Member of the Month

PartyBullshiit
March, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

WTB: Nearly any lens

profile picture
207
Posts: 8969 - Karma: 3,846
Whatup NS, I have about $150-$160

I need either-

a nice prime, focal lengths somewhere between 18-28

or a nice prime focal lengths somewhere between 70-120

or possibly a telephoto 55-200

nikon mount.
Sep 28 2010 2:27PM
0 0
profile picture
*simba*
Posts: 9125 - Karma: 511
You'd need ALOT more than 150 dollars for a 200.
Sep 28 2010 3:18PM
0 0
profile picture
207
Posts: 8969 - Karma: 3,846
a 55-200 telephoto lens

i want the one lens ^

its like $175?
Sep 28 2010 4:04PM
0 0
profile picture
ANDYBRINK
Posts: 56 - Karma: 10
I have a Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III Telephoto for sale, Ive used it twice. 100 + 3%
Sep 28 2010 5:19PM
0 0
profile picture
207
Posts: 8969 - Karma: 3,846
im nikon.
Sep 28 2010 5:33PM
0 0
profile picture
ANDYBRINK
Posts: 56 - Karma: 10
true must have read over that, let me knnow if u go canon hhahaah
Sep 28 2010 5:35PM
0 0
profile picture
TijmenDal
Posts: 4849 - Karma: 1,295
Call me a noob, but I thought lenses were interchangeable? Like, in between brands...
Sep 28 2010 6:36PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
Not on your list but I have a 50mm 1.8 af-d
Sep 28 2010 6:38PM
0 0
profile picture
207
Posts: 8969 - Karma: 3,846
for the main part yes but nikon -> canon works w/ adapter

but canon ->nikon doesn't work at all.
Sep 28 2010 6:39PM
0 0
profile picture
*simba*
Posts: 9125 - Karma: 511
oh fuck my bad.

Sep 28 2010 7:53PM
0 0
profile picture
IanAvery-Leaf
Posts: 9926 - Karma: 9,344
shitty lens, I would not recommend it
Sep 28 2010 8:15PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
I swear you younger kids are spitting so much fucking misinformation the future of M&A will be as informed as NSG.
Sep 28 2010 8:19PM
0 0
profile picture
IanAvery-Leaf
Posts: 9926 - Karma: 9,344
if he is referring to the Nikon 55-200 f 4.5-5.6 then yes, it is shitty. I know because I own it
for the same price you can get an old Nikon 80-200 f4 which ditches the variable aperture for the loss of autofocus
Sep 28 2010 8:42PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
And what exactly makes it so shitty? Id really love to hear your in depth analysis as to why you would recommend and MF lens that wont meter with his camera as opposed to a vr kit lens..

Oh and since you are going to (hopefully) say superior optics, I would love to see your testing that proves such. And don't even bring that variable ap argument to the table. VR can compensate at leas 1-2 stops making that 200mm @ 5.6 at least even if not a stop steadier than 200mm @ f/4.
Sep 28 2010 8:50PM
0 0
profile picture
207
Posts: 8969 - Karma: 3,846
exactly.
Sep 28 2010 9:14PM
0 0
profile picture
IanAvery-Leaf
Posts: 9926 - Karma: 9,344
the superior optics would be the 70-200 f2.8, but Joey doesnt have the cash for that

and I would way rather have a constant aperture than have to compensate with VR....

this "VR kit lens" is shitty, and yes I would rather have a full manual AI-S lens
Sep 28 2010 9:22PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
See thats an issue, you keep making all these statements, but are failing to provide any sort of useful information.

Wheres that testing you've done to determine that lens is shitty? Whys it shitty? Why would you rather have a constant aperture, manual focusing, none metering lens..especially if you have no testing proving that the VR is less of quality? Also, how many large scale prints have you done that the 'superior optics' can justify not having AF, Metering, and VR.

OP, the 55-200 isn't a spectacular lens, but it will get the job done and you likely won't be able to tell a difference in optics.
Sep 28 2010 9:34PM
0 0
profile picture
207
Posts: 8969 - Karma: 3,846
^thanks despite.

