1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Lens Lust finally getting bad & 30th birthday coming up too O:-)

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by SP77, Jul 17, 2007.

  1. SP77


    Jun 4, 2007
    Rockville, MD
    So my Lens Lust is finally getting bad. :biggrin:

    Now that I'm finally up and running with the D40/18-55/55-200/SB-400 and showing my wife how to use it all and getting great results, I need something NICE to put on my D80 so I can keep getting my money's worth out of that camera. All of the stuff above (18-55, 55-200, SB-400) is getting dedicated to the D40 which will be my wife's camera and my backup camera which is great since all of that stuff is ULTRA light-weight and perfect for her to use.

    ANYHOW, so now I need something NICE to put on the D80 that I'll use frequently *and* won't overlap with what the D40/18-55/55-200 will do. Besides the duplicated 18-55, that leaves the D80 with just a 35/2D, 50/1.8D, and an SB-600. What to do... what to do. :biggrin:

    Before anybody says the 18-200 VR, yeah that's a great lens, and despite my previous "bashing" of the lens I still do like it and DxO takes care of most of the flaws anyways. Problem is that it overlaps with the D40/18-55/55-200 combo in capability too much. The two lens combo on the D40 covers that range better than the 18-200 will, and half the point of getting the D40 was to be able to have complimentary lenses for both cameras and not redundant ones. ie if she has the 55-200 hooked up I can put a wide on my D80, or if she has the 18-55 on the D40, I can have a longer lens on the D80 and still get a reasonably wide shot with her D40 as needed.

    So for the D80 I'm thinking....

    - Wide angle, Tokina 12-24 or Nikon 12-24. I could use this "frequently" which is a primary requirement with house interior shots, scenic stuff, restaurants, etc. I like the Tokina but it's a screw drive which rules out putting it on the D40, but that doesn't really conern me. The Nikkor would be nice, but I'm not going to pay double the price of the Tokina just for AF-S. And I'll pass on the Sigma 10-20 HSM. I want something that I know will be good and stay good right out of the box and don't want to have to worry about getting a bad copy adjusted. Never hear of "bad copy" stuff with Tokina or Nikon all that much.

    - f/2.8 mid-zoom such as the Tokina 16-50, the Tamron 17-50, or the Nikkor 17-55DX. From what I've been hearing, the Tamron 17-50 is a pretty good lens as long as you get a Made in Japan copy. The Tokina is too new to know anything, but from what I've read the CA is bad. The Nikkor I like, but it's not worth $1200 to me unless it has VR like the Canon version does. If Nikon announces a 17-55 f/2.8 VR I'll be seriously tempted though.

    - Good lenses for portraiture. I'm loving some of these shots I see posted with the 35-70 f/2.8, and the 85mm primes. From what I understand the 35-70 is discontinued, but there's still new stock left, and it's in my price range. I love a lot of the shots posted from the 85mm prime, but the f/1.8 version has ugly bokeh? The f/1.4 is out of my price range. I considered the 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D, but it's big, heavy, and I'm not enough of a long shooter at this point to justify the price. My 55-200 is seldom used.

    Budget is $500-ish but will spend up to $1000 if it's REALLY worth it, so please no "beast" or "cream machine" or 200 f/2 suggestions please, LOL. Looking forward to hearing your suggestions. Thanks! :smile:
  2. jfrancis


    May 8, 2005
    Orlando, FL
    Cheapest good portrait lens on dSLR is perhaps the 50 mm f/1.8 at about $100. Every bag should have one of those. Add the Tokina 12-24 and maybe the 85 mm f/1.8 for a bit of additional reach. A used example of the 17-55 f/2.8 would just about fit inside your (extended budget) and would be a great all-rounder.
  3. Guess it really depends what you shoot the most and what you feel is missing.

    Since you already have 18-200 (via 2 zooms) and also the 35/2 and a 50/1.8 for indoor low-light work, to me, the most sensical lens ot pick up would be the 12-24.

    There is a significant difference between 12mm and 18mm, and if you shoot scenic stuff or travel a bit, this is a 'must have' lens.

    You already have the 17-55 covered, and it's still almost $1000 used. 85/1.8 is a wonderful lens, and MUCH cheaper than 85/1.4.

    Do you feel there will often be times where you'll both be shooting and you need duplicity in your lenses (i.e. you're going to see Swan Boats and your wife is going on the Freedom trail, so you both need the same lens at the same time) ? If that's the case, pick up an 18-200.
  4. I do not think you will find Nikon putting VR on any prime lens that is under 100mm
  5. adaml


    Feb 21, 2006
    How about the 60mm Micro-Nikkor? Not only is it a wonderful macro lens, but at 90mm on your D80, it's a great portrait lens with terrific bokeh. It's certainly in your price range.

    If you're willing to go to the upper limit of your price range, you might consider the 105mm VR Micro. IMHO it's an even better macro lens and the bokeh is downright spectacular. The focal length works for portraits too.
  6. Tokina 12-24 and Tamron 28-75 should do the trick.
  7. SP77


    Jun 4, 2007
    Rockville, MD
    Wow what a crazy week. :eek:  Thanks everybody for the responses and sorry I wasn't able to follow my own thread. :rolleyes: 

    Yeah I've already got the 50/1.8 but don't shoot with it much because it ends up being too long more often than not so I have to keep switching it off. The 85/1.8 is veeeerrry tempting but I'd just have to keep switching that one off a lot also. The 17-55 is nice, but I'm on a limited budget for camera stuff and would rather mix it up a bit than have all of my eggs in one basket so to speak. Plus there's really not going to be much difference between 18mm/3.5 and 17mm/2.8 at the wide ends of those lenses.

    I'll need that 12-24 eventually, but I don't travel nearly as much as I used to. In fact this is going to be the first year in awhile where I'm not going to get a single stamp in my passport. It's all the baby's fault! :smile: There was a little trip planned for this fall, but that got scrubbed so the priority to get the 12-24 gets lowered also. We'll be making our first overseas trip with the baby early next year where I'll definitely want that lens. So I need and want it, but not right now.

    My wife and I do pretty much everything together so there's not much need for duplicity. Even if there was, I can still slap the 18-55 that came with my D80 back on since I have two of those.

    I think what I want and need right now to keep my D80 busy is something that's fast that'll work well indoors, but also gives some flexibility, AND doesn't cost an arm and a leg. I love my primes and their speed, but don't like the limitations of a fixed focal length, so I think I'm leaning towards that 35-70 f/2.8 right now. I end up shooting my 35/2 at f/2.8 a lot anyways, just for a little more depth of field. I think a D40/18-55 and a D80/35-70-2.8 is a great two body two lens combo that'll handle a lot of different situations very well with minimal overlap since the 18-55 isn't so hot at the long end and gets really slow.
  8. I had the 85/1.8 and sold it to finance the 70-200 VR and boy do I miss it. It is small, lightweight, sharp as a tack and the bokeh is really nice too.

    See what I'm talking about.

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    I'm working hard on raising some cash to buy one back. The only drawback is that it is quite small and it is hard to hold it without touching the focusing ring. Apaert from thet, I'll take one back in my bag any day.
  9. nykonian


    May 4, 2007
    New York
    fireman, get a 85/1.4. It's a bit bigger than 85/1.8 and it's even sharper. :) 
  10. At 3 times the price, no thanks. I can/will live with the 1.8 !
  11. SP77


    Jun 4, 2007
    Rockville, MD
    [size=+2]Lust Satisfied[/size] :smile:

    I picked up nuteshack's 85mm f/1.8D which he put up for sale. Actually I got a 35-70mm f/2.8 first from B&H, but it was a lousy copy that was back-focusing badly and also very very soft wide open. :rolleyes:  Just as well, though. I like the extra bit of reach on the 85, and to pull off natural light shots indoors the extra stop is definitely needed. I didn't care for the push pull zooming, but that wouldn't have been a deal breaker.

    thanks nute! :biggrin:
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2017
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.