It depends on your meaning of "strength". . .

I think the 35 1.8, as others have pointed out, offers unique benefits since nothing moves in or out as you focus (it's all in the rear elements). . .with a rubber seal, it provides a solid "small" option on a semi pro body. . .(the little plastic hood protects it well too). . .

In terms of all out, "it can stand the test of time" and abuse, I would say any of the older lenses from the pro-line (35-70 2.8/17-35 2.8/70-200/200/300/etc). . .current

Cheapest? I just purchased a used 24 2.8 prime (Ser 6XXXXX) and though it's a mother - mostly metal, and built TANK tough. . .spent $265. . .

pabnj said:
Adamz, remember we are talking about school kids in their mid-teens. Alpha seems like he'd take really good care of his gear, we have no clue about his classmate. Hmmmm, come to think of it, maybe an underwater housing. :-)

You're right, pabnj. To heck with a new lens, if you don't have a body to use it on. Rain covers are much cheaper and more effective, and I think he already has a filter. Yes, that makes much more sense. I forgot about those, I think there was one on PhotoRumors the other day?

If you think I take good care of my stuff, then I think you've got something wrong ;^) I haven't exactly been the nicest. My D300's been through rain and snow. Same goes for my D70 (though not quite to the same extreme, and I have improvised plastic bags on it). And then there was the time that I fell and my camera happened to attached to me (only my 80-200mm's lens hood got a small crack, which I fixed with some glue and tape. But I guess you're right, I mean my parents trust me enough to use expensive equipment like this.

But I get your point about my friend. Did I tell you he had his first accident within a week of receiving his camera? Yeah, it fell (or he dropped it something), and the lens broke. The plastic mount came off or something like that. At least I didn't do something like that!

heartyfisher said:
The toughest nikkor I know of is the 12-24 Dx. I have heard of people droping it into a stream with a d200 and it was just fine after being wiped down. Its solid and does not change shape when focusing or zooming. and its sealed as well. If I ever need to go anywhere where I could get mud and muck on my gear that would be the lens I bring along. :-) but its not cheap :-)

I was a D80 owner, and knew a couple of people who damaged their camera. I was strictly speaking from the point that the consumer oriented models have less sealing than the D300(s), and D3(s) models.

It does not surprise me that you had problems with your D200, over time seals dry up, and from general use the seals are not as tight when they were new. My D80 had no sealing at all around the SD compartment, just a spring loaded door. My D300 has a gasket all the way around the CF door, and has a clasp to keep it closed. I don't know if they made any improvements to the sealing of a D90 over a D80, but I'd still play it safe with a rain cover if that is his main concern which seems to be the case.

Adamz, remember we are talking about school kids in their mid-teens. Alpha seems like he'd take really good care of his gear, we have no clue about his classmate. Hmmmm, come to think of it, maybe an underwater housing. :-)

pabnj said:
What good is a weather sealed lens if the D90 does not offer much in the way of weather sealing itself. OK, he buys a great sealed lens, but his camera is toast because it is not properly sealed. How pissed would he be if that happened.

I never had any problems with d90, and I was using it in some extreme weather conditions - heavy rainfall, at least it's helping me to make it clean :)
also I never had any problems with using it in temperatures below 0C. Lately, it was around -15C when I had both my d200 and d90 outside, and surprisingly d90 was working w/o any problems, and d200 had problem with reading/writing CF card.

The toughest nikkor I know of is the 12-24 Dx. I have heard of people droping it into a stream with a d200 and it was just fine after being wiped down. Its solid and does not change shape when focusing or zooming. and its sealed as well. If I ever need to go anywhere where I could get mud and muck on my gear that would be the lens I bring along. :-) but its not cheap :-)

Thanks jonny.

pabnj makes a great point. I use my D90 mainly for non rigorous shooting situations. I used my D300 for the first time in Oakland during a light rain. I got paranoid and put it away, mainly because I don't know how sealed my new lens is. The D300 got wet but still was ok. I still don't like it getting wet though.

What good is a weather sealed lens if the D90 does not offer much in the way of weather sealing itself. OK, he buys a great sealed lens, but his camera is toast because it is not properly sealed. How pissed would he be if that happened.

You may want to recommend a rain cover for his DSLR, and a filter for his lens to protect everything from the elements. A rain cover & filter is far cheaper than a new lens which will do nothing to protect the camera.

Or Alpa, you can lend him your D300 and 80-200 for the trip, and show him how great a friend you really are. :-)

Gentoo said:
I cannot make sense of the mentality of spending good money on gear just to have it sit at home LOL

+1!

