[condor]

Originally Posted by NetfreakBombay

Only drawbacks:
1. Just one cross-type autofocus point (Very sluggish autofocus in live view)
2. Lack of touch screen and tilt / swivel LCD

1. the key is "in live view"
2. I believe touch-screen is available in Canon models, not in Nikon in this range.

[Dry Ice]

Originally Posted by M35

Ultra wide angle:
I am getting a slightly better deal with "Sigma 10-20 mm f/4.0-5.6 EX HSM" over the Tokina 11-16 mm f2.8 II.
Any suggestions on the Sigma?

Originally Posted by M35

Sigma is a bit more wider[ 10-20mm [f 4.0-5.6] and has an AF motor.
Price: INR 27,000 equivalent
Tokina [11-16mm] with no AF motor but it’s at f 2.8 costs more or less same around 30,000 equivalent. The one with AF motor is about 36,000.
I would take the additional 1mm available with the Sigma, if there isn’t any significant difference in IQ over the Tokina.

I already have 18-55mm kit, 55-300mm zoom, a 50mm prime and an extension tube set with AF function for macro.

Good lens. I have using this for sometime now, and it lends a whole new perspective to a scene @10 mm. The corners aren't razor sharp if you are shooting handheld. Also, it struggles to focus in low light - and I mean extremely low light.

Not used the Tokina.

[ampere]

Finally Canon announces some new products.

16-35 F4 IS L (@1200$) and 10-18 EFS (with STM) @ 300$ ! Now this 300$ seems like half the current price of 10-22 !! Need to dig more.

And not to mention 100D in a different colour

http://www.cnet.com/news/canon-gets-...and-white-sl1/

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/05...&ref=title_0_0

[M35]

Originally Posted by Dry Ice

Good lens. I have using this for sometime now, and it lends a whole new perspective to a scene @10 mm. The corners aren't razor sharp if you are shooting handheld. Also, it struggles to focus in low light - and I mean extremely low light.

Finally bought Sigma 10-20mm [made in Japan] with bill and warranty. Got it for around INR 27,000 equivalent. Also purchased a UV filter + CPL [Kenko].

[dre@ms]

I just own the Prime 50mm lens on my Nikon D5100. Need a zoom or telephoto lens for regular use. Budget under 20K, but can extend by 2-3k. Any pointers.

[condor]

@Dreams, did you check the Nikkor 55-200 VR on Flipkart ? There's a good deal @ 45% discount:

http://www.flipkart.com/nikon-af-s-d...c-26a08cf82225

But please confirm that the seller is an authorised Nikon seller, and that you will get the official Nikon India warranty

[dre@ms]

Originally Posted by condor

@Dreams, did you check the Nikkor 55-200 VR on Flipkart ? There's a good deal @ 45% discount:

http://www.flipkart.com/nikon-af-s-d...c-26a08cf82225

But please confirm that the seller is an authorised Nikon seller, and that you will get the official Nikon India warranty

I did and infact its in my wishlist for a long period. Heard from Shajufx that the lens is just the basic one and performance on low light is bad. So ready to extend my budget till 20k

[SR71-Blackbird]

Canon announces 16-35mm F4L and 10-18mm F4.5-5.6 lenses

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/05...&ref=title_0_1

Finally a budget wide angle lens from Canon:
It is being introduced at a price of $299. I am sure it will go down a bit after a while!

[pahwa]

Finally! Took the plunge and ordered Nikon D5100 with 18-55 kit + 4 GB card at 26.5k from amazon.in. Minutes after I ordered, they started selling same kit + 8GB at same price

As suggested by fellow BHPians, will start with kit and slowly discover which lens I actually need before falling prey to the tempting 55-200 offers.

[Mr_Bean]

Originally Posted by pahwa

As suggested by fellow BHPians, will start with kit and slowly discover which lens I actually need before falling prey to the tempting 55-200 offers.

Congratulations!! I am also in the same boat, did not invest in lens. It has been 2 months, still learning how to use the d5200.

[Bluu]

Originally Posted by dre@ms

I did and infact its in my wishlist for a long period. Heard from Shajufx that the lens is just the basic one and performance on low light is bad. So ready to extend my budget till 20k

Lenses that do well in low light are generally wider and they invariably cost more. Eg, the 50mm 1.8 is under 10K but the 1.4 is 30K+. Nikon's awesome 24-70 F2.8 and 70-200 F4 are fantastic lenses for low light but cost an arm and leg each. 1L and 1.7L each.

