Any photographers in here?
- Thread starter ChopstickHero
- Start date
If you can find them for sale, new or used. (lol)
Underexposed + lens flare
Yeah, the low end lenses.
Try finding some of the more popular lenses new, ie the 24 f/1.4. The good Nikon lenses on the used market are more scarce and when they are up for sale, they're sold fairly quickly.
Ok so does this look better??
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4082/4759150547_26d5ceb628_b.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4082/4759150547_26d5ceb628_b.jpg
You buy into a system, not the body. Talk to any veteran Nikon owner and they'll tell you how difficult it is finding good used lenses for sale. Even the new lenses are 15-20% more expensive than the Canon equivalent.
kickniteasy
Member
Hi...I'm a Nikon owner...it's hard to find Nikon lenses used because they're good and people don't get rid of them. Nikon lenses are widely compatible which means that, since Nikon has been nice enough to not change their mounts every couple of years, when you buy a lens you don't have to get rid of it when you upgrade. I've been through three bodies over the past 8 years and never had to get rid of a lens because it wasn't compatible. You don't see many used because people don't let them go which seems like a huge plus IMO. That said, they do come up fairly often on B&H, adorama, etc....you just have to look for them. I'm assuming you haven't done this since you seem to be a Canon owner. I've never had a problem finding a new lens I wanted through amazon, b&h, and adorama, it's always been on one of those three. As far as them being more expensive new...well....that's an awfully broad generalization that just isn't true, especially when you look into second party brands like tamron, sigma, etc.
Last edited:
If you want me to be specific, I'm referring to Nikkor lenses.
I don't bother with the 3rd party lenses and anyone that progresses with their photography, ie make some decent money, will eventually learn the same. There's a reason you pay $2200 for a 70-200 2.8 VR Nikkor lens.
kickniteasy
Member
fair enough then....I thought you meant lenses for Nikon's in generally so my fault on that point. I'll definitely give you that they're more expensive, but at the point of paying a grand+ for a lens 10-20% isn't really a relevant point. It's like paying for a BMW and getting caught up on dealer fees
Yes, the reason is because it is the best 70-200 2.8 VR lens in the business.
Now lets not get all pissy about this. It is undisputable that Canon has a larger selection of pro lenses and some are of better quality, but on the flip side Nikon has superior compatibility with the ability to mount lenses from the 1970's and even before, as well as the fact that they have some lenses that are better than the Canon equivalent.
Obviously both companies are AMAZING. Seriously Canon was drastically better Nikon then Nikon would be out of business, but both are still thriving and pushing the limits of photography and as most don't know MANY other industries.
FlyinHawaiian
Member
- :
- Mazdaspeed Protege #1460
Just for my 2 cents, but I have found the color and exposure reproduction tends to be better with Canon lenses and sensors, while on the other hand, Nikon really does well in the noise reduction department. I find Nikon images to be much cleaner and the sensors handle low light well.
I love my Canon and will probably be a Canon user for life, but its all a personal preference...
I love my Canon and will probably be a Canon user for life, but its all a personal preference...
kickniteasy
Member
I mean.....we can all agree nikon/canon are both better than sony....right? haha, I kid.....kind of.....
Last edited:
kickniteasy
Member
very nice shots.....I really like the focus blur effect
