A&P Need you guys to give me advice... keep this guy from throwing 1k away.

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by Mycophiles, Dec 20, 2008.

  1. Mycophiles

    Mycophiles OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Messages:
    15,131
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    A coworker of mine. He's 50+ and works 2 jobs because he likes to work. Christmas time has come around and he's looking to buy a new lens. In conversation he said he might buy a brand new (newest version) nikon camera. He has a d50 (That's what he says) and he seriously doesn't have time to take advantage of a d20 much less what he has much less the newest version whatever that is.

    Could I get some advice on which lens he could use to shoot 'everything' and it be 'awesome'. He has a 18mm - 35mm lens (at least that's what he said). I've seen posts about a lens for the d-series nikon stating there is a great 'beginners' lens that shoots everything awesome.

    Now that you've read the most worthless and vague post on the net ... maybe someone has an idea what this guy should be looking to get.
     
  2. jared_IRL

    jared_IRL OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,726
    Likes Received:
    51
    d20?

    the 18-200 vr would be the lens you're referring too if you want a single lens that would shoot everything.

    it's above average, but not awesome.

    Awesome would be the Tamron 17-50 2.8 ($400) and the 80-200 2.8 ($900).

    If he sells his 18-35, he'll be somewhere near $1k.

    What camera did he want?
     
  3. Jcolman

    Jcolman OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    43,114
    Likes Received:
    82
    Location:
    east coast
    Forget trying to help him. Old guys like to buy shit. It's a well known fact.
     
  4. Gerbonium

    Gerbonium OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2004
    Messages:
    4,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Greenville, SC
    young guys too. but old guys have the money:o
     
  5. Jcolman

    Jcolman OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Messages:
    43,114
    Likes Received:
    82
    Location:
    east coast
    It's how we keep you kids in your place. :mamoru:
     
  6. Bloke

    Bloke Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2003
    Messages:
    26,775
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Pekin, IL
    i want to be old, i think im catching arthritis already at 27
    already have a bad eye, bad knees
     
  7. Mycophiles

    Mycophiles OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Messages:
    15,131
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    The latest and greatest from Nikon. I guess he fancies himself a photography hobbyist but he works way too much to be. ( I thought there actually was a d50 :dunno: ) Just want him to get something that will work for him instead of buying something he won't use or something not for what he wants. -and yea... maybe he's old and is throwing his money away but sometimes people deserve a friend to nudge them. He deserves it.
     
  8. Heinzanova

    Heinzanova OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Messages:
    14,330
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    Singapore, Singapore
    I don't get the love of the 17-50 2.8.... I had one, used it for six months, hated it... I mean it did OK, but I really think the 18-200 is superior. Sure it is 'slower' but damn every picture I have taken with it is so much sharper.

    not to mention slow focus/having to manually flip switch to tune by hand. Lens with out a MA/M mode suck donkey.
     
  9. fuzzynaval

    fuzzynaval Enlighten me

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2001
    Messages:
    1,190
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    SO CALI
    well i don't know about the 17-50 2.8 but i have teh 18-200. For the noob that I am, it does everything that I need it to do. Pictures are sharp enough for me...maybe not for some of you guys. But it's a great all around lens IMO.
     
  10. jared_IRL

    jared_IRL OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,726
    Likes Received:
    51
    you must have had a reallly bad 17-50 then. For me, a lens that starts at 5.6 is already way to slow for me to take seriously, but the tamron is an exceptionally sharp lens, with most copies rivaling the nikon 2.8's. The AF is a bit slower, but thats why the lens is 400 and not 1k like the Nikon 17-55 2.8.

    I've used the 18-200 and wasn't impressed with anything about it. I found it to be too slow, less sharp and have less contrast than what I want out of my lenses. But the friend that owns really likes it.
     
  11. Heinzanova

    Heinzanova OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Messages:
    14,330
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    Singapore, Singapore
    It took me about 3 or 4 weeks to warm up at all the the tamron... The nikon took me a week or so also... it just seems you can't judge a lens on first impressions all the time, Takes a little bit to know how it and your camera shot together. I never found anything overly fast out of that tamron 2.8... I dunno sure 2.8 is faster than the wide open of the 18-200@ 3.5 but honostly that little bit of a diferance... meh. If I needed any type of speed with zoom that is 70-200 territory.
     

Share This Page