The 12mm - 24mm is a killer lens. It's a must have wide angle and reportedly sharper than the 14mm. We used it at PMA last year to shoot this aerial view which was then printed 30 inches wide.

Thanks Larry, what a image. I have read some on it. It appears the Lens is sharper then what the camera is capable of doing. Always wanted a wide angle lens but most of the time there was always a trade off to use one. This one is designed to work with this size of sensor. I only hope I can work out the money thing to get camera and lens. Monte.

Monte,

Don't discount some of the independent lens brands in this class, like Sigma 10-20mm or the Tamron 11-18mm. About half the cost of of the Nikon. And, some published pro's are using these lenses, one a friend of mine who shoots architecture for major publications and ads.

Thanks David the Tamrom 11-18 might be a good choice for the money difference. It is better than the starter 18-70 Nikon.

This whole thing has been somewhat over whelming to me. I know what is right for me and it is time to change for several reasons. Mostly because the cost of film and Availibilty of quality labs in my area is non-exsistent. I am tired of the constant battle. My film friends are not saying much but I know where they are at.

I have not decided which way to go yet because the Canon 5D is still an option. Much more money so I have to be convinced it is truely worth it. This brings up a question. Since you have the 5D what lens do you find to produce the best resdults across the board in all areas? Monte.

Not David, but...

If you're considering getting a digital SLR with an inexpensive lens, you'll not be happy comparing it to shooting film, unless you shoot film with inexpensive lenses also. Either the D5 or the D200 will be fine but it depends on the optics. Kit lenses are never the best that a camera manufacturer has to offer. That's why they can afford to bundle them.

I did some thinking after David suggested the Other lens. My fear is just what you metioned. I shoot with the Rolleiflex and the 645zi which both lens are very good.Now if my exposure is not right even the better lens does not help but because I shoot to print when you use the better lens you see the difference in several ways. Unformed sharpness edge to edge and the prints just stand out. So if I am doing this I want the best lens I can aford. Sigma and Tokina make some nice lens no doubt,but I have to believe the higher end Nikon lens are better. With Tamrom I believe it is for the value you get for your buck. I just know if I do not start out on the right foot I will be unhappy. For me this is a lot of money to come up with for enjoyment. If push came to shove I would buy a cheaper camera before I will a lens. The kit lens does not interest me. I really have no use for it. I would buy the 18-200 if it was availible.

As I said in the last post I am not sure if I will buy the Canon or the Nikon. At this point I am leaning towards the NIkon for several reasons. One it gives me a pretty good place to start for the money. 11x14 or 16x20 prints should meet my needs. Two it is durable and solid. Three from what I know the company is dependable. Canon has some advanges over higher iso speeds, but I believe nikon does well at the lower one which I mainly use.

Larry I am glad you made that point again. Thanks Monte.

My post wasn't in reply to David suggesting a third party lens, though it's something I would personally never buy. It was in response to your suggesting the 18mm-70mm kit lens. I had one which came with my D70 and never thought to use it. I use the same Nikon prime lenses that I did successfully on the film cameras I used to own.

Whether you (or anyone else) agree with me, there are two factors in choosing lenses. One is the quality based on reading reviews and then testing if necessary. The second is the trust you have in the manufacturer, which translates into the confidence you have in your equipment which gives you confidence to create great images. I never consider price a factor because I won't compromise image quality to save a few dollars.

Well put Larry. I understand what you mean. I noticed that you shoot with the D70. Do you feel the differnce in price from the D200 and the D70s is worth it. I am confused on the meg thing. Same size sensor but will 6 to 10 really make that much difference in say 16X20 print. D70 iso rating comes in low at 200 the D200 is 100. Does that make a real difference. I usually shoot the low rated films. The D70s is 700 with the 12-24 is a little over 1700. Add a 1000 for the 200. I guess I just want to know in your opinion is the D200 worth the price difference when I will probably print no larger then 16X20. Monte

I sold my D70 kit on eBay last week for $700. I sold my last three film bodies on eBay this morning.

My first real shoot with the D200 was a group picture for my dentist's web site. Though you can't tell from the web image, an 11x14 print from a cropped 20mm shot that I made for his office wall came out looking incredible. I used two Nikon SB-800 flash set for wireless iTTL bounced into white umbrellas.

