Jump to content

css9450

Veteran Member
  • Posts

    57
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by css9450

  1. Yes, its the Nikkor. Heavy, built like a tank, and expensive, but its worth it.
  2. I have a Nikon D80. LOL I did the same thing; not long after buying my DSLR I replaced my ancient manual-focus 35/2 with the AF version, then right afterwards they announced the 1.8. Anyone want to buy a lightly used Nikkor 35/2 AF-D?
  3. Exactly. In the tight confines of the subway, you'll want something more wide angle than the 50. The 35/f2 is a good choice and its not that terribly expensive. Even better would be something like a 24 or 28mm but anything faster than f2.8 gets spendy in a hurry. I use a 17-55/f2.8 in the subway; its similar in focal range to the kit lens but its f2.8 even all the way out at 55mm so it would be a lot better underground. However, even at f2.8 I'm usually shooting at something like ISO 800 to keep the noise and shutter speeds at an acceptable level. If I could afford a wide f1.4 lens I'd buy it in a heartbeat.
  4. I agree, this thing is going to be very slow and clunky particularly zoomed out to 300mm when the maximum aperture is going to be 5.6. You'll be stuck with a pretty high ISO in order to ensure a high enough shutter speed so you can hand-hold it without camera shake (and don't even think about using it underground). If you can get something with VR (ideally an actual Nikon lens) you'll be doing a lot better. Even better would be a faster lens like the 70-200/2.8 but that's probably not in your budget (I have an older version 80-200/2.8 which even though it doesn't have AFS or VR, its my favorite lens and I wouldn't give it up for anything!).
  5. Exactly. And with the DSLR, you've got a much greater selection of faster lenses which will minimize the need for those really high ISOs. Worth the money for shooting in the subways in my opinion.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.