HOME | DD
Alex-dan β This Way
Published: 2009-06-28 08:51:06 +0000 UTC; Views: 3488; Favourites: 169; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
KingfisherRelated content
Comments: 33
Hey there,
I see that you use a Nikon 70-300mm lens... I'm planning on buying a new camera soon. I went around a few shops yesterday and found a deal which seemed interesting. The shop sells the Nikon D7000 with a 70-300mm lens and a 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6. I was wondering what you think about the offer. I like taking all types of pictures which is why it sounded good to me, but I don't know much about Nikon...
I also wanted to know what you think of your 70-300mm? Would you recommend it? I see the aperture is small, is it not to slow? Anyways, great picture! I can't wait to get my new cam!!!
Any help, tips, info, etc. will be very appreciated. :zest:
Best wishes,
David
π: 0 β©: 1
Hi,
I think that your choice is very good! 16-85 is one of the sharpest Nikon lens, even it's not f2,8. I was so close to buy it, but the cost was high 
Have a nice day,
Alex
π: 0 β©: 1
Hi, thanks for the tips. That confirms what I thought
I took a few test pics with the 16-85mm at the shop yesterday and although it wasn't the idel place to try a lens, I still had a really good feeling about it! I also tried the 18-200mm but didn't think much of that one...
I really the 105mm 2.8f macro but it will be a while before I get that one I think. If only lenses were cheaper!
Do you by any chance know the Nikon D3100? It seems to be great value but I think it's maybe a little basic... What's your opinion?
I'm still hesitating between Canon and Nikon. I know it's very personal but I'd love to know what you think... Thanks for the help!
Have a great day!
David
π: 0 β©: 1
Hi,
now D7000 is best-buy offer in my opinion. Sony sensors in Nikon cameras shows better performance /dynamic, ISO/ only less MP vs. Canon, but this is not from great importance if you don't have expensive high end lens... No sense for D3100, too small and basic as you said
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah Sigma 17-50 seems like a good deal but if I have that one + 70-300, I won't be able to cover 50-70 range which is range for portraiture...
If you were in my situation, what would you go for?
I want to be able to cover the broadest range possible (approx. 16-18 to approx. 300) and my budget is somewhere around 2500$ for camera + lenses. I'd be really interested in knowing what your choice would be...
This is what I've come up with up to now:
16-85 + 70-300 + 50 f/1,8 (very cheap) + macro 60 f/2,8
Thanks for all the recommendations!
You're really a great help
PS: I loooooovvvvve you pics!
π: 0 β©: 1
Hi,
"16-85 + 70-300 + 50 f/1,8 (very cheap) + macro 60 f/2,8"
Is good combination at all. 60 2,8 is great, but it is always better to choose one with far distance from the subject /for 1:1 macro/, because it is hard to shoot from 2-3 cm butterflies for example
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks for all the help! I look forward to seeing more of your pics... Best wishes!
π: 0 β©: 0
So close, so bright colours....
Excellent capture !
π: 0 β©: 0
Beautiful image, very bright and vibrant!
π: 0 β©: 0
lovely picture! beautiful colours! hope it is alright if I used it as a reference for [link]
π: 0 β©: 1
Hehe interestig, nice work and great kingfishers form my friend Bogdan Boev !!!
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks 
π: 0 β©: 0
hi! i featured you in my journal! [link]
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 0 β©: 1
Hey, BIG THANK YOU, its a honor for me to be in this selection!!! :worship"
π: 0 β©: 0
Hello! This picture has been featured in my current journal. You can find it here: [link]
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you, great choice for other photos and im glad that the mine is there too :thankyou: Greeting!!!
π: 0 β©: 0
Ρ
Π΅Ρ
Π΅Ρ
π: 0 β©: 0
Such a beautiful bird, and an incredible photo!
π: 0 β©: 0
Oh, thank you! Im so glad to see it...
π: 0 β©: 1
