Recommended Lenses for Nikon D300

[jian]

Not used an SLR for years, as I have been using a Contax G2 rangefinder until very recently, but am planning to buy a D300 in the next few weeks.

My only problem is deciding which lens to buy with it. I want a zoom that I can leave on the camera for most of the time. I've been looking at the 17-55mm but that is expesnive and the zoom small, or the cheaper 18-200mm at around £500 but which probably isn;t as good in terms of image quality.

Anyone out there have any recommendations? I'm trying to balance quality with convenience.

Thanks

[dazza74]

could look at maybe Nikkor 18-70mm or 18-135mm Dx lens or other 3rd part lens for the shorter range plus the Nikkor 70-300mm VR (very highly regarded this lens so I'd consider a two lens option). Gives you are start anyway.

[jian]

Thanks.

Ultimately, it will probably come down to 2 lens, ideally 28-70 and then 70-200. It will be heavy though. Will take a look at the two lenses you've mentioned. My only concern with the 28-70 is that it is not really wide angle enough.

[Just call me Al]

Originally Posted by jian

Not used an SLR for years, as I have been using a Contax G2 rangefinder until very recently, but am planning to buy a D300 in the next few weeks.

My only problem is deciding which lens to buy with it. I want a zoom that I can leave on the camera for most of the time. I've been looking at the 17-55mm but that is expesnive and the zoom small, or the cheaper 18-200mm at around £500 but which probably isn;t as good in terms of image quality.

Anyone out there have any recommendations? I'm trying to balance quality with convenience.

Thanks

Although I have a Canon EOS 400D with Sigma 18-200 OS, my friend has a Nikon D200, soon to be D300. He has the 18-200 VR lens & is very happy with it. I have taken pictures with it & I like it very much. I believe it is available for around £400-00 now. Take a look at least. My Sigma 18-200 OS (now available for Nikon) is pin sharp, & the Nikon is every bit as good.

[dazza74]

"Yandros" is your man for the 18-200mm VR, might be worth a quick look at the 18-200mm VR got mentioned a bit here :

Lens confusing

[dazza74]

This thread always sticks in the mind for photos taken with the 70-300mm VR as well :

Radio-controlled model aircraft - first shots with Nikkor 70-300mm VR

[Yandros]

Originally Posted by dazza74

"Yandros" is your man for the 18-200mm VR, might be worth a quick look at the 18-200mm VR got mentioned a bit here :

Lens confusing

You called?

The 18-200VR is of almost identical optical quality to the Nikon 18-70, but offers you a LOT more functionality. The VR AND the extra reach make it a no-brainer over the 18-70 if you have the budget.

The 18-200 vs the f2.8 short zooms is a harder decision. The Nikon 17-55 f2.8 is the pro grade lens, with better low light performance for moving subjects, but far more expensive and far heavier. The 17-55 would probably do you for most shots actually, but you'd need to pair it with the legendary 70-200mm f2.8 VR (again tank-like pro grade), or the excellent 70-300VR if you need more reach. The budget alternative is the Tamron 18-50 f2.8.

As I've said in other threads, the 18-200VR is a great 'swiss army knife' lens. Here are a few applications...

Dull day, handheld at 52mm, 1/15th second (thankyou VR!) , f13 to try and get the path all in focus, 250 ISO

200mm, handheld, 1/350th sec, f7.1, 320 ISO

42mm handheld, 1/15th sec f7.1, 320 ISO

105mm (cropped) handheld 1/2000th sec, f5.6, 640 ISO

200mm handheld, 1/125th sec, f7.1 320 ISO

18mm handheld, 1/8th sec, f3.5, 800 ISO

18mm handheld 1/10th sec, f4, 640 ISO

If it's any help my current lens collection for my D200 is:

Tokina 12-24mm f4
Nikon 18-200VR
Nikon 105VR f2.8 macro
Nikon 50mm f1.8

If I want gorgeously shallow DOF and great bokeh, I have the 50mm, and 105mm, which supplement the 18-200 nicely. The 18-200 has rather scrappy bokeh sometimes, and isn't quite as sharp as the primes. The 50mm is my low light lens when the subject is moving - though too long for some shots. I'm now toying with something longer for wildlife, as 200mm is pushing it (hoping they put VR on the 300mm f4 soon ). I'm also considering either the Nikon 35mm f2 or Sigma 30mm f1.4 to save me spending £750 on the 17-55 f2.8!

Even if you add more specialist glass later, the 18-200VR is a great travel lens when you want to travel light. I find it handy that I've got both wide and tele sorted in one lens, so I can carry that and my macro lens in a smallish shoulder bag.

