Selecting my next lens?

jswoolf01 · December 30, 2007

Hi all,

After asking questions and getting useful answers here, I recently bought a Nikon D80 with the kit lens (18-135mm f/3.5-5.6). :clap I've spent a couple of weeks putting it through its paces, and reached two conclusions:

1) the camera is good enough that the loose nut behind the viewfinder is now the weakest component in the system. :roflWhich, truth be known, is pretty much as I wanted. It means the camera can do everything I want it to right now, so next I need to learn how to want more.

2) the kit lens is adequate as a starter lens, but not good enough for many of the things I want to do.

Thus, I'm now looking at what to get for my next lens. Or lenses, as the case may be. In particular, I want lens #2 to be a fast normal-to-tele zoom. I gained three stops worth of low-light performance by going from an ISO 200 camera to an ISO 1600 camera, then gave two of them right back because of the slow kit lens. Not exactly a great improvement. :rolleyes

I've looked around at SLRgear.com and found several plausible choices: a Nikon 70-200 VR lens which is crushingly expensive, a Nikon 80-200 which is much less expensive, and a Sigma 70-200 which is a bit less still. All three are f/2.8. Is there anyone here who has one or more of these lenses & can offer opinions on their pros and cons? Are there other candidates I missed?

Lens #3 will be a fast wide-to-normal zoom, something like an 18-55mm or 18-70mm f/2.8. SLRgear.com also lists a couple of plausible choices for that -- any comments to offer?

-- Jon W.

bkatz · December 31, 2007

How about the 18-200mm VR
Jon -

I started with my D80 with the 2 lens kit - 18-55mm and 55-200mm. I switched to the 18-200mm lens which does a great job although it is an f3.5 - 5.6. I then got a Tokina 12-24mm and a 70-300mm VR for the sports shots I take.

I am getting the 70-200mm F2.8 VR next because I need the lower light resolution (which is also helped by the lower noise on the D300). The longer the zoom is the more you need the VR at the telephoto end unless you have great light and a fast shutter.

I highly recommend the 18-200mm VR and the added bonus is that when my wife uses the camera she no longer complains she can't get the shot (She never changes lenses and that was a problem with the 2 kit lenses I had).

I am sure others will give you their 2 cents.

awmphoto · December 31, 2007

Well seeing how I went through this exact decision a few months ago, I'll share whats worked for me. I purchased the 80-200 for my D80, and so far its been fantastic. I shoot a lot of sports where the lighting isn't exactly stellar, so the 2.8 is perfect. People will tell you that it (80-200 afd) isn't that fast to focus, but I find it to be much faster than the kit lens (18-135) and pretty darn fast in general. It keeps up with the hockey, soccer, and football well enough were I don't really see myself replacing it any time soon. If you have the money I've heard the Nikon 70-200 is a great lens and you won't regret it. If that isn't in the budget the 80-200 will work great. I can't comment on the sigma because I don't know anything about it, so I don't want to lead you down the wrong path. Good luck with your choice and if you have any questions feel free to PM me.

Seymore · December 31, 2007

Jon... be aware that there are 3 different copies of the Nikon 80-200/2.8.

1. Push-pull copy that has no tripod ring. This is also the first AF copy Nikon (Nikkor) released. $400-550 used.

2. 2 Ring. This lens is still sold new @ many locations, including B&H. This lens will still pull $600-850 used and is still somewhat sought after.

3. The AFS is no longer sold new and the copy I currently have. I can't say enough about this lens and will keep it in my stable for some time to come. I do suggest this copy, if you can find one. Used it still runs $800-1000. Cost was ~$1400-1500 new.

I have shot with the 2 ring, now the AFS and find the AFS is a bit heavier but focuses faster. I have now put my monopod to much more use with the AFS copy. And I believe the 70-200 VR is a bit heavier than the AFS. If you decide to buy used, please make sure you buy from a reputible dealer, a known person/shooter or can try the lens before you buy.

Here's some reading for you...
80-200 2 ring & P-P - http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_03.html#AF80-200f2.8ED
80-200 AFS - http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_03.html#AFS80-200f2.8
70-200 VR - http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_03.html#AFS70-200VR

Sorry, I can't speak to the 70-200 VR or the Sigma, but I suspect you'll get enough others to give you their opinions on those 2.

Good luck with your decision...

bkatz · December 31, 2007

1 cent more
Jon -

The other guys are right. I have heard the 80-200 is a great lens. I cemented my choice of the 70-200mm VR by borrowing a friends and shooting an entire day of soccer with it when it was overcast and then into a night game where the field was lit poorly. I got usable shots from the lens and especially at night when I needed every little bit from it the VR helped.