So you'd really get a nikon 55-200VR over a Nikon 80-200 f/4.5
Sep 28 2010 9:36PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
If I had $150 and wanted a tele photo, yes. But then again I personally wouldn't buy a telephoto at all. I cant remember the last time I even took my telephoto on a shoot..
Sep 28 2010 9:40PM
0 0
profile picture
IanAvery-Leaf
Posts: 9926 - Karma: 9,344
Quoting despite.$:
See thats an issue, you keep making all these statements, but are failing to provide any sort of useful information. Wheres that testing you've done to determine that lens is shitty? Whys it shitty? Why would you rather have a constant aperture, manual focusing, none metering lens..especially if you have no testing proving that the VR is less of quality? Also, how many large scale prints have you done that the 'superior optics' can justify not having AF, Metering, and VR.OP, the 55-200 isn't a spectacular lens, but it will get the job done and you likely won't be able to tell a difference in optics.
Im saying its shitty because I find it shitty when I use it I would rather have a constant aperture non metering manual focus lens, because I always leave the AF and VR switch OFF on my 55-200, and the constant aperture is good for obvious reasons... you also keep quoting "superior optics" which is something I never said. I am not frustrated with the 55-200 over optics
Quoting 207$:
Nikon 80-200 f/4.5
its not f/4.5, its just f/4
Quoting 207$:
So you'd really get a nikon 55-200VR
Quoting despite.$:
If I had $150 and wanted a tele photo, yes.
the 55-200VR is $250
Sep 28 2010 9:50PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
Shut the fuck up. Honestly I've never met someone so ill-informed, yet think they know anything about anything.

We get it, you bought the 80-200 because someone told you to online, and now trying to justify it to someone else but you cant. Based on your argument, you are saying that 1 f stop, at the lenses fullest zoom, is worth losing, VR, AF, and complete metering? Also not even to bring in small factors such as age and weight of the lenses. AND you are saying the 80-200 doesn't even have higher quality optics? Lol get out of here kiddo.

Oh and 55-200VR is $250? Oh yeah? Like with everyone of your points, wheres your proof? Heres mine that says its brand new at $170 shipped.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/486717-GREY/Nikon_2166_AF_S_DX_VR_Zoom_Nikkor.html

Not to mention its a kit lens, so everyone has one and theres plenty on the used market. I would venture to say you could snag one for $100 in prime condition.
Sep 28 2010 10:00PM
0 0
profile picture
IanAvery-Leaf
Posts: 9926 - Karma: 9,344
no I have a 55-200 VR still...
Sep 28 2010 10:05PM
0 0
profile picture
IanAvery-Leaf
Posts: 9926 - Karma: 9,344
thats what I payed, I guess I just suck then?
Sep 28 2010 10:06PM
0 0
profile picture
family_vacation
Posts: 6200 - Karma: 7,841
Get the new lens for sure. You will not even notice the difference in image quality. Modern lenses have modern features. Trust me, you want modern features.
Sep 28 2010 10:07PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
Yep.

Dont even listen to the kid whos suggesting a crappy lens hes never used. Also, there is such a thing as 80-200 4.5, regardless of what lens we are talking about.
Sep 28 2010 10:09PM
0 0
profile picture
IanAvery-Leaf
Posts: 9926 - Karma: 9,344
I have used it and I'm sorry that I liked that "crappy" lens a lot better than my 55-200. I guess we can agree to disagree about the two.

Also, I know theres a 4.5 but I corrected him because I have been talking about the 80-200 f4 AI-S this whole time

Click for larger image
Sep 28 2010 10:16PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
I won't be doing any agreeing to disagreeing. You can't give any solid evidence for anything you've said?
Sep 28 2010 10:21PM
0 0
profile picture
family_vacation
Posts: 6200 - Karma: 7,841
Plus you have a d40. Assuming that it has the traditional old nikon build quality, it will rape your camera. Plus have fun shooting sports with a manual lens.
Sep 28 2010 10:22PM
0 0
profile picture
IanAvery-Leaf
Posts: 9926 - Karma: 9,344
its personal preference, I know Joey and the way he shoots and its legitimate to say to steer clear of something. This is Joey's thread, so he can choose whatever he wants
Sep 28 2010 10:29PM
0 0
profile picture
michelle
Posts: 6290 - Karma: 428
No lens that is $150 is worth even that amount of money (besides some of these 50mm 1.8's). Take some time, save more money, and spend it on a better lens. You'll be happier in the long run.
Sep 28 2010 10:34PM
0 0
profile picture
IanAvery-Leaf
Posts: 9926 - Karma: 9,344
I beg to differ
theres plenty of old glass that is well worth the (small amount) of money
Sep 28 2010 10:37PM
0 0
profile picture
michelle
Posts: 6290 - Karma: 428
I agree with that (trust me I love cheap photo gear), but after reading the thread it seems he wants a new lens. And that's where my comment came from.
Sep 28 2010 10:42PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
I beg to differ, theres plenty of NEW glass that is well worth $150.