[jian]

Thanks for the reply and great photos!

I'll have to do a bit more reading and find out what is going to work out in the long run. Pro lenses are bloody expensive and heavy as well and that is something I have to take into account as I don't want to be lugging loads of weight around with me.

The 18-200 sounds good and I am seriously cotemplating it, but i like the low light qualities of the 17-55mm as well.

Decisions, decisions...

[Yandros]

Originally Posted by jian

Thanks for the reply and great photos!

I'll have to do a bit more reading and find out what is going to work out in the long run. Pro lenses are bloody expensive and heavy as well and that is something I have to take into account as I don't want to be lugging loads of weight around with me.

The 18-200 sounds good and I am seriously cotemplating it, but i like the low light qualities of the 17-55mm as well.

Decisions, decisions...

The 18-200VR blows away even f1.8 primes in ultra low light as long as the subject is static. I've be temped to suggest that if you want to avoid the bulk of the pro lenses, these combo's might work for you...

Tamron 18-50 f2.8 +Nikon 18-200VR (better for all low light situations)
Tamron 18-50 f2.8 + Nikon 70-300VR (better for wildlife/sports)

If you shoot handheld +no flash in museums, churches etc, or low light landscapes, the 18-200 is worth having in addition to the Tamron.

The Tamron is 1/3 of the price of the 17-55 and apparently has 95% of the image quality. It's also a lot lighter. Previously reported focussing issues vanish with the D300, as you can fine tune the focussing for each lens.

The 70-300VR and 70-200 f2.8 VR are very similar in optical quality (the 70-200VR owners got a bit twitchy when this came to light).

[Steve N]

Originally Posted by jian

Not used an SLR for years, as I have been using a Contax G2 rangefinder until very recently, but am planning to buy a D300 in the next few weeks.

My only problem is deciding which lens to buy with it. I want a zoom that I can leave on the camera for most of the time. I've been looking at the 17-55mm but that is expesnive and the zoom small, or the cheaper 18-200mm at around £500 but which probably isn;t as good in terms of image quality.

I decided to save for quality lenses rather than keep having to upgrade later which tends to be more expensive in the long run.

My 17-55 is on my camera about 80% of the time. I have the 70-200vr and TC-14e for longer range stuff. According to this Thom Hogan review. This combo is as good as or better than the 300mm f/4D.

These lenses leave a gap in the range from 55mm to 70mm but I have never found this to be a problem.

I don't use W/A that much so the Sigma 10-20 meets these needs and is half the price of the equivalent Nikon.

The only downside with the 70-200 is that it gets heavy if you have it on for a long time. I spent all day with it on when I took it to a zoo and survived.

The best general purpose lens imho is the 18-200vr and I may get one of these at some stage for an everyday walkabout lens, but I find it hard to justify the expense when I've got the same range covered.

[jian]

That was the combo I was thinking of, and as yet, am still undecided.

It's the weight and the potential constant(?) changing of lenses that is putting me off right now, and in that respect, the 18-200m sounds a lot better. The D300 and 18-200m with bag and bits and pieces is likely to be in the region of 2kg. With the 17-55mm and 70-200mm combo, it's likely to be more like 4kg! I'm not sure if I would be happy carrying that around, especialy if I have a tripod as well.

By the way, does anyone know of a light tripod?

I have an old Slick from my F90X days, which has served me well but it is not as high as I would like. It feels heavy as well, probably in the region of 1.5kg.

[dazza74]

Originally Posted by jian

That was the combo I was thinking of, and as yet, am still undecided.

It's the weight and the potential constant(?) changing of lenses that is putting me off right now, and in that respect, the 18-200m sounds a lot better. The D300 and 18-200m with bag and bits and pieces is likely to be in the region of 2kg. With the 17-55mm and 70-200mm combo, it's likely to be more like 4kg! I'm not sure if I would be happy carrying that around, especialy if I have a tripod as well.

By the way, does anyone know of a light tripod?

I have an old Slick from my F90X days, which has served me well but it is not as high as I would like. It feels heavy as well, probably in the region of 1.5kg.

If your a bit concerned about the weight the 70-300mm VR is pretty heavy, much heavier than my other two lenses I have.

[jian]

Thanks to all that replied.

After reading the reviews and considered the purposes that I'll be using the lens for, I've decided to go for the 18-200mm.

My main reasona for choosing this lens (I've not actaully handled it yet) is:

Good reviews which say the optics are decent
Convenience, no need to constantly swap lenses so less likelyhood of dust on the sensor.
Size and weight which means less strain on my back.
Price, at around £400.

If it doens't work out, the cheap (relatively) price means I won;t lose to much on it.