Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Durkin Tactical Franklin Armory
User Panel

Posted: 1/19/2016 9:52:05 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/19/2016 11:09:02 AM EDT
[#1]
Budget?

When you say kids sports...indoors or out?
Link Posted: 1/19/2016 11:55:52 AM EDT
[#2]
Link Posted: 1/19/2016 12:02:38 PM EDT
[#3]
I'd say start out with the 18-55 and a 70-300.

I'm not sure what the price is on them, but I got to try out the newer nikon 18-300 vr and it was surprisingly good. Easily good enough to learn on and gets rid of that whole carrying multiple lenses thing.

Link Posted: 1/19/2016 12:47:07 PM EDT
[#4]
Link Posted: 1/19/2016 1:10:08 PM EDT
[#5]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Looked at the price of that 18-300 lense.  $6-700 is a little out of my range.

Is this a good package?

Should I get some filters too?
View Quote


I would avoid that kit. It has the camera, a decent starter lens (18-55) but the 70-300 that they include is an older one without VR and lesser optics than the current. And everything else is filler.

What about the $1050 D5500 kit with 18-140 lens (it has a lot more range than the 18-55 and could "live" on the camera). Then get a 70-300 VR used from KEH.com for ~$320 later on once sports start.
Link Posted: 1/19/2016 1:25:57 PM EDT
[#6]
Link Posted: 1/19/2016 1:29:25 PM EDT
[#7]
You could get the body and a separate prime 35mm or 50mm plus 18-200 for another 400 or 500 bucks. That's what I ended up doing.

V
Link Posted: 1/19/2016 1:29:53 PM EDT
[#8]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
This one?

Saving a little for the 70-300 later is not a bad idea too.  Gives me a little time to play around with the camera.  Should I get any filters?
View Quote


That's the one I was talking about. Get the Accessory Bundle though it's the same price and comes with a bag and an SD card.

I've personally never used any filters, so I can't really answer that. They are more for specialized instances though, than an always on the lens accessory.

Make sure to always use your lens hood though.
Link Posted: 1/19/2016 1:32:54 PM EDT
[#9]
One other idea if you want to get to 300mm is the 18-55 and 55-300 kit Amazon has as well. Not sure how the 55-300 compares to the 70-300, maybe Zack can chime in.
Link Posted: 1/19/2016 1:33:11 PM EDT
[#10]
Filters have a purpose but just starting out I wouldn't worry about them just yet.

Anyone that tells you that you need a UV filter for your lens is full of shit. The lens hood provides ample protection and the optics filter UV already.
Link Posted: 1/19/2016 1:35:23 PM EDT
[#11]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
One other idea if you want to get to 300mm is the 18-55 and 55-300 kit Amazon has as well. Not sure how the 55-300 compares to the 70-300, maybe Zack can chime in.
View Quote


I have never used the 55-300. I can say that the 70-300 vr is an excellent lens. Not exactly a sports lens but outside in decent light it'll manage well enough. If a person were to follow the ettr concept it could even manage in less than ideal light. I hear good things about the sensor in the d5500.
Link Posted: 1/19/2016 1:48:02 PM EDT
[#12]
Link Posted: 1/19/2016 1:53:42 PM EDT
[#13]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Good to know about the filters.

Is there a lense that is good for sports?  Mind you, these are 10 year olds.  But I plan on keeping this camera for a few years.
View Quote


Not really within the operating budget you're working under.

For a proper sports lens you're talking ~1500+ (used) just for the lens.
Link Posted: 1/19/2016 2:09:36 PM EDT
[#14]
Link Posted: 1/19/2016 2:47:09 PM EDT
[#15]
I have the 55-300 DX VR.  It's a good lens for everything but sports.  They're everywhere refurbished for around $200.
That's the only way I'd buy one.  If you have the cash get the 70-300 FX VR lens.

You need the 35mm f1.8 DX prime.  It's an awesome lens.  About $200 new.
Link Posted: 1/19/2016 3:03:02 PM EDT
[#16]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I have the 55-300 DX VR.  It's a good lens for everything but sports.  They're everywhere refurbished for around $200.
That's the only way I'd buy one.  If you have the cash get the 70-300 FX VR lens.

You need the 35mm f1.8 DX prime.  It's an awesome lens.  About $200 new.
View Quote


I second this recommendation. I've been having a lot of fun with mine.

Link Posted: 1/19/2016 3:14:50 PM EDT
[#17]
get a nifty fifty and walk closer
Link Posted: 1/19/2016 3:22:01 PM EDT
[#18]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
get a nifty fifty and walk closer
View Quote


Get the 85mm f1.8 FX and don't walk as far

I ended up with all three of those primes. OP's D5500 and it's fancy sensor will work well with primes.