Gentoo said:
Now that's how you pack! I walked about 4 miles a day up hills through the city and the woods when I was in the Bay Area over Christmas. Here's what I had:

D300 AND D90. 300mm2.8, 70-200mm2.8, 35mm1.8, 12-24mmF4, Spare battery, spare CF cards, Two Kenko TC's and other accessories.

The only thing I would change next time is leaving the 70-200 at home as I did not use it. Otherwise, I cannot make sense of the mentality of spending good money on gear just to have it sit at home LOL

Gentoo, you carry more... well because you're just massive. :D

35mm 1.8 is nice, but I dunno, there's something about plastic I don't like very much. But valid reasons for the 35mm 1.8. Plus it has a rubber seal on the mount too, that's always a plus. And a metal mount.

Oh, just to warm them up? That makes sense, but I'll bet as soon as he takes them out they'll freeze up again! Usually I carry a spare, so I've never had problems. Besides, I get 2k photos of a charge in good temperatures, so a little cold shouldn't be a problem to me anyway.

gentoo - I forgot about TC's and spare flash cards :), when I'm travelling with my kit it usually is for at least 1-2 weeks, sometimes 3, and I'm wearing this stuff all the time (except for sleeping and toilette: ) ).... I hope that this year, I'll also add 300/2.8 to my kit :)... and a bigger lens case :)

alpha - as for batteries in cold temperatures, if You are not using the camera, take them out, and put into internal pocket.

Well, I guess I carry my stuff on hiking trips too. Except now I don't even bother to carry my 18-70mm, it's too slow and I suck at wide angles anyway. I just slap my 80-200mm on my D300, pocket the 50mm ƒ/1.2, and I'm all set. Great combo for what I like to do. Maybe I'll add a macro reversal ring and my SB-400. But I'm not going to be operating in temperatures 20° below 0, like he said he would be (I wished him luck with his batteries). Whatever.

adamz said:
I do :)
my standard trekking/traveling pack is d200 or d90, 24-70, 70-200, sigma 10-20, sb-800, grip and some additional accessories + all the wires, chargers - all in a lowepro toploader, two lens cases, one accessory bag, waist belt... did I mention 55l backpack :)

when I want to go really light, I'm leaving my sigma, flash and cables at home.

alpha - 35/1.8 sounds good, at least it's cheap so it will not hurt him too much if something will happen to it anyway.

D300 AND D90. 300mm2.8, 70-200mm2.8, 35mm1.8, 12-24mmF4, Spare battery, spare CF cards, Two Kenko TC's and other accessories.

The only thing I would change next time is leaving the 70-200 at home as I did not use it. Otherwise, I cannot make sense of the mentality of spending good money on gear just to have it sit at home LOL

Willis said:

Who wants to lug a SLR around on a hiking trip anyway?

Hahaha...this makes me laugh!

Willis said:
...
Who wants to lug a SLR around on a hiking trip anyway?
...

I do :)
my standard trekking/traveling pack is d200 or d90, 24-70, 70-200, sigma 10-20, sb-800, grip and some additional accessories + all the wires, chargers - all in a lowepro toploader, two lens cases, one accessory bag, waist belt... did I mention 55l backpack :)

when I want to go really light, I'm leaving my sigma, flash and cables at home.

alpha - 35/1.8 sounds good, at least it's cheap so it will not hurt him too much if something will happen to it anyway.

alphanikonrex said:
Yeah...no. He said he can't work without AF, guess he's a pansie then :^P

On a D90 he won't have a meter, either.

LOL how did I guess? :^)

Yeah...no. He said he can't work without AF, guess he's a pansie then :^P

ChrisLange said:
35/2 Ai or 50/1.4 Ai, anything else is for pansies :E

Jo-ho!

35/2 Ai or 50/1.4 Ai, anything else is for pansies :E

OK, that's all that I wanted to know. Thanks everybody! I'll recommend the 35mm to him then!

I'd call it a draw.
It isn't built as tough, but it has much less mass, so the material strength needed to deaccelerate it safely is much less. It doesn't act as a bellows, so the internals have no reason to get dirty if you treat it right. Because of its low mass, polycarbonate (?) body, and IF design it is likely near the top of the list of "Most Likely to Survive a 2 Meter Fall To Concrete".

So from what you've suggested, looks like 35mm is the best decision. Everything else: too many moving parts, not good enough build quality, etc.

So, my final question:

How does the 35mm compare to pro-build lenses like the 70-200mm?

Willis said:
I'd opt for the 35mm for the focal length alone.

yes.

The 50 has about the same build quality as the 35.