If you need good low light performance, you'll need to spend on a wider lens or use a tripod (not always possible). You can also look at the JJMehta fora for pre-owned lenses.

[ampere]

Originally Posted by Bluu

Lenses that do well in low light are generally wider and they invariably cost more. Eg, the 50mm 1.8 is under 10K but the 1.4 is 30K+. Nikon's awesome 24-70 F2.8 and 70-200 F4 are fantastic lenses for low light but cost an arm and leg each. 1L and 1.7L each.

If you need good low light performance, you'll need to spend on a wider lens or use a tripod (not always possible). You can also look at the JJMehta fora for pre-owned lenses.

To add, please note, a faster lens is actually not for low light performance. Its just that because of the wider aperture it lets in more light. So when people buy a faster lens (like F2.8, 1.8, 1.4, 1.2 etc), they buy assuming the need is to take a picture in a low light. The point to note is that the primary need for a wider aperture is a change in perspective and not shooting in low light. (An opinion which I also was also guilty off and went through the same emotion to buy by my 50mm prime). But I later realised my mistake.

As a simple example if you need a portrait and if you are sure you need to shoot in F4, then whether you find enough light or not, you will have to shoot in F4. Reducing that to F2.8 or F1.8 will not solve your problem of low light. That problem needs to fixed separately either by flash or by a tripod. But surely not by pushing the lens to a shallower depth of field.

I realised this error when I found that 50mm Prime at 1.8 was not giving me good portraits. Thats when Rudra explained that the lens is doing its job. Its sharp at that point where its focused and it creates blur around it based on F1.8 setting. He then explained, you don't reduced the aperture to 1.8 to get a better portrait in lower light. After that class I have been able to get very good images from 50mm. Because now (I think) I know, how to extract the best out of it.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by ampere

To add, please note, a faster lens is actually not for low light performance.

Your interpretation is not entirely correct. Faster lens can help in low light performance if you can live within the DOF.

Faster lens gives you both low light performance and thinner DOF at F/1.8 and you were affected by the latter. It doesn't nullify the former. Since my OMD EM-5 has 2x crop factor, I have relatively thicker DOF and therefore get to enjoy the low light performance. You have seen enough of my F/1.8 low lights shots, so I don't have to prove it to you.

[ampere]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Your interpretation is not entirely correct. Faster lens can help in low light performance if you can live within the DOF.

Faster lens gives you both low light performance and thinner DOF at F/1.8 and you were affected by the latter. It doesn't nullify the former. Since my OMD EM-5 has 2x crop factor, I have relatively thicker DOF and therefore get to enjoy the low light performance. You have seen enough of my F/1.8 low lights shots, so I don't have to prove it to you.

True. I meant that statement in context of the post. Of course as you said because of the 2X crop for your OMD you would get a better DOF for the same aperture. The point I wanted to explain was; to get more light for an image (in case of low light conditions), changing the aperture should not be the primary approach. One should do that for changing perspectives (DOF). May be if the DOF with the lower aperture is acceptable in context of the image then surely yes it helps. But in general it should not be seen as the only approach.

Mostly people buy a fast lens with only low light aspect in mind. The thought process is: When in low light conditions I can go down to 1.8 (with a 50mm) and I should be OK. The DOF aspect in that thought process gets totally missed out. Thats the point I wanted to highlight.

[NetfreakBombay]

Originally Posted by ampere

The point to note is that the primary need for a wider aperture is a change in perspective and not shooting in low light..... whether you find enough light or not, you will have to shoot in F4. Reducing that to F2.8 or F1.8 will not solve your problem

Originally Posted by Samurai

Your interpretation is not entirely correct. Faster lens can help in low light performance if you can live within the DOF.

Don't disagree with either of these posts, just adding one more perspective.

Given that DOF depends on other factors that we can change by moving closer or farther from the subject, faster lens should be useful in low light. I.e. we can get deeper DOF by shooting the subject from a distance of few meters.

DOF is driven by:

Aperture (Larger opening, shallower depth)
Focal length (Larger focal length, shallower depth)
Focus distance (Closer subject, shallower depth)

50mm prime @ f/1.8 will give a DOF of 25 cm if subject is 3 meters away from sensor

E.g.: 25 cm should be fine for portraits.

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html