Link Posted: 1/19/2016 4:35:06 PM EDT
[#19]
Link Posted: 1/19/2016 5:52:42 PM EDT
[#20]
I put filters on all of my glass.  It protects the lens from not only drops but things that can get on it and scratch the glass.  Especially in dirty and dusty environments.  A 50-100 buck filter is cheaper to replace than the lens.  Yes lens hoods offer protection from banging or dropping but in many cases you may not have the hood on the lens.  It isn't for UV protection it is for protection of your most valuable photographic investment......your lenses.
Link Posted: 1/19/2016 6:04:03 PM EDT
[#21]
Lenses are a lot more scratch resistant than you think, and it takes a hell of a lot of them to even slightly be noticeable. There are plenty of videos on YouTube showing torture tests to illustrate this. One I saw features a guy taking a set of car keys to the front element of his lens and bashing it a few times as well.
Link Posted: 1/19/2016 8:28:36 PM EDT
[#22]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Filters have a purpose but just starting out I wouldn't worry about them just yet.

Anyone that tells you that you need a UV filter for your lens is full of shit. The lens hood provides ample protection and the optics filter UV already.
View Quote


I am here to stand up and proudly proclaim that I am then, full of shit. I am perfectly willing to sacrifice a Skylight filter to protect the front element and threads of the Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8
FX AF-S G ED that lives on my D600.

Some bodies have UV filtering built in, some do not. Here is a discussion.

If you are saying that in general, digital cameras do not have issues with UV in the way that film cameras did, that is generally correct.

Here is a link to a discussion about UV photography with digital cameras:

Handy link to discussion of UV photography with digital cameras

To the OP:

Even modest Nikkor lenses are pretty good. You can read reviews of lenses here:

Handy link to Ken Rockwell's site.

He is pretty full of himself and is not above directly contradicting himself if you look at several reviews but there is good info to be found.

Thom Hogan

Handy link to Thom Hogan's site

He is much more professional and accurate but has not been keeping his site up to date.

DPReview

Handy link to DPRevew

DPReview is much more commercialized/monetized and you have to pick through a lot of amateur crap but still has good info if you are willing to pick through the chaff.

For your budget, the 18-140 would be a good 'do everything' lens. It is a bit slow on the long end. There is also an 18-200 that you should look at.

You can do well buying used. I bought a Nikon D60 and 24-70mm f/2.8 FX AF-S G used. Great camera and superb lens.
Link Posted: 1/21/2016 12:04:42 AM EDT
[#23]
Not sure if it will help, but here's been my progression:

Minolta Hi-Matic G film, back when I was 8 or 9.  My very first camera.
Canon Eos rebel
D50 way back in the day.  Used that for years.
18-105 lens when the kit lens crapped out
D200 body
70-300 lens
D7100 body
35 prime
Tokina 11-16
Tamron 150-600

Mixed in between the D50 and the D7100 there have been 6 or 7 P&S digicams, from Nikon, Fuji, and Canon.

The 18-105 is my walking around lens.  The others are for more specialized purposes.  I'm debating selling the 70-300, but that 150-600 is a beast and if I'm going for a casual shoot I'm not so sure I want to haul it around.

Dad got me into the whole shutterbug thing; he had an old waist-level viewfinder Exa he got in the 50's and a classic light meter.  Thought they were the coolest thing.  Matter of fact, bet he's got them squirreled away somewhere; I'll have to see if I can "borrow" his gear next time I visit.




Link Posted: 1/21/2016 1:04:33 AM EDT
[#24]
Best UV vs No UV video I've found yet. Yes, it's long, watch the whole thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CLPTd6Bds



TLDW:
Click To View Spoiler
Link Posted: 1/21/2016 1:58:16 PM EDT
[#25]
At that price, I'd strongly consider the D7100 for $50 more.

Unless you need the flippy screen or touchscreen. The control layout, build quality, and accessory and lens selection are much better on the D7x00 series.
Link Posted: 1/21/2016 2:34:03 PM EDT
[#26]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
At that price, I'd strongly consider the D7100 for $50 more.
Unless you need the flippy screen or touchscreen. The control layout, build quality, and accessory and lens selection are much better on the D7x00 series.
View Quote


Not to mention a motor in the body to power "D" lenses.


FWIW, I stopped the UV filter thing about one year into my D3100 ownership.
The filter introduced another piece of glass to the party.
After spotting something on my images that was not there when I took off the filter I left the UV filter off permanently.
After all these years no filter hasn't caused my glass any problems.

