HELP Nikkor lenses (people, landscape, general, macro)

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

HELP Nikkor lenses (people, landscape, general, macro)

(22 posts) (11 voices)

Tags:

No tags yet.

pcristao

member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 13
offline

Dear all,

Considering comments I have received to my earlier post I have decided to buy the Nikon D300s. Now I need some lenses… :)

My most use will be in my trips (people, landscapes, general, wildlife, night), diving, and playground (children running, portrait, etc.).

In light of the above, please give me your advice on the best lenses to do this job, maybe two or three lenses maximum.

I would prefer lenses with very good quality that result on sharp and colourful images, and of course price is an issue (maximum budget maybe around 1.700USD)… :)

I already have some lenses in my mind, but let’s start debate without my influence in the decision, then I'll present my selection.

Thank you all for your help!!!

Best regards, Paulo.

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX Lens - $199
Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 - $479 or Tokina 11-16/2.8 - $599.95
Nikon 85/1.8 - $449.95
Nikon 70-300/4.5-5.6 - $524.95 (usable from 70-200, above 200 ain't sharp enough)
so total: 1652.90-1773.85

based on BH prices as for today

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

Well since you'll be doing a lot of traveling I'd say get the Nikkor 35mm f1.8 for street and low light shots. Then get something like the sigma 18-50 f2.8 for your general landscape and people shots. This lens has some macro capabilities meaning it has a short minimal focusing distance. You can get up close and still lock focus.

Wildlife is a bit trickier. That one's gonna cost you if you want very good quality. You'll need at least something like a 70-200mm 2.8. Since the Nikkor version will eat up your budget and isn't a travelers lens, I think you should get the sigma 70-200 f2.8. It also has limited macro capabilities.

These three lenses will bring you to your total budget. I have used all of these lenses and for the price they are all very good. I'd say the Nikkor 18-200mm is a good travel lens but not for indoor or low light shots. Especially if your not planning on buying a speedlight first.

I'm sure your going to get a lot of other suggestions though.

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

The Sigma 70-200/2.8 is one of the worst sigma lenses - I wouldn't buy it - better go for Tamron (it's slower but IQ is comparable to Nikon version), as for 18-200 I would suggest 55-200 it's cheaper and has almost the same IQ.

Posted 3 years ago #
ted2001

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 726
offline

Why are you buying the D300s, instead of the D90, if you have a total of $3,500 (D300s+$1,700)? Lenses are useful longer and retain their value longer and represent more in capability than a marginal improvement in camera body. Rather than $1,700 on lenses are you better off with a $950 for camera body and $2,550 for lenses.

If you don't yet know what you want, I recommend a general purpose zoom (I love the 16-85 for $630) and then take some pictures. Only when you've gained some additional experience with that combination can you know what you'll need next. If it's the 105/2.8 VR Micro, that $900 and big part of the budget or perhaps an ultra-wide for...

The reason people buy Nikon is because of the variety of lenses they produce. What's ideal for one photographer, can be a useless bag-o-glass for someone else.

Posted 3 years ago #
warprints

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 769
offline

I have the Nikkor 35mm 1.8. It's a great lens. Get it. After that, your budget is somewhat limited for the best glass. Of course, the 70-200 should be on the list, but that alone will blow your budget. The Nikkor 18-200 is nice - I use one for when I'm not really planning to take photos, but just carrying my camera - but you won't get THE sharpest pictures.

Posted 3 years ago #
pcristao

member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 13
offline

Dear all, thank you for comments!

I was considering the following previous to this post (1st Scenario):

- Nikon 10-24mm, USD 800 or Tokina 11-16mm, USD 570;

- Nikon 16-85mm VR, USD 650;

- Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX, USD 199.95;

- Nikon 55-200mm VR, USD 230.

On the other hand I’m also considering the following (2nd Scenario):

- Nikon 10-24mm, USD 800 or Tokina 11-16mm, USD 570;

- Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX, USD 199.95;

- New Nikon 18-200, USD 750.

What do you think about each scenario?

Thank you so much!!!

Best regards, Paulo

Posted 3 years ago #
multon

member
Joined: Aug '09
Posts: 12
offline

I do think that ted2001 is absolutely right...Keep your money for buying very good lenses and get a used D300... There are many of them on the market !

Laurent

Posted 3 years ago #
warprints

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 769
offline

I love to obsess over new lense purchases, and read, re-read and compare ad nauseum. My favorite lens review sites are the following. Take a look, and decide what lens qualities are most important to you - e.g. can you live with more CA if the center field is sharper than another lens with better CA but slightly less resolution or sharpness in the center field, etc. Doing this can drive you crazy !! (In my case, after fretting for weeks, I just wake up one day and say, oh, I really need this lens right now - and I buy it.
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests
http://www.cameralabs.com/lenses/Latest_DSLR_Lens_reviews.shtml
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/
http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php

Posted 3 years ago #
snaketail

senior member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 66
offline

Assuming money is no problem I go with the 12-24mm, a 50mm f1.4 and wait for the "new" 70-200mm to be avaliable. The 18-200 is a nice lens, not a great lens, but a nice one. The 50mm f.1.4 is a great lens, the 12-24 lives on my D200 and has made some of my best images. The 18-55 is a nice paperweight and the 55-200 would be a wonderful doorstop - if it wasen't so rolly-aroundy.

Use Nikon lenses on Nikon camera...isn't that why you bought a Nikon rather than a Sony?

12-24
50 f.1.4
70-200

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

As I said Paulo your going to get a lot of different answers on this one. I think your 2nd senario would be more useful then your first. Except for the 18-200. Like others have already mention it is a good but not great lens. Also I really do think you should consider better glass versus a better camera body if you are starting out building a nikon system.

I wouldn't call the sigma 70-200 f2.8 one of the worst lenses adamz. It's not a Nikkor 70-200 but it's half the price and still very good for what it can offer. Bright f2.8 aperture, fast autofocus, and a pro build. Dpreview has tested this lens on their site.

Good luck with whatever you decide Paulo.

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

Niko - I had many different sigma lenses, still using the great 10-20. I've also had the 70-200 and it was so unreliable lens - I've sold it faster than I bought it (actually had it for 6 months), before that lens I had Nikon 70-300 vr, and it was much better than the sigma one and also cheaper.

pcristao - I will go for the first scenario with tokina, as it's a great lens, and certainly there are some other companies than Nikon that produce great lenses with F-mount.

Posted 3 years ago #
RobertD

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 142
offline

OK...my 2 cents worth.

My cameras:
D200
D90
D40

My lenses:
Nikkor 18-55 GII ED kit lens (D40, great lens)
Nikkor 35mm f1.8G (I use this as my prime on the D90, also 100% functionality on the D40)
Nikkor 50mm f1.8D (I got this before the 35mm 1.8 was available)
Nikkor 60mm f2.8D Macro (Extremely sharp, but the one I use the least)
Nikkor 18-200 1:3.5-5.6 G ED VR (Some photogs say it's not too good. I find just the opposite, also 100% on D40)
Tokina 12-24mm AT-X Pro (Extremely good lens...half the price of the Nikkor 12-24mm)

For my type of work, these lenses work well for me, and of course, they won't work for everybody. I still don't know why I keep the 50mm f1.8, maybe I should sell it. I am not a huge zoom lens fan, old school I guess. However, I like the 18-200, as it gives me every prime lens I own in one package, with some sacrifice in sharpness. When I want to travel light, this is the only lens I take. Works for me!

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

"The 18-55 is a nice paperweight and the 55-200 would be a wonderful doorstop"

LMAO! Especially on the 55-200. I sold that space taker with my D40. I still sometimes have to use the 18-55 because I have nothing else after 24mm and I still have a gap between 55mm and 70mm.

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

"Use Nikon lenses on Nikon camera...isn't that why you bought a Nikon rather than a Sony?"

Very well said. Sigma is out of the question for me entirely! Spotty quality control is not my thing and I personally think it's a waste of time trying to find one that works when I could use that time shooting with a lens I know will will. You get what you pay for.

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

Robert how would you rate the 18-200 indoors and under low light? Does it tend to hunt for focus on you?

Gentoo I guess I'm the only one who uses some very nice sigma lenses. Sigma lenses are cheaper yes and that is their appeal. I'd rather have A lens and get the shot versus wishing I had THE lens and never getting the shot. I really enjoy using my 30mm f1.4 and I also have the 18-50 f2.8. I've used the newer 70-200 f2.8 and like I said It's no 70-200 Nikkor but it's more than HALF the price! A lot of people can't justify $2400US for one lens alone. The sigma offers the same coverage and aperture for "only" $800US.

I don't expect an $800 dollar lens to match or exceed a lens that cost $2400. Just like I don't complain and blame the D60 for not matching the quality and build of a D200.

Posted 3 years ago #
Willis

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,123
offline

Some third party lenses don't have any pier. The Tokina 11-16, for instance, is faster than nikon's DX wide zoom. And I think just as sharp.

There is some stuff on the tele end that's like that as well. From 24-200mm, Nikon's got you covered with a nice line-up of primes, Macro lenses, zooms, etc. (with a few notable holes). If you can't afford it than save. If you can't wait, THEN go by a third part zoom.

Posted 3 years ago #
RobertD

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 142
offline

NikoDoby in answer to your question, in my experience no. I just mounted the lens on my d90 and shot down my dark hallway, metered at ISO 3200-f3.5-1/40, and it experienced no hunting what so ever. As long as you have something of contrast, i.e., doorway moulding next to the wall, there should be no problem.
Outside in low light, dusk, or moderately bright street scene, it's a dream with the VR. Leave the tripod at home. I think most of the Nikon photos I have posted on "one-a-day" were shot with the 18-200.

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

Niko - I'm also using sigma lenses - as I wrote before it's sigma 10-20 and I think it's one of the best wide angle zooms in the below $1000 range, good enough that I wouldn't switched it to a much more expensive Nikon alternative

Posted 3 years ago #
mb

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,160
offline

If travel is your goal I doubt you will want to switch the lenses all of the time and carry half a dozen, maybe this zoom based scenario would be appropriate:
Sigma 10-20 or Tokina 11-16 or Nikon 10-24
Nikon 16-85
Nikon 70-300
Kenko extension rings Set for macro

Posted 3 years ago #
ted2001

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 726
offline

mb, that's what I carry for travel Nikon 10-24, 16-85 and 70-300 and am very satisfied. Tremendous utility and range in a smallish, easy to carry set of lenses. D90, couple of filters and an SB-400. Even if the 70-300 is less than perfect past 200(that's 300 in DX world), for some stuff softness is either not important or less important than getting a shot, and having the equivalent to 450mm w/VRII is handy at times.

Posted 3 years ago #
mb

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,160
offline

ted2001 - glad to see at least someone agrees with me ;)

Posted 3 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.

The new Nikon Rumors Forum is now live at http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussions. This forum is now in "read only" mode until I figure a proper way to import all data over to the new platform. Please register over at the new forum.

HELP Nikkor lenses (people, landscape, general, macro)

Reply