Help me pick a lens...Nikon.

BPerron

So I am considering getting a couple of new lenses...

I am going to get the AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED for my lanscape shots...but I also want something that is sharper then my 18-200mm when I shoot people and stuff that I am able to move around and not need the added 100mm of zoom.

I love my 18-200mm and will use it as my most common lens but I will be doing some people stuff and would like that sharper lens...so please make a recommendation of what lens I should look into for this short of shooting.

Thanks for all your help in advance.

HarveyMushman

What does "people stuff" mean? Portraits? The 50 (1.4 or 1.8) and 85 (1.4 or 1.8) primes are sharp, saturated, and contrasty. Budget anywhere from $100 (50 1.8) to $1,000 (85 1.4).

BPerron

HarveyMushman wrote:

What does "people stuff" mean? Portraits? The 50 (1.4 or 1.8) and 85 (1.4 or 1.8) primes are sharp, saturated, and contrasty. Budget anywhere from $100 (50 1.8) to $1,000 (85 1.4).

Sorry I was not more helpful in my post...

People stuff, from some sports (just the family) but people are really liking my reception pictures I have taken for family and want me to do some of that work, so wedding receptions and then family function stuff.

I have a d40 so I need a AF-S lens...also my I would like to stay under 1k, but if there are no good options under that I will go over...

I will at some point upgrade to a d300, but from the advice that I have gotten on here, I should get a couple better lenses and then shoot with those and work with my current camera and then once I have grown out of my current body get a new and better one.

ziggy53

BPerron wrote:

...but I also want something that is sharper then my 18-200mm when I shoot people and stuff that I am able to move around and not need the added 100mm of zoom.

... I will be doing some people stuff and would like that sharper lens...

I suggest 2 lenses:

1) Nikkor 50mm, f/1.8D or 50mm, f/1.4D. Either is great and would work well as full length or 3/4 length lens. The f1.4D isn't that much more and is considerably better at f2 so that would be my primary recommendation.

2) Nikkor 85mm, f/1.8D for more intimate head shot or head and shoulders. The f1.4D is a lot more expensive and probably not needed.

BPerron

ziggy53 wrote:

I suggest 2 lenses:

1) Nikkor 50mm, f/1.8D or 50mm, f/1.4D. Either is great and would work well as full length or 3/4 length lens. The f1.4D isn't that much more and is considerably better at f2 so that would be my primary recommendation.

2) Nikkor 85mm, f/1.8D for more intimate head shot or head and shoulders. The f1.4D is a lot more expensive and probably not needed.

I have considered those...but I would like to retain some sort of zoom function with a lens (sorry i know I did not explain that in my original post and I should have)

ziggy53

BPerron wrote:

Sorry I was not more helpful in my post...

People stuff, from some sports (just the family) but people are really liking my reception pictures I have taken for family and want me to do some of that work, so wedding receptions and then family function stuff.

I have a d40 so I need a AF-S lens...also my I would like to stay under 1k, but if there are no good options under that I will go over...

I will at some point upgrade to a d300, but from the advice that I have gotten on here, I should get a couple better lenses and then shoot with those and work with my current camera and then once I have grown out of my current body get a new and better one.

OK, I thought you meant portraiture. The D40 body does complicate things. If you moved to a D80 or D200 you open up considerably more possibilities.

For general event work, family celebrations and wedding receptions, I suggest the Tamron SP 17-50mm, f/2.8 XR DI-II LD Aspherical (IF), but I don't think they have the updated version out yet with the built-in motor.

http://www.tamron.com/news/35mm/three_bim_pma08.asp

In the mean time, the Nikkor 18-70mm, f/3.5-4.5G ED IF AF-S DX is not such a bad lens. You would definitely want to use a flash indoors and in low light, but my father has it and it tested pretty well overall. There is considerable light fall-off (vignetting) at 18mm and wide open, but it's fairly correctable in software. Much better than your typical "kit" lens.

There is always the Nikkor 17-55mm, f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX, but the price is a bit much.

For sports I'm afraid you're really looking at a different type of lens and pretty costly at that. You might just want to stay with what you have for now, as long it's outdoor daytime sports.

BPerron

I am thinking one of the following...

AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED - Fast-aperture, wide-angle zoom, ideal for low-light photography. Price - $1,199.95

I like this one cause it has a fast aperature, and good for low light situations, which I sometimes find myself in.

AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED - Outstanding high-ratio, wide-angle zoom, ideal for scenics, candids and travel. Price - 350.00

I like this one cause it is considerably cheaper seems to offer the same range...but I do not know how much slower the aperature is going to be and how much less the quality it will be as well.

Also with these two lenses that are wide angle...Will I acheive alot more with the AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED for my wide angle landscape shots?

BPerron

ziggy53 wrote:

OK, I thought you meant portraiture. The D40 body does complicate things. If you moved to a D80 or D200 you open up considerably more possibilities.

For general event work, family celebrations and wedding receptions, I suggest the Tamron SP 17-50mm, f/2.8 XR DI-II LD Aspherical (IF), but I don't think they have the updated version out yet with the built-in motor.

http://www.tamron.com/news/35mm/three_bim_pma08.asp

In the mean time, the Nikkor 18-70mm, f/3.5-4.5G ED IF AF-S DX is not such a bad lens. You would definitely want to use a flash indoors and in low light, but my father has it and it tested pretty well overall. There is considerable light fall-off (vignetting) at 18mm and wide open, but it's fairly correctable in software. Much better than your typical "kit" lens.