YMMV

Link Posted: 1/21/2016 8:54:51 PM EDT
[#27]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Not to mention a motor in the body to power "D" lenses.


FWIW, I stopped the UV filter thing about one year into my D3100 ownership.
The filter introduced another piece of glass to the party.
After spotting something on my images that was not there when I took off the filter I left the UV filter off permanently.
After all these years no filter hasn't caused my glass any problems.

YMMV

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
At that price, I'd strongly consider the D7100 for $50 more.
Unless you need the flippy screen or touchscreen. The control layout, build quality, and accessory and lens selection are much better on the D7x00 series.


Not to mention a motor in the body to power "D" lenses.


FWIW, I stopped the UV filter thing about one year into my D3100 ownership.
The filter introduced another piece of glass to the party.
After spotting something on my images that was not there when I took off the filter I left the UV filter off permanently.
After all these years no filter hasn't caused my glass any problems.

YMMV



I've seen a ton of things selling cameras that a UV filter would have saved the lens.  Really it comes down to risk vs reward.  I'd rather trash a $20 filter than send in a lens to get elements replaced.  The only time mine come off are for long exposures where the filter would add a little distortion or aberration.  

+1 on the D7100 though.  I run the 7200 now (upgraded from a D5300) and love it.

Hey OP, if you are okay with refurbs (Nikon really goes over them, most of my stuff is refurbs) I can probably come up with an awesome setup for you.
Link Posted: 1/21/2016 9:02:14 PM EDT
[#28]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Really it comes down to risk vs reward.  I'd rather trash a $20 filter than send in a lens to get elements replaced.  The only time mine come off are for long exposures where the filter would add a little distortion or aberration.  
View Quote


A cheap filter is going to do that all the time. Exposure time has nothing to do with crappy glass.

It is counter intuitive to spend the money/time researching the best lenses and then stick a piece of shit in front of it.
Link Posted: 1/21/2016 9:21:06 PM EDT
[#29]
I'm going to take the unpopular route there though OP.  I'd get the D5300 over the 5500.  For the increase in price, it's not worth the cost IMO.  Touch screen, and a higher max ISO is the big difference.  Same spec image sensor and image processor processor in a new body.  Heck, the 5300 has built in GPS for tagging photos if you want (menu to turn it on)

The big difference between the D7100 and D53/5500 is a magnesium weatherproof body and built in focus motor to use older lenses.  IMO any current Nikon AF-S lens will work on either camera.  Lenses are what will make or break your photos.

Save a bit on the body, and invest in good glass.  Here's what I've put together for $1000 or so and should fit pretty much everything you'd want for a while.

Nikon USA:
Refurbished D5300 with 18-55 VR lens $550
https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/refurbished-dslr-cameras/d5300-refurbished.html
Refurbished 50mm 1.8f lens $170
https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/refurbished-camera-lenses/af-s-nikkor-50mm-f%252f1.8g-refurbished.html

Amazon Prime: (if there are any issues, Amazon returns are easy.  I've bought a lot of refurbs of Amazon, immediately call into Nikon to verify they aren't grey market, and have always been G2G with Prime stuff)
Refurbished 70-300G ED VR telephoto $360
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000HJPK2C

So about $1050 at this point.  Get a good SD card (I recommend the Samsung Pro 64gb) and screw on filters for the lenses.  Should land you just at $1100 for a great starter camera and two of the best intermediate lenses out there.  The telephoto retails for $5-600 new normally.
Link Posted: 1/21/2016 9:37:53 PM EDT
[#30]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


A cheap filter is going to do that all the time. Exposure time has nothing to do with crappy glass.

It is counter intuitive to spend the money/time researching the best lenses and then stick a piece of shit in front of it.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Really it comes down to risk vs reward.  I'd rather trash a $20 filter than send in a lens to get elements replaced.  The only time mine come off are for long exposures where the filter would add a little distortion or aberration.  


A cheap filter is going to do that all the time. Exposure time has nothing to do with crappy glass.

It is counter intuitive to spend the money/time researching the best lenses and then stick a piece of shit in front of it.


It's cheap insurance for me IMO.  Now if I was doing photo work for a living, I'd run far better than Tiffen filters but for my $0 budget they work well enough protecting lenses I can't afford to replace.  Now when I start buying Nikon gold ring lenses, they'll get Hoya filters on them.  Till then, a $20 tiffen will do fine on my $90 18-55ED.

