Lens question
- Thread starter tommy123s
- Start date
They're the same lens.
Now, if you buy a lens from a seller outside the US, the biggest difference is a warranty. 'Gray market' equipment will not have a US warranty. So you pays your money and you takes your chances. Anything goes wrong with it and you'll be SOL. And even some US sellers bring in gray market gear to sell at a lower price.
Now, if you buy a lens from a seller outside the US, the biggest difference is a warranty. 'Gray market' equipment will not have a US warranty. So you pays your money and you takes your chances. Anything goes wrong with it and you'll be SOL. And even some US sellers bring in gray market gear to sell at a lower price.
Well, what are your thoughts about the origin of your current kit lens?
I just got it and dont know much about any of it yet ( cant even get a decent pic unless on auto yet
but I'm getting better i was mainly wanting a little more reach and seen some 55-200 on ebay for between 100 -125 and thought it be a good started since this about my top limit right now but didn't know if their was a difference in quality between the to lenses being made in different countriesI'm afraid this is not true....Nikon reps in Australia DON'T do warranty work on grey market products...
If there is a problem they have to be sent back...
sorry need too clarify , yes you get warranty but from hong kong , i dont find that a problem its still warranty, so if you buy from hong kong living in america you do the same problem solved , ive never had a problem with any electronic equip from hong kong
The kit lense which came with my D3300 is an excellent lense within its limitations (aperture 3.5 at 18mm and 5.6 at 55mm). That apart I have shot razor sharp images at both the ends. The primes beat it in sharpness, but that is not discernible if you do not pixel peek. In fact initially most of my shots were "soft" more due to my hands shaking than due to the lense. Once I figured that out and started using the in built flash as a strobe, the sharpness increased tremendously.
So I would suggest that you use your kit lense to get razor sharp perfectly exposed shots before moving on to another lense. If you look at my shots posted in this forum, you will not find much difference between the 18-55 kit lense and the two of my favourite primes - 35mm F1.8 and the 50mm F1.8. It is only when I use the F1.8 to F4 aperture that the difference is evident.
So I would suggest that you use your kit lense to get razor sharp perfectly exposed shots before moving on to another lense. If you look at my shots posted in this forum, you will not find much difference between the 18-55 kit lense and the two of my favourite primes - 35mm F1.8 and the 50mm F1.8. It is only when I use the F1.8 to F4 aperture that the difference is evident.
One thing I cannot figure out is why have a zoom beyond 55mm. That is the region where the primes are extremely strong and are value for money. 85mm to 300mm the primes rule. Most of the zooms in this range are either very slow and have bad IQ or are insanely expensive when compared to the primes. In my opinion what you need beyond 50mm are
. 85mm
. 105mm
. 200mm
. 300mm
and beyond that is the realm of super telephoto lenses.
. 85mm
. 105mm
. 200mm
. 300mm
and beyond that is the realm of super telephoto lenses.
Go shoot a sporting even with those primes. You're gonna miss a lot switching between lenses.
You might get more shots like what I get with my 70-200mm which will give you your typical or average images if that's what you are up to.
For tighter shots and subject isolation, the primes renders better (to my eye) when it comes to sports photography.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think I should have spelt out who my target audience was. My question was aimed primarily at landscape, travel and other non sports shooter.
I agree that zooms make life easier for fast action sports. But photographers were shooting the same action with primes at one time, and the results were quite astounding. Yes, it is easier to constantly change the FL in a zoom and frame just exactly, all the while shooting at the maximum burst speed that your camera can manage. That is good enough when you will be publishing newspaper or magazine photos of at the most A4 size. But then why have zillions of MP if < 10MP will do.
I was reading about Canon team setting a whole lot of cameras for winter Olympics, many of them as remote cameras to be monitored from afar, so that they can catch any and every action in the games. That is one approach where you can have one shot in a thousand that will be just right. Alternatively in my opinion, if you have 4K video blazing away at 50fps+ (a rate no DSLR can match), you can select a frame which is just right. At 12MP that is enough for most publications. (What is 4K Video | 4K Download)