I'm heading out to pick up the Nikon D5200 + 16-85mm VR lens + 70-300mm VR Nikon lens.

On my way, my *only* consideration is whether or not I pick up the 70-300, which will cost me an additional $460. I could save the cash instead, but the fun that comes along with a quality zoom lens that is the equivalent of around 400mm zoom is just intense. (So I'm justifying the extra $460 as a "toy" purchase, on top of my toy purchase......).

Anyways, heading out right now to pick it all up. I'll post when I'm back

Okay I picked it up. However, the lens protector I bought I just smudged, tried cleaning with water, and now it looks like shit... what'd I do? :S I used a microfiber cloth and water and it just looks like crap. Did I completely waste a $60 lens filter :S....... I want to just get it nice and clean so I can keep it on my lens 24/7.

Left out the 70-300mm for now since I don't need it.

This post was edited by Canadian_Man on Jun 24 2013 04:17pm

why did you get a filter

stick with one lens till you find a need for others

my main lenses are a 28 (42 equiv) and a 50 (75 equiv) and for what i do i generally just have the 50 mounted

you might regret not getting a full frame, i hope not, since we are both techies

Yeah I hope I won't, one day I might get one... but I felt I didn't want to invest so much in a camera body.

Plus, they accidentally gave me $140 off the camera instead of $20 off. So I got it for $560 (the D5200). Pretty snazzy price if I do say so myself.

Got the lens (16-85mm) for just $700 (20 bucks off).

The lens filter is for when I go to the beach on vacation & etc... people kick sand & stuff. I'm still working on cleaning it but rushing off to work now.

ah, too lazy to google, is the camera / lenses weather proof?

why is the lens so expensive? why not get the 18-105 its only 400 online or even the 18-200 for 800

/e too lazy to goole anything lol

This post was edited by Hermione on Jun 24 2013 05:04pm

Skip the garbage 70-300 and get yourself a prime, specifically the 50mm 1.8. Fantastic starter lens, and once you get used to the kit lens quality it'll make you shit your pants.

Do you mean 50mm 1.8 equivalent for a crop-body sensor? So a 35mm? Mine is a 1.5x multiplier, so 35mm would equate to 52.5mm which seems good enough.

The 70-300mm just looks really tempting. Yes, it's not going to provide as amazing photos in terms of bokeh, sharpness, etc... but in terms of versatility, it's an amazing lens. It just seems like a no-brainer as a really 'fun' lens. The next lenses I'm interested in are the 35mm 1.8G prime, and then another prime (possibly 50mm = 85mm equivalent), as well as a 70-300mm lens.



I was comparing the 18-105 versus the 16-85, and I was told that the 16-85 is better for a few reasons which convinced me:
- it's 9% wider at 16mm focal length
- it's only 18% shorter on the furthest zoom
- it's constructed of a high-quality metal body, whereas the 18-105mm is mainly plastic
- better at the shorter focal lengths
- idk some other shit... I made sure I did my research

I would've gotten the 18-105 since I'm on a budget, but I don't want to need a wider lens to carry with me, so I felt getting a low-end of 16mm (24mm equivalent on full-sensor) made sense.

No I mean the 50 1.8. The 35 is cool too though, I used to have that when I had a Nikon. Get either, or both. They're both really cheap. My favorite all time lens is the 85 though. Not sure about the Nikon version, I had the Canon 85 1.8.

I guess I need to take a lot more photos to figure out which lenses make the most sense to me. I think 35mm and 85mm on a crop body both make sense, with 50 being an awkward inbetween that I might not like (based on what I'm trying with my zoom lens). I'm thinking about primes that I'd want for every-day situations where I'd want nice bokeh, etc.

I'm still really liking the idea of a 70-300mm, and I really do want a prime that's better for low-light photography, bokeh, nicer photos in general, etc... the 35mm might make the most sense first.

So the 35mm is about $220, and the 50mm 1.8D (instead of the G) is $150... together that's an affordable price. Not sure if the 1.8G is worth the $100 bump though.

The 85mm prime is really expensive... $500+ by itself...

So maybe I should get a 35mm prime, 50mm prime, and 70-300mm lens? (To get all three I'd have to sell something, but I could pick up one of the primes in the mean-time). I figure quicker low-light shots are a must-have, and then the bokeh/sharpness/etc and all that in good light & so on is an equally strong benefit.

Anyway, I plan to get at least one prime lens before I consider the 70-300, and I might not even get the 70-300 depending on whether I end up really desiring a zoom that reaches that far (my idea was having fun sniping wildlife during the day, shooting parts of buildings that I can't get to, etc, etc).

Also, I haven't gotten to play with the 16-85mm in daylight yet. I'm also learning the settings. Here's one of my first pictures that I didn't screw up, other than the cage being in the way (couldn't figure out how to turn off the sensor-aid light at the time and it kept spooking her into running):


This post was edited by Canadian_Man on Jun 25 2013 05:10am