Out of my experience, the issues stack up the longer you run an exposure with the filter on.  As for the rest, they work so I'm not going to knock it.  That said, as a whole I do agree with you on crappy filters though.

Kind of curious what Stickman runs on his cameras now.  You've got me thinking.
Link Posted: 1/21/2016 9:52:27 PM EDT
[#31]
Anyone that advocates using a UV filter for "protection" do me a tiny favor. Add up the cost of what even the cheap filters run you vs the cost of a theoretical future repair. If you're using the expensive ones this is even more of a concern. Depending on what is damaged (remember, it's hard as fuck to damage a front element and it's usually internal components that fail during a drop or hard knock - the UV filter wouldn't help that anyway) you may be spending more money on filters than you would have spent to repair / replace a lens. If you're just using cheap lenses, it's often cheaper to just replace the lens (keh!) rather than repairing them.

All the while you're putting cheap glass in front of your lens for feels. Under absolutely perfect circumstances the best you can hope for is the UV filter (or whatever else you add - cp, teleconverter, ND etc) does NOTHING to the image quality. None of that stuff will improve resolution, sharpness, or overall image quality and more often than not reduces it. If it makes you feel better, fine, but there's no tangible benefit to doing it. The UV filter will fail long before the lens ever will, and anything bad enough to damage the lens is going to do so whether the filter is there or not. As for being worried about eventual scratches from dust or whatever, also not an issue. It's a lot harder to scratch the front of a lens than people think it is. About the only time you'll see artifacts from scratched lenses is if you're shooting directly into a light source which is also where you're going to see problems with UV filters. I say it's a wash there too.

Scratches on the front element aren't much to be concerned with. Internal dust and fungus is another matter entirely.

Link Posted: 1/21/2016 9:56:56 PM EDT
[#32]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Anyone that advocates using a UV filter for "protection" do me a tiny favor. Add up the cost of what even the cheap filters run you vs the cost of a theoretical future repair. If you're using the expensive ones this is even more of a concern. Depending on what is damaged (remember, it's hard as fuck to damage a front element and it's usually internal components that fail during a drop or hard knock - the UV filter wouldn't help that anyway) you may be spending more money on filters than you would have spent to repair / replace a lens. If you're just using cheap lenses, it's often cheaper to just replace the lens (keh!) rather than repairing them.

All the while you're putting cheap glass in front of your lens for feels. Under absolutely perfect circumstances the best you can hope for is the UV filter (or whatever else you add - cp, teleconverter, ND etc) does NOTHING to the image quality. None of that stuff will improve resolution, sharpness, or overall image quality and more often than not reduces it. If it makes you feel better, fine, but there's no tangible benefit to doing it. The UV filter will fail long before the lens ever will, and anything bad enough to damage the lens is going to do so whether the filter is there or not. As for being worried about eventual scratches from dust or whatever, also not an issue. It's a lot harder to scratch the front of a lens than people think it is. About the only time you'll see artifacts from scratched lenses is if you're shooting directly into a light source which is also where you're going to see problems with UV filters. I say it's a wash there too.

Scratches on the front element aren't much to be concerned with. Internal dust and fungus is another matter entirely.

View Quote


Now I'm kind of curious.  After I finish up this .gov paperwork tomorrow, I'm going to set up my tripod, print of a lens calibration page, and try my lenses with and without the filters to see if there is a major difference. I'll create a new thread with side by side comparisons.

And like I said, I'm just paranoid about not being able to repair or replace the lenses right now.  Unless they are on the camera, they are in a well padded case getting babied.
Link Posted: 1/21/2016 10:34:11 PM EDT
[#33]
I'm in the no UV filter camp, but unless I'm using my lee filter system, my lens hoods are always on no matter what the conditions... there is no reason not to keep your hood on.
Link Posted: 1/22/2016 1:48:42 AM EDT
[#34]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I'm in the no UV filter camp, but unless I'm using my lee filter system, my lens hoods are always on no matter what the conditions... there is no reason not to keep your hood on.
View Quote


Not all of my lenses have hoods, but those that do are on there unless I have a damn good reason for removing it. My 50mm 1.8 and 105 macro did not come with a hood. The 50mm was cheap enough that if I smash it, oh well. The 105 macro isn't ever subjected to damaging environments. The others? Yeah, hood on.
Link Posted: 1/22/2016 8:36:31 PM EDT
[#35]
Link Posted: 1/22/2016 10:53:49 PM EDT
[#36]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


I would have no problems considering the 5300.  Will it be outdated any sooner than the 5500?  It kinda needs to last me a few years.

I am good with storage.  Plenty of good SD cards floating around the house.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
.


