i'm stuck with what lens to get

[jerrmy]

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?

 

[Lurker]

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.

 

[ArtScott]

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

 

[jerrmy]

hmm, well i go for portrait, or mostly candid shooting. and the occasional car photoshoots

 

[Jaytron]

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

 

[jerrmy]

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?

 

[Rex K]

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.

 

[Jaytron]

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.

 

[gladjo]

Nikon 16-85.

 

[Keaka]

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.

 

[andreasb]

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?

 

[Jim_B]

Another vote for the 16-85mm.

 

[larryk]

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.

 

[jerrmy]

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

 

[BourbonCowboy]

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.

 

[Jaytron]

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

 

[e_No]

Another vote for the 16-85 VR

Nikon 16-85.

+1: love my 16-85 VR

 

[Preston]

Go with the Tammy or maybe the Nikon 16-85 VR.

 

[Uncle Frank]

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.