Im not sure when people decided that if its not 'pro' gear its not worth it. Nikon wouldnt put out garbage lenses. Telling him to wait is the dumbest thing I have heard.

Go buy the 55-200 used, shoot with it until you can pick up around $400 for a 80-200 2.8 push/pull or $700 for 80-200 2.8 2 ring. When you can afford those, then sell that 55-200 for maybe $20 less than you bought it for.

Would you rather have $150 and miss potential shots, or get those shots using marginally (and I mean MARGINALLY) less quality glass. Me? Id much rather lose $20 buying and selling while getting those shots that require the 55-200 range, than waiting around drooling for 6 months.
Sep 28 2010 10:43PM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
~$100 lenses are always garbage unless they're old manual lenses.
Sep 28 2010 10:45PM
0 0
profile picture
*simba*
Posts: 9125 - Karma: 511
While you're in the market for lens', why not pick up the Helios 44-2?


DISCLAIMER***
Before Despite tries to start something with me about this lens, I have not used this lens yet, seeing that it still hasn't arrived from Ukraine. From what I've heard and scene on here, though, it's an awesome lens that gives the picture I kind of brush stroke effect. I picked up the lens with adapter for $50.00.
Won't set you back to far.
Sep 28 2010 11:53PM
0 0
profile picture
IanAvery-Leaf
Posts: 9926 - Karma: 9,344
I like it too, its technically an optical "flaw" but thats why it looks awesome
an 100% perfect lens would not have nice bokeh
Sep 29 2010 12:08AM
0 0
profile picture
*simba*
Posts: 9125 - Karma: 511
Flaws FTW
Sep 29 2010 12:13AM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
When you say shit like that, you are subconsciously asking me to inform you that you are wrong.

I have this lens, and used it enough to not even somewhat suggest that he buy this lens. The fact that you would even surprises me. That's like telling someone to go buy a D60 and a lensbaby. Its entirely unpractical.

The helios is more of a specialty lens, and not something I would suggest for someone looking to have a versatile zoom.
Sep 29 2010 12:38AM
0 0
profile picture
SeanTom
Posts: 7936 - Karma: 1,747
Dear 207.
if you wanna shoot with me sometime i have an
80-200 f2.8 a 12-24 f4 tokina and a 14mm f2.8 that'd i'd be more than happy to let you play with while you acquire funds to purchase a descent piece of glass.

it'd give me a reason to actually shoot,
Sep 29 2010 12:46AM
0 0
profile picture
family_vacation
Posts: 6200 - Karma: 7,841

207 already has a 50mm 1.8, and he clearly wants another focal length. He's not getting this lens for it's unique properties, he just seems to want a lens with more of a zoom range. If his goal was an awesome bokeh, then he would know this already.

I'm not hating on the helios, in fact I'm about to snag one myself. I'm just saying that it's definitely not the kind of lens that he wants.

Sep 29 2010 12:50AM
0 0
profile picture
*simba*
Posts: 9125 - Karma: 511
That would also be why I said that:
"If you're in the market for lens'"
and
"It won't set you back much"

I just recommended a lens.
and jesus christ.
You have your opinion about things, and I have mine.
Sep 29 2010 12:51AM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
But your suggestion was useless? And even you knew it when commenting, hence why you added all of your prerequisites.
Sep 29 2010 12:55AM
0 0
profile picture
family_vacation
Posts: 6200 - Karma: 7,841
He's clearly in the market for a lens. That's why he made this thread. He's also low on funds, so it would set him back even farther from buying the nice lens that he wants.
Sep 29 2010 12:57AM
0 0
profile picture
207
Posts: 8969 - Karma: 3,846
tempting, i'll take you up on that offer seantom.
Sep 29 2010 6:57AM
0 0
profile picture
[~_~]
Posts: 20239 - Karma: 1,273
Not 100% perfect, but the reason why modern Canon lenses look like ass is because they have no personality. Same reason why Sony consumer cams are crap. Like it or not, good photography/videography looks nothing like reality...
Sep 29 2010 12:48PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)