I would have no problems considering the 5300.  Will it be outdated any sooner than the 5500?  It kinda needs to last me a few years.

I am good with storage.  Plenty of good SD cards floating around the house.


The D5300 is just over 2 years old (10/17/13) and should still have plenty of life in the design.  The 5500 is the newest version of it that came out 01/15/15.  The tech is pretty much identical, being very close to the D7100 in image quality and processor.  The 7100 just is weather sealed and magnesium bodied.  Don't beat the camera up and clean it when needed and it should last a damn good while.

Spec wise, there aren't many differences.  Touch screen vs gps, and the 5500 getting marginally better image quality and better battery life.*  For the $200 I don't think it's worth it.  

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D5500-versus-Nikon-D5300___998_919
Link Posted: 2/23/2016 12:06:26 AM EDT
[#37]
Link Posted: 2/23/2016 12:12:29 AM EDT
[#38]
I accept no responsibility for that


I will admit to fielding a few questions and offering an opinion
Link Posted: 2/23/2016 12:23:13 AM EDT
[#39]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Well, the wife got my a refurbished d5500, Nikkor af-s vr 70-300mmf/4.5-5.6, and a Nikkor af-s dx 35mm f/1.8.  Plus a bunch of other stuff.  She is looking at getting a wide angle lense for me too.

I think she chatted with Zack3g about what to get.  So, thanks man.

Now I gotta get a better strap, and I was thinking a Timbuk2 Snoop bag.

Any thoughts on straps?  Comfort and function is what I am looking for.
View Quote


I like OP/Tech Sling straps. And congrats on the new gear. Sounds like a great wife.

Link Posted: 2/23/2016 12:50:01 AM EDT
[#40]
Link Posted: 2/23/2016 12:50:56 AM EDT
[#41]
Link Posted: 2/23/2016 8:10:14 AM EDT
[#42]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Thanks for the recommendation.  Any particular line of the OP/tech?
View Quote


This is what I use, but check out some other options as well, everyone has a different preference.


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/699658-REG/OP_TECH_USA_3501242_Utility_Strap_Sling_Black.html


Link Posted: 2/23/2016 11:02:04 AM EDT
[#43]
For straps, I looked at the Black Rapid strap but hesitated on the cost. I know, $1500 camera around my neck and I'm baulking at $70...

I went with another brand on Amazon and it has worked very well, feels very secure (I still added a safety line), and is very comfortable.
I've carried a D7200 with a 17-55 f2.8 for eight hours on end with no discomfort. It's quick and easy to use.

Amazon Camera Neck Strap


Much better than the cost suggests...read the reviews.
Link Posted: 2/23/2016 11:10:25 AM EDT
[#44]
I've got one of these.

http://www.amazon.com/Tamrac-Neoprene-QuickRelease-Camera-Strap/dp/B00009VQA3/

The neoprene isn't nearly as annoying as the factory strap, and its stretchiness lets it absorb some wiggle. The quick releases are nice too.

If you use a neck strap (rather than a purpose built shoulder strap) I still recommend carrying it like this (stock photo)



It's more stable, easier to access, doesn't flop around nearly as much.
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 3:57:21 AM EDT
[#45]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


For straps, I looked at the Black Rapid strap but hesitated on the cost. I know, $1500 camera around my neck and I'm baulking at $70...



I went with another brand on Amazon and it has worked very well, feels very secure (I still added a safety line), and is very comfortable.

I've carried a D7200 with a 17-55 f2.8 for eight hours on end with no discomfort. It's quick and easy to use.



Amazon Camera Neck Strap





Much better than the cost suggests...read the reviews.
View Quote
Don't cheap out dude. I use the Black Rapid after having my D3 with a 70-200mm 2.8 fall off due to a cheap clip from one of the off brad straps. Fortunately the camera and lens were built like german transmissions and they just bounced off the concrete. Only thing that broke other than the strap was the lens hood.

 



I now use a D4 and usually have a 24-70 or 70-200 and a flash mounted. Not been dropped since.
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 8:27:31 AM EDT
[#46]
I've been using a Command Arms two point sling and paracord to hold up my cameras for six years.
Hooks swivel 360 degrees, highly adjustable, pocket for battery.

http://store.commandarms.com/products/6003.html
Link Posted: 2/25/2016 12:48:55 PM EDT
[#47]
Good thread. I've been looking at replacing my D5100 with a D5300 but the refurb D5500 is only $100 more. It's slightly smaller and lighter, better battery life, and eliminates the GPS module that never worked well anyway.
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top