Help me decide on lenses for the D300

cryptochrome

Hi,

I am going to step up from a Nikon D80 (with a 18-200VR and a fixed 50/1.4) to the D300. Because I am not really satisfied with th 18-200, I want to replace it by "real" lenses with higher quality.

I am kind of struggeling here. At first I thought of something like this:

Tokina 11-16/2.8
Nikon 17-55/2.8
any good telezoom 70-200 or 70-300 (not the expensive and heavy nikon 70-200/2.8).

I was planing to use the 17-55 as my main lens to carry around at all times. But I am wondering if I will be happy with this. I see too many gaps in the focal range. So I was thinking about going with something like this instead:

* a good 12-24 (or 10-20)
* the Nikon 24-70/2.8
* the Nikon 70-300VR

I am still undecided though and though maybe you could give me some opinion on this.

I am mostly shooting outdoors (nature, landscape, animals, people), if that matters. And I want to avoid changing lense all the time. So I am puzzled if the 17-55 might be the best choice (but the, what about the range between 55 and 70?)...

Cheers

ziggy53

Either group could work. I recommend you take a look at your work and see what focal lengths you use most and try to purchase a zoom to cover the majority of your shots. Then build the rest of the purchases to fill in around the primary zoom.

jonh68

I would hold off on buying a new lens before or even after getting the D300. I use the 18-200 on mine for newspaper photography and I love the flexibility of not having to carry around a 16-35 and a 70-200 all the time. I use the serious glass in situations that warrant it, but I have found the D300 and 18-200 combo to be pretty good as there is a little better ISO performance with the D300 and ti has been great in low light situations.

tinfish

the 17-55 2.8 is a great lens, I love it, but it is pretty expensive and fairly heavy as well.

cryptochrome

jonh68 wrote:

I would hold off on buying a new lens before or even after getting the D300. I use the 18-200 on mine for newspaper photography and I love the flexibility of not having to carry around a 16-35 and a 70-200 all the time. I use the serious glass in situations that warrant it, but I have found the D300 and 18-200 combo to be pretty good as there is a little better ISO performance with the D300 and ti has been great in low light situations.

I agree that the 18-200 is very flexible and for that reason I might keep it. But the picture quality is just so bad compared to other lenses I have tested. Lot's of distortion, CAs... I basically have to run each picture through photoshop.

cryptochrome

tinfish wrote:

the 17-55 2.8 is a great lens, I love it, but it is pretty expensive and fairly heavy as well.

I bought it the other day and like it so far. I still can't decide though whether to get the 24-70 instead. I suppose it is of equal quality to the 17-55?

jonh68

cryptochrome wrote:

I agree that the 18-200 is very flexible and for that reason I might keep it. But the picture quality is just so bad compared to other lenses I have tested. Lot's of distortion, CAs... I basically have to run each picture through photoshop.

D300's correct CA to some degree.

bendruckerphoto

jonh68 wrote:

D300's correct CA to some degree.

Only when shooting JPEG, or possibly if you shoot RAW and import into Capture NX. If you shoot RAW and use Lightroom, Aperture, or another RAW processor, the D300's CA reduction will not carry over.

I just got a 17-55 f/2.8. It's a great lens, very sturdy, very sharp. Many people say it's very heavy, but it doesn't bother me. I was used to shooting with my 35-70 f/2.8, which weighs 24 oz. The 17-55 f/2.8 weighs only 26 oz., or an extra 1/8 of a pound. Coming from the 20 oz. 18-200, it might feel a little heavy to you. As you long as your wrists are in good condition and you don't have any issues with arthritis or something like that, you'll love the 17-55.

The 24-70 is marginally better than the 17-55, but I would only recommend it if you see yourself with an FX body in the next few years. It doesn't get very wide on a D300, it's the equivalent of 36mm on a FX body.

cryptochrome

baseballboy828 wrote:

The 24-70 is marginally better than the 17-55, but I would only recommend it if you see yourself with an FX body in the next few years. It doesn't get very wide on a D300, it's the equivalent of 36mm on a FX body.

Yes, but what if I get something on the wide end as well, like a 10-20, 12-24 or the shiny new Tokina 11-16?

It's just that I shoot a lot of outdoors. I looked at a couple of my shots today and usually they were made with 18 mm or in the telezoom area above 90 mm.

Hm. I want a 1-400 lens with f/1.4 with no distortion and perfect sharpness. Can I get that?

bendruckerphoto

If you are also willing to buy a 12-24 or 14-24 along with the 24-70 and can afford it, that's the way to go.

Personally, I'm wishing for the Nikon 1-1000 f/1.

cryptochrome

oh boy this is harder than chosing a menu at a good restaurant.

is the 24-70 heavier than the 17-55?

bendruckerphoto

cryptochrome wrote:

oh boy this is harder than chosing a menu at a good restaurant.

is the 24-70 heavier than the 17-55?

It is 2 lbs. (32 oz.) and the 17-55 is 26 oz. (roughly 1 2/3 lbs.).