There is always the Nikkor 17-55mm, f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX, but the price is a bit much.

For sports I'm afraid you're really looking at a different type of lens and pretty costly at that. You might just want to stay with what you have for now, as long it's outdoor daytime sports.

I would really like to stick to nikon lenses...

I guess I could upgrade but would it make sense to do so and spend that cash instead of using it for a d300 future upgrade? They are selling on BH photo for 730.00...that could go a long way towards the d300.
But if it would make things alot easier to spend that money now instead of waiting I would consider it.

HarveyMushman

Have you considered Sigma's 10-20 f/4-5.6? It's half the cost of Nikon's 12-24, a better performer in some respects, and the slow aperture doesn't matter because you'll be stopped down on a tripod all the time. Maybe then you could afford the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 for the family stuff that really would benefit from the faster aperture.

I have the Nikon 18-70 f/3.5-4.5 and it's a fine lens, but not an equal of the 17-55 and not at all suited to low-light work.

BPerron

HarveyMushman wrote:

Have you considered Sigma's 10-20 f/4-5.6? It's half the cost of Nikon's 12-24, a better performer in some respects, and the slow aperture doesn't matter because you'll be stopped down on a tripod all the time. Maybe then you could afford the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 for the family stuff that really would benefit from the faster aperture.

I have the Nikon 18-70 f/3.5-4.5 and it's a fine lens, but not an equal of the 17-55 and not at all suited to low-light work.

Interesting...I have seen a few sigmas in action and they seem so cheap and from what I have heard is that is not that sharp...so I am not sure what is better about it, besides going to 10mm...If you have some comparison info. I would love to see it...

Seems it might mean I need to buck up and spend the big bucks on the 17-55mm

HarveyMushman

BPerron wrote:

Interesting...I have seen a few sigmas in action and they seem so cheap and from what I have heard is that is not that sharp...so I am not sure what is better about it, besides going to 10mm...If you have some comparison info. I would love to see it...

http://www.bythom.com/sigma10to20.htm

BPerron

HarveyMushman wrote:

http://www.bythom.com/sigma10to20.htm

Thank you...Does not sound that much better to me and seems that the nikon would offer more sharpness over all and that is worth the extra cash to me...But thanks again for the suggestion and thanks for the link.

BIueWater

Im personally a huge fan of the Nikon 28-70mm f2.8 lens. They have even come out with a new version of the lens (which I havent tried) the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8. Not to mention the previous post suggesting the 17-55 lens, also great.

I know all of these blow out your 1K money limit but you really cant substitute great glass. If money is an issue right now you might consider reading this comparison.

http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/pro-normal-zooms/analysis.htm

The Nikon 35-70mm f2.8 is a great affordable option, but you better hurry if you want a new one because they stopped making them last year, so once the stock is gone, thats it.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/36956-USA/Nikon_1963_Zoom_Wide_Angle_Telephoto_AF.html

Either way you go it really is just personal preference. So rent a few or borrow a few and see what suits you. Good luck and I hope this helped.

BPerron

Looks like I will not be getting a 2nd lens for quite some time...

BPerron

Will I see a difference between my 18-200mm VR and a the 18-70mm? Please let me know...Thanks for everyones help.

HarveyMushman

BPerron wrote:

Will I see a difference between my 18-200mm VR and a the 18-70mm? Please let me know...Thanks for everyones help.

The 18-70 is a good lens to get if you currently own no lenses, or own no lenses that will AF on a D40 and you want AF. It's not a lens to aspire to. You might notice an IQ improvement over the 18-200, you might not. They're both good consumer-grade lenses.

BPerron

HarveyMushman wrote:

The 18-70 is a good lens to get if you currently own no lenses, or own no lenses that will AF on a D40 and you want AF. It's not a lens to aspire to. You might notice an IQ improvement over the 18-200, you might not. They're both good consumer-grade lenses.

ok thanks...looks like I need to save up for th AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8

ziggy53

BPerron wrote:

Will I see a difference between my 18-200mm VR and a the 18-70mm? Please let me know...Thanks for everyones help.

Very good question.

I think that the 18-70mm is an upgrade from the 18-200mm VR, but if you're used to using the VR feature then you might have to learn some new techniques. Regardless, it's not an earth-shattering difference.

You could achieve a much higher difference , and improvement, adding an external flash and off-camera capabilities (if you have not done that already).

BPerron

ziggy53 wrote:

Very good question.

I think that the 18-70mm is an upgrade from the 18-200mm VR, but if you're used to using the VR feature then you might have to learn some new techniques. Regardless, it's not an earth-shattering difference.

You could achieve a much higher difference , and improvement, adding an external flash and off-camera capabilities (if you have not done that already).

I have an off camera flash right now...I am looking into getting a bracket for it...I know that my 18-200mm is not the best and there is much better out there that is why I am looking. But I love my 18-200m as an everyday carry around lens, but when I am doing more specific things I want a lens that will offer much better sharpness.

billg71

My absolute favorite "people" lens is the 28-70/2.8 AF-S. With the new 24-70 release there are lots of used ones available in the $900-1000 range and you absolutely can't beat it for candid portrait use.

It's big and heavy but it's a pro Nikkor and you'll never regret the purchase.

Bill