i'm stuck with what lens to get

Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
139
Location
california
So I have a choice of a lens at least under 600 dollars. At the moment I only have a D200, 50mm 1.8, SB-600, MB-200. I dont have a kit lens anymore cuz i had to sell it with my old camera. So I was thinking of getting either:

-Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 DI-II
-Vivitar 85mm 1.4 MF


or should i go telephoto and find a used Sigma 50-150mm 2.8?
 
Joined
Jul 21, 2007
Messages
5,262
Location
NJ
Without knowing what your interests are in photography that is very hard to answer. Think of portraits, sports, landscapes, animals, transportation, etc. I would figure out first what you want to do with a lens before looking at something specific.
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Messages
1,379
Location
WICHITA, KS
See if you can find a Siggy 70-200f2.8 (older version is 70-210 APO fantastic lens ....still shooting with one on my Konica Minolta 7D)....newer ones are macro (almost)..........and i would recomend a Siggy 17-70 f2.8-4.5
 
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
736
Location
San Jose, CA
Hmmm. Based on what you shoot.

The nifty fifty will cover portraits and maybe occasional car photos.

For the candid shooting however, you may want a longer zoom. Nikkor 70-300 would be good for candid shots. With 300m, you can be stalkerish and hid in the bushes far away while taking your shots. lol :)
 
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
139
Location
california
hahah, awesome. do you think i will need a standard zoom lens though?just in case for like a P&S moment or around a family party?
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
16
Location
Cozumel, Mexico
I would get something in the 24-70 range. good general purpose focal lengths. If you are focusing solely on portraits however then the nikon 85 1.8 is very nice.
 
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
736
Location
San Jose, CA
hahah, awesome. do you think i will need a standard zoom lens though?just in case for like a P&S moment or around a family party?
I don't think it's really needed. You could always do the Tamron 17-50 2.8. You can just use your legs to zoom :)

Or you could go with the 35mm 1.8 It's my walk around lens.
 
Joined
Oct 13, 2005
Messages
227
Location
Richmond BC
If you go for the 85mm 1.4 your focal lengths are all going to be fairly tight. The 50mm 1.8 would still be alright for portraits but the 17-50 would give you a bit of flexibility at the other end.

Of course as stated already it depends on your focal length preferences.. do you miss the focal lengths from your kit lens? If so, theres your answer.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
8,119
Location
Maple Bay, Duncan, BC, Canada
Real Name
Andreas Berglund
Depends on what you shoot really:

I would think If it would have been me that I would have needed at least two lenses:
  • Wideangle to portrait (Nikon 18-70mm is actually a VERY good lens stopped down and they gor for $200 or so used )
  • Short tele to tele, hard to beat the Nikon 70-300mm VR for value. I bought mine for $430 used.
Then If I had any money left I would consider a Manual 50mm F1.8 $75 or less)

But that would have been my choices, what do you shoot?
 
Joined
Sep 6, 2005
Messages
234
Location
Edmonton
If you want to get a lens that gives you capability with candids, the focal length might be important. One option might be to rent something with a broad range of focal lengths - i.e. an 18 to 200, and after a few shoots, decide what range you frequently use. This might narrow in on your options.
 
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
139
Location
california
yeah, im gonna rent some lenses (Tammy 17-50 and either a 70-300VR or and 85mm 1.4) for a trip to new york next week. so we'll see from then on. i do miss the kit lens range, but then again, i wanna broaden my view with a good telephoto since i have never had a good one other than a non-VR 55-200
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
8,391
Location
LA (Lower Arkansas)
I'd definitely go for the Tamron 17-50. There's a thread dedicated to it floating somewhere around the lens lust forum. My copy is better than any of the five copies of the 18-70 and three copies of the 18-55 that I've owned. Although I never owned both at the same time, the Tammy seems to produce images on par with the 17-55.

Add a 55-200VR to the mix and you'll still be under budget by about $100. Sell the 50 1.8 and pick up the new 35 1.8 and you'll have a great kit for a DX body. I've got something similar and love it.
 
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
736
Location
San Jose, CA
I'd definitely go for the Tamron 17-50. There's a thread dedicated to it floating somewhere around the lens lust forum. My copy is better than any of the five copies of the 18-70 and three copies of the 18-55 that I've owned. Although I never owned both at the same time, the Tammy seems to produce images on par with the 17-55.

Add a 55-200VR to the mix and you'll still be under budget by about $100. Sell the 50 1.8 and pick up the new 35 1.8 and you'll have a great kit for a DX body. I've got something similar and love it.
Mark speaks the truth!

Although as an owner of a 55-200, you might as well save a little and go for a 70-300 :)

The 51-69 in between won't really be missed IMO
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Location
San Jose, CA
So I have a choice of a lens at least under 600 dollars. At the moment I only have a D200, 50mm 1.8, SB-600, MB-200. I dont have a kit lens anymore cuz i had to sell it with my old camera. So I was thinking of getting either:

-Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 DI-II
-Vivitar 85mm 1.4 MF


or should i go telephoto and find a used Sigma 50-150mm 2.8?
Nikon has some terrific kit lenses. Why not just get the 18-55vr and 55-200vr? Combine that pair with your 50/1.8 and sb600, and you'll have a complete kit. Then shoot for a while, and figure out what lenses you need for your special interests.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom