Help me pick my next lens!

[Miller1412]

I currently have a Nikkor 18-200 mm, Nikkor 50 mm f/1.8, a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and an old Nikkor 75-240 mm zoom.

I recently did a few jobs and have about $800 to spend...I'm considering the Nikkor 70-300 mm VR, but I'm not sure if I should go this route or get a Sigma with a little more reach.

Share your thoughts...you guys are the experts!! WWYD??

 

[zackiedawg]

My suggestion would be to consider looking at a UWA lens, as that is one hole in your lens collection at the moment that isn't covered at all. Something like the Nikon 10-24mm, the Tamron 10-24mm, the Sigma 10-20mm, or the Tokina 12-24mm. Taking photographs at ultra-wide angles opens up a whole new perspective and shooting style and can be loads of fun. You've got lenses that cover the longer focal lengths, though you could improve the quality of glass in that range if you wanted. But I like the UWA idea (just went there myself...I was in the same boat as you with 18mm being my widest...now I can't wait to play at 10mm!)

 

[annnewjerz]

I'd agree with Justin and either go with a UWA lens, or a faster telezoom lens, like maybe the 80-200 f/2.8 which I just saw recently listed used on KEH for around the $800 you have.

I did some shooting this weekend with my 18-200 and while I was happy with the focal length, I would have liked a lower aperture to provide some more separation between my subject and the other people around them. This got me thinking about either the 70-200 f/2.8 (VR) or the 80-200 f/2.8. The 80-200 is much more in my price range, but the 70-200 has VR which I think is nice, but not necessarily as important as one might think if you will be shooting (mostly) in daylight or conditions with good lighting rather than dim or indoor lighting.

Good luck---there are some of us out there trying to keep our NAS under control, so we will have to live vicariously through your purchases

 

[YEKCIM]

I'll second what Anne said about the 80-200. I bought mine a few months back, in a moment of fiscal weakness, along with the D300 and 16-85VR lens. I already had the 70-300VR and have not used it a single time since getting the 80-200. Not that it isn't a good lens - it is a very good lens for the $$. It is variable aperture, though, and the 80-200's constant f/2.8 and sharpness just trump the 70-300's advantages of size, weight, AF-S, VR, and extra reach, at least for me. They are both excellent optics but, if you can find a used, good condition 80-200 in your price range, and the tradeoffs between the two do not bother you, I'd personally go for the 80-200.

There are a few different models out there... Push-Pull, Two-Ring, and Two-Ring AF-S. Mine is the Two-Ring (no AF-S), which is the only one still in production.

~Ed

 

[Miller1412]

Hmm, the 80-200 is an interesting choice, in reading up on it, it sounds great.

Ed, it's good to hear your perspective on the 80-200mm vs. the 70-300, because the 70-300 is what I was leaning towards. That f/2.8 would be very nice.

Do you find that you need the tripod often, or can you do without it? I don't love the thought of schlepping the tripod to all of the kids sports events. In theory, I'm sure it makes for better shots, but in practice, I know I wouldn't bring it along. I do have a d300, so I could always crop in some to get a little more "reach".

I would love something in the wide angle range...but right now, I think I'd find more use for something with a little more reach for my kids' sporting events, etc.

I think I may be leaning towards that 80-200. Unfortunately, the 70-200 with the VR is just too far out of my price range.

 

[Miller1412]

I'd agree with Justin and either go with a UWA lens, or a faster telezoom lens, like maybe the 80-200 f/2.8 which I just saw recently listed used on KEH for around the $800 you have.

I did some shooting this weekend with my 18-200 and while I was happy with the focal length, I would have liked a lower aperture to provide some more separation between my subject and the other people around them. This got me thinking about either the 70-200 f/2.8 (VR) or the 80-200 f/2.8. The 80-200 is much more in my price range, but the 70-200 has VR which I think is nice, but not necessarily as important as one might think if you will be shooting (mostly) in daylight or conditions with good lighting rather than dim or indoor lighting.

Good luck---there are some of us out there trying to keep our NAS under control, so we will have to live vicariously through your purchases

LOL...I've been fortunate to have gotten a few jobs for friends that gave me a little extra money to feed my habit. Unfortunately, it's about to come to a grinding halt unless I find some more odd photography jobs

 

[annnewjerz]

LOL...I've been fortunate to have gotten a few jobs for friends that gave me a little extra money to feed my habit. Unfortunately, it's about to come to a grinding halt unless I find some more odd photography jobs

I feel your pain. Over the last year, I was able to get enough little odd jobs to amount to buying a new lens and some extra junk---but I've hit a dry spell. I made up a few little advertisement things to hang on some community bulletin boards and hopefully that'll free up a little cash for me to spend the rest of the year. If not, 2010 can't come fast enough because that's when my photography "budget" will get replenished.

 

[Suburbanmom]

My next lens will be either the Sigma 10-20 or the Sigma 150 macro.
Both are in your pricerange and will add to your collection without overlapping what you already own. Anything to help the NAS.

 

[ssanders79]

I would go for a fisheye or save up for the Nikon 2.8 70-200

 

[YEKCIM]

Hmm, the 80-200 is an interesting choice, in reading up on it, it sounds great.

Ed, it's good to hear your perspective on the 80-200mm vs. the 70-300, because the 70-300 is what I was leaning towards. That f/2.8 would be very nice.

Do you find that you need the tripod often, or can you do without it? I don't love the thought of schlepping the tripod to all of the kids sports events. In theory, I'm sure it makes for better shots, but in practice, I know I wouldn't bring it along. I do have a d300, so I could always crop in some to get a little more "reach".

I would love something in the wide angle range...but right now, I think I'd find more use for something with a little more reach for my kids' sporting events, etc.

I think I may be leaning towards that 80-200. Unfortunately, the 70-200 with the VR is just too far out of my price range.

I've found that the 80-200, while a pretty hefty lens (all metal construction), is reasonably hand-holdable and the combination of the D300's good high-ISO performance and the 80-200's fast aperture make it very hand-holdable. I shot an event at church a couple weeks ago using only that combination and was very pleased with the results. I had it in Auto ISO mode, with max ISO at 1600, minimum shutter speed at 1/500, aperture priority @ f/4. ISO and shutter speed combo's were all over the place, due to varying lighting conditions, and lack of VR was not an issue, especially since VR does nothing about subject movement. IMO, the D300 + 80-200 can be used quite effectively w/o a tripod (which I despise using anyway).

~Ed

 

[YesDear]

I am blessed to have the 10.5 and the 70-200 2.8. I really enjoy them both and could recommend either. I think the 10.5 is great lens in a tight area. It is also fun!

I was watching an online class done by Joe McNally the other day and he was doing a portrait session and he was using the 70-200. I have not been to a wedding in the last two years that the photographer did not have a 70-200 whether Canon or Nikon.

I know that Jeff did not like the feel of the image the 70-200 offered but I love mine. Jeff has a marvelous knack for the feel or personality of some lens. I trust his impecible skill in that area and he has cost me money in a good way.

The bottom line with NAS is that it really does not matter which one you pick because as soon as you get the one you choose you will still want the other one!

 

[Quicklabs]

I have the 10-20 as well. Since you were so kind to demonstrate the benefits of having the 24-70, I can only return the favor to you by helping you with NAS.

My next lens will be either the Sigma 10-20 or the Sigma 150 macro.
Both are in your pricerange and will add to your collection without overlapping what you already own. Anything to help the NAS.

 

[boBQuincy]

Nikon 10-24!

Although I only have the lowly Canon version it is still a fun lens and often useful. A lot of times we can walk closer to a subject but sometimes we just can't get any further back.

 

[Quicklabs]

Since Ed's great shots with that 80-200, I'm looking at it, too. Sure, I'd love the 70-200, but I could buy a really nice tripod and monopod with the $. I'm seriously underutilizing my 10-20, but that will change.
Let us know what you decide and most importantly, show us your pics!

 

[fitzperry]

If you opt for the UWA, I've been quite pleased with the Tokina 12-24. Sharp, great colors, etc. As for the long zoom, that will be my next purchase as well. I currently have the cheapo 55-200 non-VR, which is not a bad lens for its price but leaves a bit to be desired. I thought I wanted the 70-300 VR, but I've been using a friend's for a few days, and FWIW I'm not loving it. It does not focus very quickly and the variable aperture is annoying. The 80-200 f/2.8 is probably a good suggestion.

Have fun w/ your new purchase!