Get a new Lens, or a Nikon D300?

net1994

New lens or D300?

I have a Nikon D50 w/ the 18-200VR lens and a 50mm 1.8 Prime lens. I love my 18-200 as I mostly do walkaround shots. But the D50 isn’t really cutting it anymore and I’m enamored of the reported faster AF with the D300.

I’m open to getting a good suggestion for a lens. The 70-200mm VR lens is probably sharper than my 18-200VR, but its too bulky for walkaround photography and I already have that focal range covered with my 18-200. I have used the Nikon 80-400 VR and despite its drawbacks, it’s great optically-almost if not better than my 18-200. But I would only use it 10 times or less per year. I am not into birds, or other nature/wild animal photography. Wide Angle landscape pics don’t do too much for me either so wouldn’t be interested in the 12-24 Nikon DX lens or similar. Is there a lens that covers 18-300mm and sharper than the 18-200 I have now? If so, I would be definitely interested.

So, every time I would like to get a sharper lens I will use often, the above requirements makes it almost impossible to pick one. I would be willing to spend up to $1,500 on a lens/s. Or, what about getting the D300 to replace my D50?

Where do you see the most value in upgrading?

SloYerRoll

I have a D50 and am upgrading to a D200 right now. It's hard to wait though when you know your new toy is in the mail. I went with glass before I got my D200 though.

For just walk around shooting and that kind of budget. I'd go with the glass. The D300 is fantastic and doesn't have a rival (yet). But in the long run your glass purchase will have a greater return on investment. In two or three years, the D300 will be old news just like the D200 that was released in December of 2005 is old news now. Your 1500+ glass will have close to if not the same value (if you pick good glass) and people will still drool all over it.

Don't get me wrong. The 300 is totally lustworthy. But the D50 is a nice camera and is limited by inferior optics before anything else. People put cheap glass on a lower end DSLR and then complain that it's the DSLR's fault the pictures aren't sharp.. What do you expect? THe chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.

I aslo don't mind toting around big glass either since my first major glass purchase was a 70-200 2.8.

I'm sure you'll hear both sides of this though. So good luck on making a decision that fits your needs.

Cheers,
-Jon

z_28

I can't really help you, have them both already.
But you will never go wrong with top quality lens.
Digital bodies are aging 10 times faster :cry

Joves

You have to answer the question yourself. Why isnt the D80 cutting it? Is it that it doesnt have enough features? And you want more. I had glass so I went to the D80 myself. I saw the 70-300 VR at BestBuy for like $750, if I remember right. It doesnt look to big to me to be a walk around. Me Im going for another body but, then I want even better high ISO performance. I shoot wild life at dawn so,I need that.

jonh68

If the 18-200 is covering the ground you need and you have $1600 burning a hole in your wallet, get the D300 knowing it's value will go down.

As an alternative to the the 70-200, look at a used 80-200 AF 2.8. It's smaller and lighter. I have used it with the D50 with great success. I imagine the AF would be even faster on a D300. It is very sharp. I too have a 18-200 and it covers 90% of what I do. However, having a pro lens in the bag like the 80-200 is a great addition. They are going for around $500-700 used. The AF-S version is going for around 1000-1300.

DsrtVW

I have gone from the D50 to the D300. I also bought new lenses when I bought the D300. Sigma 170-500mm F5-6.3 APO DG and Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 DC Macro.
I have been blown away at the improvement in pictures I have gotten out of my D50 with the new lenses. I had had the original kit lens 18-55mm nikon and a Sigma 70-300mm 200.00 telephoto before which gave decent results for what I needed at the time. But when I decided to get better equipment for more quality and got the D300.
Which it is an awesome camera and gives me more control and performance than the D50. But sometimes you are hard pressed to tell which shots came from which camera when conditions are good. D300 gives a better showing when conditions are not optimal.
Sometimes my D50 will look sharper. I had to tune my lenses with AF tuning on the D300 and that help with the Sigma 500mm and softness.
I was running some side by side test because I have been wondering if there might be something wrong with the D300 but that is another post I am working on.

