to a lot of things that other cameras require menus. If you aren't changing your metering constantly (for example, you shoot 60% or more in Matrix), if you aren't constantly changing WB (have it set to auto), then the D100 is awesome. I think that is a low noise, tank like, machine.

I know two pros here who still shoot with D100's on ALL their event work. They saw the D200 and asked why? and kept on shooting with the D100's. Glass is more important ultimately, but if you are feeling the need to upgrade then the D80 is wicked.
 
Well honestly I've got nothing to complain about with the D100. I've been looking for a nicer long lense, currently using the el cheapo 70-300 that came on it which honestly ain't half bad and a 24-85. The 18-200 that everyone is flipping out over would be nice though:).
 
If you want my opinion, keep the D100, it is a wicked unit, and take the $1500 you were going to drop on the D200 and get the 70-200 f/2,8 VR...

In my opinion if i could have just three lenses it would be the 12-24 Nikon (I don't own it, I have the Sigma 10-20), 17-55 Nikon f/2.8 (quickly becoming my favorite lense) and 70-210 f/2.8 VR.

I'm selling a bunch of primes right now because I am really enjoying these, but still, there are a ton of options out there, you know?
 
What about the 80-200 f2.8 instead? Seems comparable at $850. Grr.. now you've got me in the mode. Put down the credit card and step away from the computer.
 
The D200 is not designed for easy use with manual lenses, so I wouldn't think about using the same set of Nikon AI or AIS manual focus lenses with Red and the D200. The D200 was built for autofocus lenses and unless you buy a separate focus screen (like the Katz Eye), your photos are going to be soft becuase you can't achieve critical focus. Even with a screen like the Katz eye, it's a pain to focus the D200. So I'd probably just get a D80 and some good glass--as in fast pro zooms. If you can't figure out exactly why you'd buy a D200 over a D80--get the D80.

The Nikon 17-55 would be a good first lens and I agree with Jeremy's choices. I've got the 80-200 f/2.8 and it really rocks, but if you have the cash, go for the new 70-200 VR. VR gives you *three* extra stops worth of handholding in available light. THREE STOPS. So it's almost the equivalent of having an f/1.0 lens except that VR doesn't stop action, but if the subject isn't moving, you're gold. But if you're in good light or put the 80-200 on a tripod--the difference disappears.

Buy a separate set of lenses for Red, but maybe wait and see what the Red zoom is like or get Cine lenses. Can you get a system to accurately pull focus with Nikon primes? Will they breath too much? There are some good reasons why still lenses don't make great Cine lenses, but hey, you're better off talking to the citizens of Redville. :)
 
Im - sorry I hijacked the thread.

Assuming I keep the D100 for the time being, which would be the best value between the lenses below.

This lense would primarily be used to shoot people riding horses both indoors and outdoors, i.e. arena lighting at range and bright sun alike.

18-200 f3.5 ~$900 (and a pain to get)

70-200 VR f2.8~$1600

80-200 f2.8~$850
 
The best value is certainly the 18-200 VR because it is $750 and you can sell it on Ebay right away for $1000.

The best lens is the 70-200 VR which is $1500 or around $1100 (average) used. Get it and you will never regret it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top