File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
/p/ i own a nikon d40, im on http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon
looking at lenses and im wondering what i should be looking for/ i understand that it needs to have a auto focus motor how does that relate to the name of the lens

also, how do i know what lenses are compatible with my camera
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2005:02:03 16:45:57Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width320Image Height320
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
If you want a fast prime, get the Sigma 30mm f/1.4

If you want a walk-around nice zoom, get the Nikon 18-70.

Your D40 will only focus with AF-S lenses. On the bright side, that means most of the modern lenses in production.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>needs to have a auto focus motor how does that relate to the name of the lens
"AF-S" or "AF-I" in the name

>also, how do i know what lenses are compatible with my camera
"Nikon" in the name.
>> Anonymous
18-70 is for newbs

17-55 or die
>> Anonymous
>>159574
18-55?
>> Anonymous
>>159574
17-55 is the most overpriced standard zoom ever

srsly, even leica is cheaper
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
rofl, no

18-55 is even worse than 18-70

<this is what you want
>> Anonymous
uh, every standard zoom with a constant 2.8 aperture will be that price

fucktard
>> Anonymous
>>159585
O RLY

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/425812-USA/Canon_1242B002_EF_S_17_55mm_f_2_8_IS.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/485180-USA/Pentax_21650_SMCP_DA_16_50mm_f_2_8_ED.html

Also note that Canon has IS in lens, Pentax has IS in camera, and Nikon has jack shit.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
The non-VR 18-55 SUCKS, I can attest to this. Maybe the VR one is decent. If so, worth a shot.

Obviously the 17-55 is the shit, but I don't recommend it to folks with D40s. It's a whole lot more lens than this dude needs.

The 18-70 is sharp and reasonably fast. f/4.5 on the long end ain't that bad, when you consider most Canon zooms are constant f/4. I could live with f/3.5-f/4.5.
>> Anonymous
>>159590
The Nikon is only $200 more than the Canon, and the Canon is an EF-S, not L but the Nikon version is their top of the line lens. IS on a 17-55mm f/2.8 lens is pointless anyway. And no, Leica is not fucking cheaper. A 50mm f/2 Summicron (the Leica M standard lens) is $1800 new.

The Pentax is an awseome deal, almost makes me want to start looking into their cameras.
>> Anonymous
Has anyone here tried the Nikon 18-55 VR? Any better than the old 18-55?
>> Anonymous
>>159595FUCK YEAH, NIKON IS THE BEST
>> Anonymous
>>159595
IS can still be quite useful though.
>> Anonymous
>>159595
There's so much wrong here...

1) $200 isn't a negligible amount of money no matter how you look at it.
2) Canon lens isn't L because only full-frame can be L by their standards. The build quality is still excellent.
3) IS on a f/2.8 standard zoom isn't any more pointless than IS on a f/4 standard zoom. And it's not like you pay more for it compared to Nikon.
4) I meant Leica 14-50 for lolfourthirds. Yes, a bit slower on the long end, but it still has the red dot, IS and is $300 cheaper.
>> Anonymous
nikonfags are very defensive when it comes to their high dollar nikkor lenses
>> Anonymous
>>159603

1. To me, on a $1000 lens, $200 is pretty negligible.

2. Maybe, maybe not. I've never been impressed with Canon lenses, that's why I sold all of mine years ago and bought a Nikon.

3. I think IS is pointless on all lenses. I could see a use for it on long telephotos possibly, but mostly I think it's just dumb and more stuff to break. If you can't hold your camera still, use a tripod. If you can't be bothered to use a tripod, quit photography.

4. It's not really a Leica lens, it's a Panasonic lens with a Leica sticker on it. It's also not a constant aperture f/2.8. The one I handled had noticeably cheaper build quality than the Nikon.
>> Anonymous
1. don't have anything to say to that, except you ARE paying $200 more for no IS

2. lol my brand is better than yours lol

3. let's take out autofocus motors, that's just more stuff to break, if you can't focus manually quit photography

4. there are 2 version of the leica d 14-50, one pana and cheaper, one original leica and massive win
>> Anonymous
>>159654
>$200 is pretty negligible
>IS is pointless on all lenses
FAGGOT ALERT
>> Anonymous
>>159654

If you think IS is pointless on all lenses then you have never used it.
>> Anonymous
Seriously, Nikon users get their panties in a bunch way too quickly whenever someone questions why their lenses cost so much more than Canon counterparts.
>> Anonymous
>>159662
>4. there are 2 version of the leica d 14-50

There's the (relatively) cheap 14-50/3.8-5.6 and there's the expensive 14-50/2.8-3.5 we're talking about. Both are designed by Leica and made by Panasonic; the latter obviously has way better build quality.
>> Anonymous
hmm, pretty damn sure it's made by leica and panasonic has no hand in it.

don't know about the "cheaper" version you're talking about

but it's leica, and pure leica
>> Anonymous
>>159670
> their lenses cost so much more than Canon counterparts.

From BH:

Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS: $1,699.00

Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR: $1,624.95

LOL WUT
>> Anonymous
Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Autofocus Lens (Black): $1,699.95

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Autofocus Lens: $1,139.00

lolwut

Nikon high end is generally more expensive than Canon.
>> Anonymous
>>159685
>but it's leica, and pure leica
At the very least, the IS unit was developed by Panasonic (and O.I.S. is Panasonic's trademark).

The cheaper f/3.8-5.6 Vario-Elmar is the kit lens for the Panasonic L10, it's not available separately.
>> Anonymous
>>159686
>>159693
In b4 the thread is full of this shit.

