Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: what glass for D300?  (Read 2133 times)
cmoster
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« on: December 09, 2008, 02:36:57 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm looking for the best walk-around+portrait prime+zoom i can afford ($1500ish) for a d300
I have vary little experience with the nikkor glass, so any advice would be appreciated.
I have been using a Hasselblad  so it will be an adjustment to APS-C but weight won't be an issue
walk-around/work horse (speed not first priority but still important)
Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX Nikkor Lens ($500)
Nikon 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX Nikkor ($300)

primes (I do a lot of natural light portrait photography)
Nikon Normal AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D Autofocus Lens ($100)
Nikon Wide Angle AF Nikkor 35mm f/2.0D Autofocus Lens($300)

zoom (sports/wildlife)
Nikon Zoom Telephoto AF VR Zoom Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S Autofocus Lens ($450)
Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S DX VR Nikkor ($800)

I would rather put money into the walk-around then zoom because
I will use alot more often but the 18-200 could be really useful if its good glass
I'm inclined to get the 16-85mm+35mm+?
thank you and let me know what you think
Logged
usathyan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 184



WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 09, 2008, 08:29:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Frankly, there are so many choices - that you simply cannot go wrong with any of them. Ask a group of 100 people and you will get 100 answers.

If you want just one lens - a good consumer lens is 18-200 VR lens. This is a good travel/general purpose lens.

If you want pro quality images - get pro lenses (gold line lenses) - the most recent best lens is the 17-55mm or 24-70 is the staple workhorse of many wedding pros. Add 70-200 and you are covered for the usable range (maybe add the 14-24 as well).

If you insist - you can buy a dozen other lenses and/or primes to add to weight and cost.

just my 2 cents.

Logged

--------------
Umesh Bhatt
http://www.8thcross.com/blog/
Roy
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 196


WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 09, 2008, 10:38:14 AM »
ReplyReply

The 16-85 received a very good review at one of the few sites that does objective lens testing. Better image quality than the 18-200 and, according to the review, approaching the much more expensive 17-55. The 16-85 is light, compact, well built, a bit expensive, and very versatile. Mine is quite sharp.

Unless you need the extra speed, the inexpensive 50mm f/1.8 is a good lens. If you buy the f/1.4, the just-released G version with internal SWM focus motor is worth a look.

Logged

Roy
Baxter
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 77


WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 09, 2008, 11:13:01 AM »
ReplyReply

I had a 16-85 on my D300 and thought it was a truly great combination. Hardly used my Zeiss ZF 50mm f1.4 as the results were so good. Have used past tense since I made a change to the D700. This meant lots of cash and fact that I had to buy 2 lenses of the lenses Umesh mentions to achieve similar coverage. Subsequently now added the third....
« Last Edit: December 09, 2008, 11:15:18 AM by Baxter » Logged

Lisa Nikodym
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1702



WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 09, 2008, 11:51:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Bjorn Rorslett has a very intelligent, comprehensive, easy-to-read set of reviews of a great many Nikon lenses.  I'd recommend you check it out to see which good ones do what you want:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html
(Then go to the "Lenses" link.)

I have the 18-200 DX VR lens for my D300, and, while it's obviously not as good as a good prime, it's about as good as you can get for a do-everything walk-around lens, as long as you don't mind some distortion at the extremes (so it's not so good for architecture, but fine for everything else).

Keep in mind that DX lenses will be considerably smaller and lighter than non-DX lenses, which is an advantage to them.  Considerably cheaper than comparable non-DX lenses, too.  On the other hand, if you plan to trade up to a full-frame camera any time soon, your DX lenses will be useless.

My 2 cents...

Lisa
Logged

cmoster
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #5 on: December 09, 2008, 04:26:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the advise.
I think Im going to spend my budget on the  
Nikon AF-S Zoom Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Autofocus Lens ($1,420)
this will do every thing I need it to
and I will never grow out of it!

perhaps add the 35mm f/ 2 for situation when weight is an issue.
and the next time I have 1500 burring a hole in my pocket the
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR will complete the set amazingly.
What are your thought on this choice?

Pro-glass seams like a way better investment then a body
the Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR DX AF-S Nikkor would be my top choice
if I was confident I would stay with a APS-C sensor. But I'm not.
the 18-200 is compact but falls short at almost every aspect I'm worried about.
Logged
Peter McLennan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1695


« Reply #6 on: December 09, 2008, 05:14:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: cmoster
Thanks for the advise.
I think Im going to spend my budget on the  
Nikon AF-S Zoom Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Autofocus Lens ($1,420)
this will do every thing I need it to
and I will never grow out of it!

perhaps add the 35mm f/ 2 for situation when weight is an issue.
and the next time I have 1500 burring a hole in my pocket the
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR will complete the set amazingly.
What are your thought on this choice?
 But I'm not.
the 18-200 is compact but falls short at almost every aspect I'm worried about.


I have the 16-85 and it's excellent, if a little slow. It lives on the D300 body nearly all the time.
I also have the 70-200 and it fulfills its legendary status.  That focal length zoom is found in nearly every pro's kit bag.
If you go full frame, the 24-70 will do well.  If I go full frame, I'll have to sell off my 16-85 and 12-24.

Everything's a compromise.  I agree with the premise that lenses outlast bodies, especially nowadays.
Logged
cmoster
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #7 on: December 10, 2008, 10:43:56 PM »
ReplyReply

what do people think is the best walk around lenses?
What do you use, how do you like it?

Not necessarily full frame (although Im incredibly reluctant to spend more then $600 on an exclusively APS-C lens)
but with speed and sharp IQ as most important features.
(I'm a college student and making a good living on photography but I could live on the $1500
I would spend Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Autofocus Lens for almost two months!)
Its a very hard commitment to make (though an unquestionably amazing piece of glass!)


If there is a cheeper solution with out to much compromise I'm all ears!
Logged
Tony Beach
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 452


WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 11, 2008, 09:09:39 PM »
ReplyReply

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/5456...5_6G_ED_VR.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/3685...DC_Defocus.html
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad