What lenses are reccommended?

[wishbone_17]

I am about to buy a Nikon D200. I am an advanced amateur with a Haselblad and a 35mm, and now I am making my move into digital. My question is that I am looking for lenses for all around use. I plan on shooting anything and everything with my camera and am looking at prime lenses instead of tele lenses for the greater quality of picture.

My question is, which lenses do you think I should start with? I have thought about a 28, 50 and 150, but having never used digital for anything serious, I wanted some opinions.

[jcon]

Primes arent really good for all around lenses. You would want something that can zoom a little to cover wide and some decent tele. You cant get that with primes, unless you dont mind changing lenses every time you plan on taking a different picture, then you could buy like 3 or 4 primes, but that is very expensive.

I would suggest you look at the Nikkor 17-55mm F2.8, since puting this lens on my D200, it hasnt come off! Another lens to look at that offers more tele is the 18-200VR. Just remember, all in one lenses do have sacrifices.

As for primes, the 50mm 1.8D and the 85mm 1.8D are two excellent primes.

[wishbone_17]

I think I mistyped. I meant to say that I want some all around lenses for the every day "happy accidents" shooting. I plan on getting a few primes for portraits and landscapes. I just wanted a good zoom or two. I would love to cover 14mm - 210mm in 2 or 3 lenses. Maybe a 14mm-55mm, 35mm-70mm and a 70mm-210mm. Right now I am eyeing a Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0D IF that is a film/digital lens.

Give me your thoughts. Money won't be much of an object when it comes to optics. I am planning on getting an MFA in Photography so I look at these as an investment that will take several years to complete.

[jcon]

If money isnt an object, here is what I would suggest....

Wide angle: I dont know much about these but there are a few here who own some and can suggest in this area.

Standard zoom: The king of the mountain is the Nikkor 17-55mm F2.8(since money dont matter)

Longer zoom: 70-200mm 2.8VR.

That would be a great set up and once you figure in the wide angle, you will have something from like 12 to 200mm covered, with top of the line glass. if you want more than 200mm in reach, someone else will have to suggest a lens, as I dont know much on that topic. Dont forget the flash, the SB-800 will blow your mind!

[coldrain]

Do not forget to take the cropfactor into account! Your mention of 28 and 50mm makes me think you are forgetting about that.

So, in case you are forgetting about it: The sensor of the D200 is smaller than 35mm film.
It is 1.5x as small. This means you have to multiply focal lengths with 1.5, to get the resulting field of view and perspective of the equivalent 35mm film SLR.

So... 28mm x 1.5 becomes: 42mm
50mm x 1.5 becomes: 75mm
150mm x.15 becomes: 225mm.

If you want a full frame dslr, take a good look at the Canon EOS 5D.
If you are set on a D200, be sure to do that 1.5x crop factor conversion with all focal lenght numbers.

If price is not an object with lenses, I would consider on a D200:
The awesome Nikon 28-70 f2.8. It is pricey at just under $1500, but it is one of the best lenses Nikon makes. Better than mentioned 17-55 f2.8 too.
If that is too pricey, consider a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 or Sigma 24-70 f2.8. (both under $400 i think).
Pair that with a wide angle zoom like Sigma 10-20mm f4.5-5.6 or Tamron 12-24mm f4 (both under $500).
And for the long end, if you do not care about the weight of the beast, get a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX DG Macro for around $750 or a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR for about double that price.
If you DO care about lugging around all that weight, the Nikon 70-300 f4.5-5.6 VR is a good lens with VR for around $500. Way less heavy than the 70-200 f2.8 monsters. Or if you want f2.8, the Sigma 50-150 f2.8 DC is a lot lighter.


For portrait lenses, in case you do not get that 28-70, a Nikon 85mm f1.8 can be hard to beat. Around 300$ I think.
And a Nikon 50mm f1.8 is so cheap at around $120 that it seems a shame not to get one.

As for standard prime, the Nikon 35mm f2 is a good lens (35mm x 1.5 = 52.5mm).

[wishbone_17]

I can only assume that this is the cheapest D-SLR that has the 35mm equivalent image sensor. Does the Nikon D2Xs have the 35mm image sensor? What are the general thoughts about the D200 and its quality? I am coming from a film world, so I am new to digital. Is there much of an issue for the D200 being a smaller image sensor? Are there any other issues that are presented by the smaller image sensor?

[coldrain]

I can only assume that this is the cheapest D-SLR that has the 35mm equivalent image sensor. Does the Nikon D2Xs have the 35mm image sensor? What are the general thoughts about the D200 and its quality? I am coming from a film world, so I am new to digital. Is there much of an issue for the D200 being a smaller image sensor? Are there any other issues that are presented by the smaller image sensor?
I am not sure what you mean with "I can only assume that this is the cheapest D-SLR that has the 35mm equivalent image sensor."

If you mean teh Canon EOS 5D, yes, that is the least expensive DSLR with full frame 35mm sensor. The only other till now is the Canon 1Ds MK II, a 16mp professional camera.

No, the Nikon D2x has no full frame sensor either.

Besides the crop factor, and the need to re-learn what the focal length will mean in teh image, also the photo cells on the sensor will be smaller on a APS-C size sensor. You will notice this slightly in dymanic range (the EOS 5D has something special to it in image quality that is hard to define or test) and a much better performance at high ISO settings (Canon sensors already perform a bit better in this area compared to Sony CCD sensors that Nikon uses, but the 5D with its 12.7mp full frame is really good in this respect).

So, if you go for Nikon, you will have to settle for 1.5x crop for now. Nikon may introduce a full frame D3 in future, but it will not be cheap and when it will arrive is not known.
If you would go for a Canon EOS 5D, it will perform a lot better in high ISO, and it will not have the crop factor conversion.

[wishbone_17]

That is, in fact, what I meant. Sorry for the confusion.

So how big a deal is this issue of 1.5x conversion? I realize that my images will be somewhat deminished, but If I were going to get a masters in photojournalism, how big a deal is it? What is the maximum enlargement size before distortion starts? Is the Nikon a sold choice or is a Canon a better one? Should I save the extra $1,300 for the Canon or get the Nikon?

I realize that these are all opinions, but I am looking for real experiences to help guide me. I am looking for a camera that I can do photojournalism with and then turn around and shoot for musician album cover art or maybe a piece in a magazine, and maybe throw in some fine art for good measure.

What are your thoughts?

[tcadwall]

So how big a deal is this issue of 1.5x conversion?

Well, since you are asking for opinions... *I* don't think it is a big deal at all.

The difference is a GREAT difference if you are looking for longer glass for less money. In fact DX lenses (special size for APS sensors) are typically smaller / lighter because they don't have to cover as much area (film frame is larger than the ccd frame)

The difference is NOT GREAT if you like to do ultra-wide angle shots.

The difference DOES mean you have to do a little math if you want to gauge how a lens will frame in relation to your 35mm.

An 18mm's angle of vew on non-full frame is similar to a 27mm's angle of view on a 35mm camera. However 200mm becomes 300mm.

Another thing would be that if you have a full frame sensor that is 12MP, and you have a APSC sensor that is 12MP, then the full frame sensor would have larger photo-sites, giving it a potential edge on collecting light - meaning better quality shots. Now this assumes that all things are equal, and such an occurance is not real since there is more involved than merely sensor size and MegaPixels.

Do you already have good glass for your 35mm? What is your 35mm body?

Rumors abound that Nikon will be unveiling a Full-Frame D3? series soon. It didn't happen at PMA, so who knows what defines 'soon'. Also these are just rumors and not something to base a decision on. But if you do think full frame is what you WILL want, then you can still get a D200 and good glass (not DX format glass) and upgrading later won't hurt the wallet as much.