Some of the Canon lenses are more expensive than their Nikon counterparts, some aren't. Sometimes there's a reason for one or the other to be more expensive, sometimes not. But in general, the chances of a Nikon lens being the more expensive one are slightly higher.
>> Anonymous
>> Nikon high end is generally more expensive than Canon.

i think that was the gist of it, yeah

inb4 nikonfags IT'S MORE EXPENSIVE BECAUSE IT'S BETTER
>> Anonymous
>>159685
You are incorrect. The 14-50 f/2.8-3.5 is definitely made by Panasonic. That shouldn't come as a surprise though since it's made for and sold with a camera that is also made by Panasonic. The only digital cameras that Leica actually makes are the M8 and the now-defunct DMR.

>>159662
1. I don't have a problem with that.

2. I think it is, that's why I own one and not the other. That isn't to say that I think one brand will take better pictures than the other, because it isn't the case.

3. I agree, I'd love to see that happen. The downfall of good cameras started around the same time that AF became standard.

4. Sure, I'll go for that. Though I wish the build quality was closer to M-system level.
>> Anonymous
>>159654
>it's a Panasonic lens with a Leica sticker on it

All the Panasonic-Leica lenses, even down the compacts, are designed by the Leica designers and produced by Panasonic in a factory in, if I remember correctly, Tokyo. Probably by robots. I've heard that there are Leica engineers at the plant running QC, but that strains credibility.

So if you care about having brilliant lens designs, they're good. (Although I really hate something I can't pin down about the look of that 25/1.4 Leica for the Four Thirds system.) If you're the sort of idiot who demands their lenses be hand-made by eighty year old Germans and disdains even Leitz Canada lenses, well, you're an idiot.
>> Anonymous
>>1597111. I don't have a problem with that.

I will sell you a stick of gum for $200 then. A bargain for someone like you!
>> Anonymous
>>159711

You are so retarded that I hope for your sake you are simply trolling.
>> Anonymous
>>159712
I never said it wasn't a good lens, I just said it wasn't made by Leica. I don't think you've refuted me at all.

>>159713
As hard as it might be to comprehend, price isn't the only factor when I decide to buy something. If I want something, for whatever reason, and can afford it, I will buy it. Even if it's 20% more expensive than the competition's version that I don't want. I can afford $200 more on a $1000 lens, and I have no desire for IS or to use a Canon body, so I don't have any problem paying $200 more for the lens I want even if it doesn't have IS. That said, I don't own a 17-50mm f/2.8 because it's not a lens I would want in the first place. I have a bunch of old manual focus primes.
>> Anonymous
>>159721
Well, your preferences are your own and you can buy the 17-55 if you want to. It doesn't contradict the fact that it's fucking overpriced.
>> Anonymous
>>159721
It's a Leica design, which is what counts for it being a "Leica lens." Who makes it doesn't matter. Just like those Russian copies of Zeiss lenses.
>> Anonymous
>>159784
Many Russian copies of Zeiss lenses suck ass because of cheapened construction and shitty craftsmanship. At least with Leica/Panasonic, they have some standards.
>> Anonymous
You can get the Russian copies refurbished and worked on for very close to the original design's performance at a fraction of the price thanks to it being Russian made.

The Russians made a lot of good optics and stuff in the past.
>> Anonymous
>>159784
If anything the Russian-made Zeiss clones are a perfect example of how using a quality design does not ensure a quality lens. You'd have to be stupid or naive to think a Jupiter 3 is a Zeiss Sonnar.

Similarly, a Kiev RF is not a Contax, a Kiev 88 is not a Hasselblad, and a Fed is not a Leica all despite the fact that the designs were ripped off from their respective German manufacturers and in some cases even made with the same factory tooling and with leftover German-made parts.

>>159831
Maybe. Lots of repairmen won't touch Russian lenses with a ten foot pole because they can be so poorly made and quality parts are difficult to find. If you can find a good copy though, the optical quality can be great. The fit and finish is never up to German standards though.
>> Anonymous
>>159875

There are companies that specialised in finishing the Russian items to make them look great and check the timing, operation, calibration and so on.
>> Anonymous
>>159875
I was just talking optically. Assuming the same design, types of glass, and coatings, and assuming they're not assembled with a botched alignment or anything, the images should look the same. Now, the Russian Zeiss lenses weren't with the same glass and everything, but they're still very good lenses. The Panasonic factory, presumably, is using the type of glass and coatings instructed by the Leica designers. Do you get what I'm saying?

Not saying anything about high build quality, which is satisfying but usually not necessary for most shooters who just take portraits or whatever. Not the Leicaflex that fell from a jet fighter and lived or whatever.
>> Anonymous
>>159884
Have you ever actually dealt with any of these companies? The two main ones are Hartblei and Arax, both are small time operations run out of Eastern Europe that have spotty track records.

I've owned a couple Hartblei reworked cameras and lenses, and while they were an improvement over the standard Kiev stuff they were far from Zeiss and Hasselblad. My first Hartblei body self destructed after about ten rolls of film, the second one did fine for a couple years until I got rid of it. The 80mm lens was good for the price, but not as well made, less sharp, more flare prone, and had uneven coatings compared to the Zeiss Planar that I acquired several years later. The 45mm lens was a piece of trash.

It's also not that cheap, you can expect a price increase of 25-200% over new to get a lens that's been reworked by Hartblei or Arax.

Again, there are good Russian lenses. But they're leaps and bounds from the German lenses that share the same optical formula.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
I got some nice Russian binoculars before.