$1200 - $1500 budget

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by sunchung, Jul 17, 2007.

  1. sunchung

    sunchung

    300
    Jun 12, 2007
    SF Bay Area
    I posted earlier about choosing either a 17-55 2.8 or going with the 18-200VR + the 35-70 2.8. Still can't decide, so I'm here again asking for some help.

    My budget is about $1200 to $1500. I'll be mostly shooting my daughter (1 years old) and primarily indoors, although I'd imagine as she gets older they'll be more oppty to shoot outdoors.

    Any advice? I'm open to primes as well.
     
  2. Indoors, the 17-55 is perfect range, and very sharp. Outdoors, you can usually move in closer with the old footzoom, so I'd go with the 17-55 and maybe a longer prime???
     
  3. adaml

    adaml

    976
    Feb 21, 2006
    chicago
    Go with the 17-55. From what I hear it's a wonderful lens. Moreover, I don' t think that two lens alternative you mention would be workable for your shooting needs.
     
  4. plim

    plim Guest

    that's exactly the setup i got when my son was born a year ago. 17-55mm dx + 85mm f/1.8. i also had the 50mm f/1.8 from before, but someday i'll sell that for the sigma 30mm f/1.4 or nikon 35mm f/2.

    it's a great setup for kids, esp indoors.
     
  5. SP77

    SP77

    Jun 4, 2007
    Rockville, MD
    The 18-200VR will be too slow to take good natural light shots indoors of moving subjects, if that's what you were thinking. You'd need to use a flash if you went that route, whereas you could probably get away with natural light only with the f/2.8 glass. I use my 35mm f/2 for this with no flash indoors and get a lot of great photos that the 18-200 would have missed (without a flash). The close focusing and handling is great also, and you can't beat the price ($300). My 35/2 + "footzoom" is my 17-55 f/2.8. :smile:

    Outdoors you'd probably want something longer, like the 35-70 f/2.8. The 18-200 VR would do a great job, but for moving subjects you'll still need faster shutter speeds which would limit the 18-200 VR's usefulness.
     
  6. I would recommend a 35/2 over a 17-55/2.8 for indoor shots. You'll need that extra bit of speed.
     
  7. SP77

    SP77

    Jun 4, 2007
    Rockville, MD
    I'd say f/2.8 is fine as long as it's the 6MP sensor (D40/D50/D70) which is cleaner at iso1600. The 10MP gets ratty above iso1250 which is when I open up the 35 to f/2. Otherwise I shoot it at f/2.8 for a little more DoF. I don't think the OP mentioned which camera they had.
     
  8. sunchung

    sunchung

    300
    Jun 12, 2007
    SF Bay Area
    I have a D70s and shoot primarily RAW. Thanks for all of the recommendations! It sounds like the 17-55 is a child photography favorite.

    The 18-200 I was thinking of more for outdoors as we are starting to go to parks/zoos/etc much more often so I thought the extra reach would be good. In terms of the 35/2, I've thought about it a lot but found that I shoot most of my indoor shots with the 50/1.8 at around 2.5 to 2.8 aperture.
     
  9. sunchung

    sunchung

    300
    Jun 12, 2007
    SF Bay Area
    Another thought is if the 28-70 (AKA the beast) would be a better lens for shooting people. I like the portrait length at 70mm, but I don't know if I would miss the wide angle. Any thoughts on going with the 28-70 and then match it with a wide angle prime?

    I did think of going with the 17-55 with a longer prime (85/1.8) but I think I prefer a zoom at the longer length. And use a prime for wide angle.
     
  10. I have the 17-55mm lens and it is wonderful. I use this lens all the time.
     
  11. onemorelens

    onemorelens

    742
    Jul 3, 2007
    california
    The 35/2 is a wonderful lens for kids. I know because i have both:)
     
  12. sunchung

    sunchung

    300
    Jun 12, 2007
    SF Bay Area
    Onemorelens - I see that you have the Tamron 17-50 and the Nikon 35-70 in your signature. What do you think of the two lenses? Which is more appropriate for pictures of kids (especially since my daughter is just gaining speed by the day.)
     
  13. Go for the 17-55. You'll use it about 75% of the time, especially with kids. Then get an 80-200 or 70-200 later and your set.
     
  14. jamesdc1

    jamesdc1

    18
    Mar 4, 2006
    18-200 for daylight

    35/f2 for indoor (or maybe the Sigma 30/1.4)

    -James-
     
  15. Billy Ng

    Billy Ng

    722
    Jan 22, 2007
    Hartsdale, NY
    Put $1K in her 529 plan and use the rest to puchase the 35mm f/2. It's almost exclusively my "son" lense. Examples why:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  16. Brent M

    Brent M

    271
    Aug 13, 2006
    Another option to consider with that budget may be to get one or the other of your two chosen lenses with an SB-x00.

    Sometimes even my 30 f/1.4 is too slow (or more likely the DOF is too thin) to get the shot of my son that I want indoors.

    Having said that, there are a lot of ways you could go with this. I know, not all that helpful, but I think that it's true.
     
  17. sunchung

    sunchung

    300
    Jun 12, 2007
    SF Bay Area
    I have a SB600 flash, which works great, but I really enjoy natural light photography.

    849345852_c259e261fb.
     
  18. sunchung

    sunchung

    300
    Jun 12, 2007
    SF Bay Area
    529 plan is a great sound idea - can't believe I'm getting it here on "lens lust"? No, you're right it makes sense, but I sold some equipment from my other hobby to pay for this next purchase (hence the budget amount). The boss of our family's finances has agreed to allowing me indulge in this at this price point.

    Instead of the 35/2, wouldn't I be better served with a the 35-70/2.8? My concern is getting wide enough as our little girl gets more active (and trying to capture the environment that she's in).
     
  19. I love my 35 also, but it doesn't replace the 17-55 by a long shot. It's much more versatile and you know that's what you really want. So if you have the budget get it and don't look back. It's an awesome piece of glass. Hurry up she's getting older by the minute.
     
  20. I love my 35/f2.0 and so far it's my only lens. I recently ordered the 35-70/f2.8 for those ocasions when 35 isn't wide enough; also the 35-70 is rumoured to be discontinued and from what a great many people say, it's pro glass at consumer price so value is very high/dollar spent (people compare it to the 28-70/f2.8 if that's any indication of the quality).

    I'd agree with what people say about the 35-70/f2.8 except I'm still awaiting delivery. :frown:
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
The Sigma 350-1200 f11 APO Lens Lust Feb 23, 2010
Sub $1200 lens options for Shanghai F1 Grand Prix Lens Lust Jan 25, 2010
(Used) Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRI for $1200---jump on it? Lens Lust Dec 27, 2009
70-200 f2.8 almost new at $1500 -- worth it? Lens Lust Jul 1, 2009
Nikkor 1200-1700mm f/5.6-8P Lens Lust Apr 23, 2009