camera question

[Mike Hollingshead]

A camera bag is nice; but not necessary.
Filters for the lenses - such as a neutral density, UV, and maybe even a polarizing filter.

FWIW a UV filter does nothing for digital other than "protection". And if you want protection, use the lens cap, don't stick another piece of glass where it does little good other than adding flare potential and letting less light through.

 

[Jim Edds]

FWIW a UV filter does nothing for digital other than "protection". And if you want protection, use the lens cap, don't stick another piece of glass where it does little good other than adding flare potential and letting less light through.

I agree, the less glass the better. I've never busted the external glass on any lens and when not in use it's got the cap on it. Save your money.

 

[Patrick Martin]

A cap won't do much good for protection while shooting, which is where a lens hood becomes important. I agree with Rob on the extra battery. Always have a fully charged spare on me.

 

[jshields]

i've decided to go with the nikon d40 body. i just bought one on ebay through a power seller, who i also checked on the reseller ratings website, for $300. it comes with a 1 yr warranty(nothing huge but still) and all the cords, software, battery, etc. i was seriously looking at the d80, but basically upon doing some research found out that the d40 is basically the same camera with less megapixels but better in some other areas as well. i used kenrockwell.com and other review sites to find out my info. i'm hoping that there won't be a huge difference in picture quality between the 6.1 mp d40 and the 10.2 mp d80, and from what i could read there isn't unless i plan on having huge prints of course. the money saved can be used towards lenses. i think for a starter lens i'm going with the nikkon 18-55mm VR lens. i thought about also getting the nikkon 55-200mm lens as well. it again received very high ratings for its price, and did better than some other higher priced lenses.
what are your guys' thoughts on the PRO 52mm 0.45X Wide Angle w/Macro Lens for Nikon AF SLR? i was going to use this to get a wider angle on the two lenses i was going to purchase. it's only 30-40 bucks. i know its not going to be as good as say 11-16 mm lens, but right now i'm not going to be able to afford one hopefully by next spring i will be able to! thanks again guys for all the advice!!

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

Macro lenses are used to take extreme close-ups of very small objects. Not really someting to use on landscape photography. Which -for the most part- is what storm photography covers.

Getting any lens that covers the ~200mm range is for taking wildlife pictures - eg birds - etc. I own two lenses that I use exclusively for chasing - a 50mm/telephoto and the 10-22mm/wide-angle. Anything more than that is not as useful for chasing purposes - but that is just my opinion. Others may disagree - surely.

Congrats on the camera. Nikons are nice camera. I prefer Canon myself. I have seen some fine work on any digital camera that is out there. It is a question of talent, insight, and determination to make fine photos - IMO. I certainly am no pro; but I truly enjoy fine photos. It is a continuous learning process with a steep learning curve...

 

[Mike Deep]

what are your guys' thoughts on the PRO 52mm 0.45X Wide Angle w/Macro Lens for Nikon AF SLR?

I'd save the money and put it towards something, anything but an auxiliary lens.

 

[Darren Addy]

I have no personal experience with these "ultra-wide" auxillary lenses, but I'll give you an opinion anyway. I don't like painting with broad brushes and anybody who looks down on all auxillary lenses hasn't done their research. Nikon even makes auxillary lenses (with ED glass) for their point & shoot digitals. One of them is HIGHLY sought after by birders (to the tune of $400 for the one I sold) because it will turn a 12x Panasonic Lumix Zoom into a 20x and the pics are superb.

Now, clearly, the lens you are looking at is nowhere near that quality. But when you go wider you get less critical (than telephoto), not more. In situations like yours, I like to find what other say about it (like Amazon reader reviews). I'd stay away from the one you are seeing on eBay and go with one like this:
http://www.amazon.com/Merkury-Innovations-CL-52WB-Definition-0-45X/product-reviews/B000HJ8P2O/

People seem pretty happy with it, and how wrong can you go for $27? If the choice is "no wide" or "auxillary lens wide", I'm pretty sure that I'd go with auxillary lens wide... particularly for that piddly price. I'm not so sure it will be great for macro (get a 52mm "reverse ring" for your kit lens to play with macro) but if the .45x is correct, you'll be getting the 35mm equiv. of a 14mm lens with the auxillary lens linked to above. Crikey, for $27 I'm thinking of trying one myself!

For more money, Bower is a pretty respected name and they make a .45x in 52mm also:
http://www.amazon.com/Bower-Advance-Super-0-45x-Silver/dp/B000K89BKM/
Only one data point for reader reviews on that one, though.

Keep in mind that most people buy these to use with their HD DV cameras, not DSLRs... but it should work the same.

If you go with the ultra-wide auxillary lens, show us some pics you've taken with it. I'm curious to see how they look.

Don't use the .45x on the 55-200mm lens, as you already have that focal length covered with the 18-55mm kit lens.

PS... Congrats on the D40! 6 MP is plenty.

 

[Tyler Burg]

You'll be happy with the D40, the quality of the images has nothing to do with MP, it's in the glass and your skills as a photographer.

FWIW the VR you are talking about on the kit lens IMO isn't worth the extra $60, when shooting at such a wide focal length if you need VR, you really should have a tripod anyway. Just 2 cents.

Good Luck, I know you'll enjoy the Nikon

 

[Chad Cowan]

Is there a big difference between the D40x and the D80? Any experiences with either?

 

[jshields]

i have bought a .45 52mm wide angle macro lens on amazon.com. it was a new lens they just started selling on 11/9, and i bought it for $9.99. on the webpage that i bought it off of, it says it retails for 129.99, which i'm sure is a little "play" on numbers to make you think you are getting a much better deal, but for $10, i figured it's definitely worth a try! darren i will post some pics once i get everything up and running!!

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002VSM7LE/ref=ox_ya_oh_product

I have no personal experience with these "ultra-wide" auxillary lenses, but I'll give you an opinion anyway. I don't like painting with broad brushes and anybody who looks down on all auxillary lenses hasn't done their research. Nikon even makes auxillary lenses (with ED glass) for their point & shoot digitals. One of them is HIGHLY sought after by birders (to the tune of $400 for the one I sold) because it will turn a 12x Panasonic Lumix Zoom into a 20x and the pics are superb.

Now, clearly, the lens you are looking at is nowhere near that quality. But when you go wider you get less critical (than telephoto), not more. In situations like yours, I like to find what other say about it (like Amazon reader reviews). I'd stay away from the one you are seeing on eBay and go with one like this:
http://www.amazon.com/Merkury-Innovations-CL-52WB-Definition-0-45X/product-reviews/B000HJ8P2O/

People seem pretty happy with it, and how wrong can you go for $27? If the choice is "no wide" or "auxillary lens wide", I'm pretty sure that I'd go with auxillary lens wide... particularly for that piddly price. I'm not so sure it will be great for macro (get a 52mm "reverse ring" for your kit lens to play with macro) but if the .45x is correct, you'll be getting the 35mm equiv. of a 14mm lens with the auxillary lens linked to above. Crikey, for $27 I'm thinking of trying one myself!

For more money, Bower is a pretty respected name and they make a .45x in 52mm also:
http://www.amazon.com/Bower-Advance-Super-0-45x-Silver/dp/B000K89BKM/
Only one data point for reader reviews on that one, though.

Keep in mind that most people buy these to use with their HD DV cameras, not DSLRs... but it should work the same.

If you go with the ultra-wide auxillary lens, show us some pics you've taken with it. I'm curious to see how they look.

Don't use the .45x on the 55-200mm lens, as you already have that focal length covered with the 18-55mm kit lens.

PS... Congrats on the D40! 6 MP is plenty.

 

[Mike Deep]

I have no personal experience with these "ultra-wide" auxillary lenses, but I'll give you an opinion anyway. I don't like painting with broad brushes and anybody who looks down on all auxillary lenses hasn't done their research. Nikon even makes auxillary lenses (with ED glass) for their point & shoot digitals. One of them is HIGHLY sought after by birders (to the tune of $400 for the one I sold) because it will turn a 12x Panasonic Lumix Zoom into a 20x and the pics are superb.

I'd place matched adapters in a whole different category, since they're part of a deliberate optical formula.

Generic auxiliary lenses, on the other hand, are complete junk.