The D70 was a thousand dollar compromise that allowed me to start shooting with a real camera again. The D200 isn't a compromise. The image quality is noticeably better and has more detail. I bought it to shoot artwork for artists and with the right lenses (60mm macro) it does just what I need it to do. I only wish that Nikon would come out with a 35mm macro lens for closer working conditions.

Larry that answers my question. I now just have to find a creative way to pay for it. It might be a while. Thanks Monte.

Monte,

When you are in the position of choosing a dSLR system and you don't already have a 35mm SLR system with a lot invested already in lenses, it is a different set of factors to consider.

Obviously I am not a Nikon person, but that was not so much choice as circumstance affected years ago by the fact my editor was a Nikon person, so exercising his privileged position wrote all or most of the reports on Nikon, so I was left with Canon and other brands.

I am currently using a collection of Canon pro "L" lenses I've owned for some years and is one big reasons I bought the 5D, because it has a full-frame sensor chip. You don't need shorter "digital" lenses with the 5D. So that made the higher price of the 5D body much more affordable because I didn't need to get new lenses too.

But before the 5D I had Canon dSLR's with the APS-size chip, and their kit 18-55mm lens. And early on did a test on a heavy Gitzo tripod shooting a detailed interior using both the kit lens and my 20-35mm f/2.8 Canon "L", which has produced extremely sharp negs on Tech Pan film, on the Rebel. Comparing the results of the Rebel files on-screen at 100% or in a 12x18" print, there was no difference discernable. The limit is not the lens but how little a 6 megapixel sensor resolves in image detail.

With over twice the megapixel count of 12.8 with the 5D you might see some advantage provided by using the best pro optics, but even that many megapixels does not resolve the detail and sharpness that can be recorded on 35mm Tech Pan film.

In the old days when I was influenced by pecking order forces to choose Canon it was not the #1 camera company in the world. Now it is and its success and size in recent years I consider a bit of good luck because it now affords me very exceptional performance in both cameras and lenses, and I get to try out most of the others, so I have reason for my confidence.

Where you are at now is a dilemma of choice I hear from all too many shutterbug readers, and it is also reflected here in the forum. The one thing I would definitely advise that may help in making the choice, is to buy as high a megapixel count as you can afford because that will have the greatest influence on the photographic results you obtain. Lenses are today secondary as all but the sleaziest cheapies will resolve as much information as your sensor can record. Digital SLR's in the affordable range today are not comparable to film SLR's by a long shot, particularly compared to what film like Tech Pan or Kodachrome 25 can resolve.

In other words choose to buy the best sensor chip you can afford regardless of camera brand and you'll get the most in image quality for your buck. If I were in your shoes I'd look very seriously at Sony's new dSLR A1. Why? Other than Canon it is the only camera company making dSLR's now that makes their own sensor chips!!!!!

Thanks David, It is a nice clear perspective on things. Doesn't Sony and Kodak make most of the sensors for all camera? I have done some reading on The Sony DSLR, but i am surprised you metioned it. I will take a closer look. I am convinced now at this time my film days are really coming to a close. If I had the money right now the 5D has a rebate but thats not the case. One thing I have always repected about you is your sincere approch to things. Thanks again. I have much to mull over. I know in the end I will go with the most megs I can afford. With my old Mac I also have to consider it could quit someday. Monte.

David... one of the things that I wrestle with is the quality of the tamron and sigma lenses "as good" as the nikon lenses. I have been eyeing the nikon 12-24 lens and it's now down to about $900 but the sigma is less than $500. Not a small difference.
So my camera store says "if you are going to have a nikon, you should use their lenses," but I'm not 100% confident they really know if they are better.
The issue isn't whether the nikon lens is good... the question is.. is the sigma just as good?
I'm curious if any of you have had luck, either good or bad with sigma, tamron, etc., lenses.
Thx
Jeff

I've got a Sigma 12-24, and it's really nice. Use it with a Fuji S3, but it's the same mount as your using. I also have the Sigma 18-125, and except for the extreme wide angle openings is a very nice lense. Like yourself I'm looking at buying a D200 body, but will hang onto the S3. Anybody here used the variable fisheye from Tokina yet?
gary