You can never go wrong with better glass and more mega pixels. Just need to decide if you want to make the big investment in a new camera when the one you have might be good enough for what you really need.
I was able to use it as a business expense to upgrade to D300 also.
Good Luck

Pat664422

DsrtVW -

I was surprised to read what you said about the difference (or lack of) between your D50 and the D300. I went from the D40 to the D300 and using the same lenses, I observed a noticable improvement in my images right away. Most of my shooting with the D300 has been with my 70-300 VR lens and the pictures have finer detail and more realistic, but vivid colors than my D40. I haven't picked up my D40 since I got the D300. Does the D50 have better image quality than the D40?

bugzie

in your case, perhaps the new body?
i have the D200 and the 18-200 VR lens and i've added a 90mm tamron macro and a nikkor 50mm 1.4.

but that's just me. i don't want a big telephoto as, like you, i'm not particularly interested in wildlife. i'd add a wide zoom to my kit before i upgraded my body. but if i had a D50, i think i'd go for a newer body.

okay the 18-200 VR isn't optically briliant but if it suits you, there's more to photography than nit-pickingly fine detail. so don't feel you need "better" glass if it's doing fine for you and suits you style.

nightowlcat

If you're not sure about getting the lens or the body, you could rent both, and give it a try for a week or two, to settle the question for yourself.

net1994

bugzie wrote:

i have the D200 and the 18-200 VR lens and i've added a 90mm tamron macro and a nikkor 50mm 1.4.

but that's just me. i don't want a big telephoto as, like you, i'm not particularly interested in wildlife. i'd add a wide zoom to my kit before i upgraded my body. but if i had a D50, i think i'd go for a newer body.

okay the 18-200 VR isn't optically briliant but if it suits you, there's more to photography than nit-pickingly fine detail. so don't feel you need "better" glass if it's doing fine for you and suits you style.

I am sooo glad I rented the lens, and I do not plan on buying it! And for quite some time to come, I probably won't want a lens that is this 'heavy.' Since I do mostly walk around photography, walking around with the 3lb 70-200VR lens is too heavy to use without a mono/tripod. But here is what probably kills it for me:
-This lens is more for wildlife/action shots which is not what I really do.
-The lens starts @ 70mm which isn't wide enough. I would not use this lens enough to justify the price.

As we all know, the lens is optically above my 18-200 VR lens But when I was on Cape Cod this weekend I found limited uses for it. But for two days I felt like a real pro....

Alas, I think I'll get a new body.... I have not written these telephoto lenses off completely. I will rent the 80-200 2.8 lens this summer when I go to NYC and see how that is for sharpness.

dadwtwins

The 80-200 2.8 lens is still over 3 lbs like the 70-200 2.8vr lens but it is much cheaper. It is as sharp as the vr lens but then again, you do not have the VR option which allows more hand held shoots.

You will really like the D300. The diference between the d50 and the d300 are enormous. You will love the LCD, higher ISO ability, live view etc....

In your case I would go with the body before the lens. Usually it would be the other way around. If you only shoot indoors studio stuff then the body would not make a huge difference but if you are an outdoor shooter with many variables, I would of made the same decision as you, buying the D300.

Have fun with your new toy

jonh68

Download the trial version of DXO. It will correct inherit flaws of glass like the 18-200 in regards to distortion,etc. It has calculations based on specific lenses so the fixes are not general. It's not substitute for pro glass, but it can make a sharp lens like th 18-200 into a better looking lens. If supersaturated colors are your thing as well, it has a saturation slider as well.

I have the 80-200. What I like about it is it's smaller than the 70-200. I like it as a walk about lens, but you will need a wide angle if you want those kind of shots as well. Even though the 18-200 covers the 200 mm range, don't think of it as covering the same ground as the 80-200 has better bokeh and better sharpness. If I had to choose one or the other, i would go with the 18-200, but sine I have the 80-200, I like for those shots you want the absolute best. I covered a Senior Bowl football practice and I took both lenses. The 18-200 for wide angel and candid shots of kids trying to get autographs and I wanted wide and zoom quickly. For the practice, I was strictly 80-200. I could have used the 18-200 for both, but the 80-200 was better suited for action.

http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/dxo_optics_pro