upgrade D60 or lens?


Status
Not open for further replies.

mareth

New Member
Nov 4, 2008
30
0
0
#1
I know most prob this qn has been going around for a long time... but just like to ask for opinions if u guys dun mind..

I recently bought a Nikon D60 with kit lens, now thinking of upgrade. Ideally I wished i have the funds to upgrade to D90 and buy the 18-200mm lens but... :(

I decided to allocate 1k for upgrade, should I

1) upgrade the body to D90, allowing me to purchase non AFS lens in months to come or

2) stick to D60 and buy the 18-200VR lens, sticking to AFS lens... (am considering getting the new AFS 35mm f1.8 too).


Also is 35mm f1.8 suitable for shooting people?

Thanks for reading.
 

Legoz

New Member
Mar 7, 2008
1,003
0
0
#2
Can i just check why you wanna upgrade?
It would most prob shed light to what you should buy.. =)
 

mareth

New Member
Nov 4, 2008
30
0
0
#3
Initially I wanted to get the 18-200 as a walk-around lens, but a fren of mine is letting go of his D90 at quite a cheap price... thats why I started to consider if I should upgrade to D90 as it can give me "more room to grow".

:)

Its not a need, its just a want to get D90... as I'm still quite comfortable with my D60.
the only problem is that my lens choices quite limited?
 

ChongK

Senior Member
Nov 15, 2007
511
0
16
West Side
#4
Maybe you could check out 3rd party lens? they too can auto focus with your D60,i mean some lens not all ;p

AF-S 35mm f/1.8 is okay to give you portrait shots,but people usually use longer focal lengths to prevent facial distortions. ( That's what i've been reading,correct me if i'm wrong.)

Cheers!:)
 

luna_sea83

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2005
1,294
0
36
East
#5
D90 is actually quite an upgrade from D60, apart from the ability to focus with non-afs lenses, the menu is totally different too and with the ability to add on a handgrip.
 

Jan 10, 2008
114
0
0
#6
Hi there! If i may suggest, i think its a good idea to get a hold of the 18-200 lens. Since you say that it's only recently that you have your D60, it can still do tricks for you once you max it out of its potentials. By the time you're ready to upgrade your camera body, your 18-200 will still work with it and the price of the D90 might have lowered more than its present price. Just pitching in my 2 cents. :)
 

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#7
The apparent fact that the D90 is a more capable tool than the D60 might be irrelevant to you. As you said, it's a want, more than a need. If your D60 is still serving you fine, why change? After all, the AFS-DX 18-200mm lens will work as well with the D60 as it would with the D90.

Some reasons I can think of which might persuade you to upgrade to D90 :) [poison poison]
1) Use of the cam's pop-up flash as a commander for Nikon's Advanced Wireless Lighting.
2) You find the need to record movies now and then.
3) You find LiveView useful.
4) You desire better noise control at higher ISOs
5) You wish to buy AF lenses and still retain auto-focus ability.
6) You really want to have 2 command dials and an LCD info display at the top.
 

calebk

Senior Member
Jul 25, 2006
10,594
0
0
Clementi
#8
...
AF-S 35mm f/1.8 is okay to give you portrait shots,but people usually use longer focal lengths to prevent facial distortions. ( That's what i've been reading,correct me if i'm wrong.)

Cheers!:)
In practical use, the 35mm focal length on a DX format does not render much wide angle distortion.
 

Dinorex

New Member
Jul 5, 2008
122
0
0
31
Ang Mo Kio
#9
IMHO,

I have to agree that upgrading to D90 seem a gd alternative as it has a built in motor and more feature you might or might not need.

But it is still a DX formate DSLR. So I suggest you stick with d60, and buy the glass you want or even stick to kit lens.

Save up more for D700 which is FX formate and while saving up master the d60, learn more about photography and the technique.
 

Last edited:

mareth

New Member
Nov 4, 2008
30
0
0
#10
Thx for the advise...

I think Im gonna invest in new lens.

Anyway is the 60mm AFS marco lens good enuff for marco photos?
I read that 105mm lens is a better one....

I dun think I be taking bug pics...
most prob taking photos of my anime figures collection :p

the 60mm can double up as a portrait lens right?
 

erictan8888

Senior Member
Nov 9, 2004
2,883
1
0
Singapore
#11
105mm might still be a better buy than the 60mm considering what you want to take....
the bokeh you get from the 105 is much more pleasing compared to the 60mm (in my opinion)
 

mareth

New Member
Nov 4, 2008
30
0
0
#12
105mm might still be a better buy than the 60mm considering what you want to take....
the bokeh you get from the 105 is much more pleasing compared to the 60mm (in my opinion)
Hi coz Im thinking I could double up the 60mm marco lens as a portrait lens too...
105mm seems abit too long?

any marco master can highlight the difference between the 2 lens? thx alot.. Im still trying to explore and learn
 

baggiolee

Senior Member
Dec 7, 2006
1,748
0
36
www.facebook.com
#13
18-200mm f/3.5-5.56 is a good and convienient lens but is it really worth the premium considering we (me is new and own D60 too) juz started photography and we have the choice of buying a 'cheap' 55-200mm f/4-5.56 lens to compliment ur 18-55mm so as to have a 18-200mm coverage as well?
 

calebk

Senior Member
Jul 25, 2006
10,594
0
0
Clementi
#14
Thx for the advise...

I think Im gonna invest in new lens.

Anyway is the 60mm AFS marco lens good enuff for marco photos?
I read that 105mm lens is a better one....

I dun think I be taking bug pics...
most prob taking photos of my anime figures collection :p

the 60mm can double up as a portrait lens right?
First off, it's macro, not marco. Marco Polo came and went, but doesn't exist in photography.

IMHO, if you are only shooting inanimate objects, you can afford to use the 60mm. Essentially, both the 60mm and 105mm will give you 1:1 (life size) magnification, but the difference is that with the 60mm, you'd have to get a lot closer in order to achieve that, which is why in most cases, if you are shooting bugs, most people would recommend using a longer focal length. In your case, that is not necessary.
 

mareth

New Member
Nov 4, 2008
30
0
0
#15
Thanks for the correction..

Just that I was reading review bout it and Ken Rockwell said:

60mm macro lenses require you to get so close (2" or 5cm) to your subject at 1:1 that you get in the way of your own lighting! This is why pros don't use 60mm macro lenses, except for slide copying where the light comes from behind the subject.

If your intent is for serious macro, I'd strongly suggest a 105mm Micro-Nikkor instead to give enough room between your camera and the subject.

so abit :think:
 

Simon_84

New Member
Mar 18, 2004
1,479
0
0
bukit batok
#16
no matter what you chose, is going to be an expensive choice.

upgrade body, no money buy lens.

buy lens, no money upgrade body.

i think is better sticking to lens, as AF-S is the future.
 

Last edited:

aspenx

New Member
Aug 10, 2008
1,350
0
0
here
#17
AF-S lens are expensive and sadly, Simon_84 is right. The trend now is that the new lens Nikon is releasing are AF-S AND G. :(

A cheaper alternative you might want to consider is to buy manual focus lens 2nd hand and train yourself to focus manually. You would still need to do so even if you have a AF-S macro lens when you are doing macro.
 

Simon_84

New Member
Mar 18, 2004
1,479
0
0
bukit batok
#18
another way to cut down cost is to purchase 2nd hand AF-S lens.
even for the upcoming 35mm f1.8, i also intend to purchase 2nd hand...

else hope that price for sigma HSM lens goes down, but i think is not very likely either, cause i'm been observing the 30mm f1.4 price from last year, sadly the price hasn't really drop much. :(
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom