I've been tempted to buy a Nikon DSLR for years starting from the time of the D40 to supplement (or replace?) my Lumix DMC-FZ30. Am not sure how long more can I hold on to my Vulcan-like emotional suppression from the temptations of Nikon with the current entry level D3100 and/or as they belt out the delicious D7000 in a matter of weeks (in Malaysia).
Over the years, my dilemma remains the same. What lens would I buy to complement my eventual DSLR? And what DSLR (cheap body or expensive one which would take longer time to outgrow?) would I buy to complement the lens? A chicken and egg thing in photography world, I suppose. I love wide angle because I never had any from my FZ30. I always felt I needed more wide angles. My exploration into wide angle lenses led me to the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 but that wouldn't auto-focus with the D3100. And then, I came across the even wider 8-16mm variable aperture Sigma lens. Even wider but at a higher price.
At the current point of time, I'm most likely going to settle for a D3100 body and the Nikkor 16-85mm variable aperture lens. A cheap body with an expensive lens (and also the kit lens that comes with the D3100) and to save up more money over the next few years to build up an inventory of lenses. The ultra wide angle Sigma would be at the top of my list...
... or could it be the Nikkor 70-300mm VR lens? I've been pampered by the long zoom that came with the FZ30 and couldn't get the telephoto reach out of my mind. Maybe I could settle for the slower autofocus consumer lens from Nikon - Nikkor 55-300mm VR? Or should I be bolder and go for the latest 28-300mm VR?
Maybe I should just forget about all of them and settle for a single D7000 with the 18-105mm kit lens. HMPH! A D7000 has a body complicated enough that I would not get bored of unlike the simpler D3100...
What a lot of thoughts... perhaps I could hold out on any purchase for another eternity...
No comments:
Post a Comment