What I should have asked at first was what will you be shooting? Do you need a 2.8 or something better? Are you looking for the fast shutter and fast focus? What is the budget for it? 70-200mm VR will set you back $1625 + shipping from B&H and you can still buy the 80-200mm from them too.

Good luck

jswoolf01 · December 31, 2007

Brian,

bkatz wrote:

What I should have asked at first was what will you be shooting? Do you need a 2.8 or something better? Are you looking for the fast shutter and fast focus? What is the budget for it? 70-200mm VR will set you back $1625 + shipping from B&H and you can still buy the 80-200mm from them too.

Good luck

I expect to use it for outdoor action, wildlife, probably some landscapes. Mostly in daylight -- sunlight if I'm lucky, overcast if I'm not. Occasionally some indoors action, most likely in indoor riding arenas which are typically lit of daylight coming in through large windows. Since I'm photographing action, I do need fast focusing. I think an f/2.8 lens combined with ISO 1600 should be adequate. I don't think VR would be of much practical use since it only compensates for camera shake, not a subject's motion.

Oh yeah, I'll probably also want a 1.4x extender, to give extra reach for photographing very distant or very small subjects.

My budget can be summarized as "enough to buy what I need, but the farther I can stretch it the better." If the $1600 lens is the only way to get the performance I need, I'll do it. But I'd much prefer to buy the cheaper 80-200mm Nikon or 70-200mm Sigma, and put the money thus saved into other stuff -- that extender, or the wide-to-normal zoom I also want, etc.

-- Jon W.

bkatz · December 31, 2007

jswoolf01 wrote:

Brian,

I expect to use it for outdoor action, wildlife, probably some landscapes. Mostly in daylight -- sunlight if I'm lucky, overcast if I'm not. Occasionally some indoors action, most likely in indoor riding arenas which are typically lit of daylight coming in through large windows. Since I'm photographing action, I do need fast focusing. I think an f/2.8 lens combined with ISO 1600 should be adequate. I don't think VR would be of much practical use since it only compensates for camera shake, not a subject's motion.

Oh yeah, I'll probably also want a 1.4x extender, to give extra reach for photographing very distant or very small subjects.

My budget can be summarized as "enough to buy what I need, but the farther I can stretch it the better." If the $1600 lens is the only way to get the performance I need, I'll do it. But I'd much prefer to buy the cheaper 80-200mm Nikon or 70-200mm Sigma, and put the money thus saved into other stuff -- that extender, or the wide-to-normal zoom I also want, etc.

-- Jon W.

Jon -

For outside action on sunny days and with you willing to turn up the ISO you can certainly look at the 70-300mm VR f4.5 - 5.6 but once you go indoors you realy need a fixed f2.8 lens for action which is what indoor riding is. I do most of my soccer shooting with the 70-300 VR and it works well. (see the slideshow on the front of my site)

The VR will not stop the action but as you get the longer/heavier lenses and get out to the end of the range (say 200mm on the 70-200mm) you have more of a tendency to move without a monopod and it is more pronounced at that end (a little shake moves a lot) which can make it even harder to freeze action.

Realize with the 2x extender you go from 80-200mm to 160-400mm but you also double to f5.6.

I would see if you know anyone who has either lens and give it a try for a day or 2 (you can always use http://www.borrowlenses.com/ and
http://www.glassandgear.com see the where to rent sticky at the top) and try some ofthese lenses out. This was how I made my decision.

Your other option is to look at http://craigslist.com and see if anyone has a lens like that you can get a bargain for (just make sure you check it out).

The problem with photography is you can never spend enough - there is always something else to move to.

Cheers

Seymore · December 31, 2007

Yep Jon... it sounds like you'll be needing a fast lens. Here are some fleeBay auctions for you to watch:

AF-D
AF-D
AF-D

Sorry... no AF-S's FS there right now, that I can find. But if you consider the 2 ring, I would suggest you get that new from a reputable biz as the warranty is usually 5 years on new Nikon/Nikkor lenses these days.

HTH...

Tee Why · December 31, 2007

If you are looking for a fast normal to telephoto range, also consider a Tokina 50-135 f2.8 and a Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 II. Both are cheaper, lighter, and smaller than the 70/80-200mm versions. Their downside is the slight lack of range to 200mm and that they are made for cropped sensors. It may not be a big deal if you aren't planning on getting a Nikon D3 though.

As for normal walking around zooms that are fast, consider a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and a Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 Macro, as well as the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 (which is also very expensive). Of the two, I prefer the Tamron for it's wider end and it's optics.

Good luck.

Selecting my next lens?

Comments