Worst thing you can do is buy some aftermarket lens. The lens forms the image. Memorize that sentence.

If all you do is post on the Internet - - no big deal.

If - someday - you may be putting prints up on the wall - - big big deal.

BTW - film has much higher resolution than digital - and contrast is better too. Unclear how long that will last.

Once you have a digital camera, the cost to take a pic is zero.

No, the main argument is $$$ and history (Canon and Nikon put IS in lenses during film days when there was no option of IS in the body). I like Nikon stuff and in fact shoot Canon for video stuff so I'm not a raging Pentax fanboy. And there are some minor technical advantages to IS in the lens (eg you can optimize to a certain focal length).

But imho that is outweighed by having IS in the body and being able to use it on ANY legacy lens that fits the body. Instead of having to buy a brand new VR lens (which Nikon wants you do to), you can go on eBay and pick up some nice fast glass for cheap *and* have IS if your body has it.

Just different approaches, each with their advantages. But you know that Canikon know they can differentiate lenses based on VR, and then charge more money. Essentially they are charging an IS tax with each lens whereas with a Pentax, Olympus, Sony, you pay only once. The value is up to the buyer...

So you wouldn't buy one of these "aftermarket" lenses for your Nikon?

http://www.adorama.com/images/Product/ZI5014PTZF.jpghttp://www.adorama.com/images/Product/ZI2528DTZF.jpg

http://www.cameraquest.com/jpg3/VoigtSL2_58a.jpg

Dude, put down the Nikkor kool aid :p

RWebb, your showing yourself a poor source for information regarding digital photography. Hardly objective or well informed. Those Voigtlander lenses above are just one of many "aftermarket" lenses that are more than enough reason to explore outside the camera body brand for lens options.

BTW, if we're talking 35mm film, many of the digital cameras on the market have surpassed film in resolution. Seriously, your spouting some very outdated information. Have you read anything with regards to digital photography in the last 5 years?

For the record, the first two are Zeiss (50/1.4 Planar T* and 25/2.8 Distagon T*) in Nikon mount. The last is the Voigtlander 58/1.4 (which they make in both Nikon and Pentax mount). Both are made by Cosina in Japan.

I'm likely going to get the Voigt 58 to use as a "fast 50". Manual focus only, but very fast and dreamy bokeh (all for $379). Certainly as good or better than any 50 that Nikon is making or has made.

Depending on your use there are sometimes good packages out there with 2 or 3 lenses and the body. I bought a Sony Alpha 300 2 lens package, not high end but really does all I want well.

wow!

first - get the lens right

2nd - my comments obviously apply to the typical aftermarket lens -- not to the rare lenses that try to outdo Nikon.

AND:
I advise people to do some careful research to find the truth re resolution. I could say 87 coupe has no idea what resolution is, but I won't... maybe he is thinking of the Hassy digital backs -- but of course the proper comparo there is to 21/4 film not to 35 mm.

Finally - your words will no doubt appear more convincing if you learn that "your" is a possessive, and not a contraction of "you are."

ummmmhh ... but is that 58 as good as the 58 that Nikon used to make.


yes - I am talking about the fabled Noctilux. I know - it is rare & expensive.

BUT if you needed a low light lens that performed like nothing else, then you needed that lens.

That is the thing about Nikon. If you need the "Eye of God" they make it. And if you are in the special program whose name I dare not mention, they will rent you that $20,000 lens.

The Voigt is neither rare nor expensive. And is as good or better than anything Nikon currently makes. It might have a tough time running against a Noctilux, but then you're into esoterica, not a current production lens. That is less than $400.

But if I had Noctilux kind of money I'd be shooting Leica and be done with it...

My point is that you made a sweeping statement ("worst thing you can do is buy some aftermarket lens"). I provided a counterpoint because I find it to be an overgeneralization. You also made a pronouncement about the reason behind IS implementation and I disagreed and provided alternative (and widely accepted) reasons for the current respective technologies.

Zeiss and Voigtlander are aftermarket lenses, and will blow much of the current Nikon lineup out of the water wrt IQ. Features and other performance factors are another matter, but that is all part of the problem - there are no clear cut answers, and everything is a compromise.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1230359890.jpg

http://blogs.reuters.com/blog/2007/07/18/unleashing-the-beast/

of course the irony there is that he fitted it to a Canon body :p

Details! It's a manual lens anyway... The next gen is supposed to be AF...

First - I did get the lens right. I was unable to tell from a quick glance that the first two were not Voigtlander - hardly important. The point still stands that there are many worthy "aftermarket" lenses.

Second - Nostatic already corrected you with regards to the cost / rarity of the lenses.

And: 21/4 is a medium format, and is definitely an improper comparison given digital camera sensor sizes. Comparing digital to 35mm film (the only "consumer" film) is the proper format and many digital cameras now surpass 35mm film resolution. Once you get past 16 or so megapixel you've passed even Velvia 50 in 35mm.

Finally - Saying "film" is about as specific as saying "car". Real photographers refer to sizes, such as 35, 4x5, 6x17, 8x20, etc, but never "film". If YOU'RE going to correct someone on grammar maybe you should avoid using made up words like "comparo".

I'm done spamming this thread with photography geek debates. I'm sure having the last word is in your DNA so have at it. The original poster is looking at possibly buying an entry level DSLR - hardly what we're talking about at this point.