[coldrain]

The 1.5x crop factor (or 1.6x crop factor with a Canon 400D/XTi/30D) does not have to be problem at all, only a problem for you to understand what the focal length will mean to an image.

Both Canon and Nikon make good cameras. You will be happy with a Canon EOS 30D, a Nikon D80, a Canon 5D, a Nikon D200 or even a Canon XTi/400D. The Canons give a slighty better result in high ISO settings (ISO 800 and up) but this may be of no importance to you.
Just make the correct lens choices, take into account any crop factor.

For a 28mm lens on 35mm you will need a 17 or 18mm lens on a 1.5x or 1.6x APS-C factor camera. This may mean that you are best off with a zoom lens, not a prime.

Tamron 17-50 f2.8 Di II, Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC Macro, Tokina 16-50 f2.8 DX, all are relativily affordable "standard zoom" lenses that have good image quality for the price (around or under $400).
Best of this ilk is the expensive Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM ($1000), closely followed by the Nikon AF-S 17-55 f2.8 DX ($1200).
Any of these lenses will give you good possibilities for 28 and 50mm equivalent on APS-C.

For a Canon EOS 5D you would get a 28mm f2.8 prime and a 50mm f1.4 prime of course. But you could also get a zoom lens like a Canon 24-105mm f4 L IS USM, which will cost a bit too (around $1000).
Or a 24-70 f2.8... or a cheap 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM II.

So.. lots of choices that will not disappoint you... just take the crop factor in account. The EOS 5D is qualitativily (image quality wise) the best, but also the most expensive option.

1.5x crop (nikon, pentax):
To get 28mm: 28 / 1.5 = 18.7mm (so a 17 or 18mm in a good zoom lens will do)
To get 50mm: 50 / 1.5 = 33.3mm (so a 35mm f2 from Nikon will do)
To get 150mm: 150 / 1.5 = 100mm (so lenses around 100mm will do)

1.6x crop (canon):
To get 28mm: 28 / 1.6 = 17.5mm (so a 17 or 18mm in a good zoom lens will do)
To get 50mm: 50 / 1.6 = 31.3mm (so a 35mm f2 from Nikon or 30mm f1.4 from Sigma will do)
To get 150mm: 150 / 1.6 = 94mm. So a Canon 100mm f2 will do, so will a Tamron 90mm f2.8 or even a 85mm f1.8

One other thing: Primes used to have a big advantage over zoom lenses image quality wise. This is not always the case anymore, zoom lenses have improved a lot in optics.

[wishbone_17]

My 35mm body is a Canon Rebel 2000. It is nothing to drool over. I am looking for a camera that I can start off with that will provide me enough quality that I don't feel the need to upgrade soon after getting the hang of it. Not long after I bought my first 35mm camera, I bought a Hasselblad because I had moved on from a great, albeit simple, SLR like the Canon Rebel.

I am about to purchase a Nikon F5 film body too and really want to find some lenses that will fit both the D200 and F5 (if possible) so I can switch back and forth. I want to move into digital but I want to ease in. Part of the reason for getting an MFA is because it is a MFA program that is taught using all digital equipment with Aperture and Photoshop acting as the digital darkroom.

Thanks for your replies.

[tcadwall]

I think from what you describe that you would be well off getting a D200. Yes, you could save a few bucks with a D80. But really, the way you sound, the D200 would be best. You could get by very happily with the D80, but then again, there are quite a few advantages that the D200 has. The D200 has been referred to as the poor man's D2Xs (quite a compliment really), and the D80 is a lightweight version of the D200.

Your lenses (as long as not DX) will work on both the Digital and the F5.

This might mean that you get the body only for the Digital so that lenses you choose will work on both. The DX lenses should mount on the F5 but you would have SERIOUS light drop-off at the corners.

[coldrain]

I'd go for a D80. The D200 does not offer much that you may really need, the D80 is a very complete camera all on its own. The D200 will add weight, size and price, but for what? Weather sealing is not so useful (you and your lenses are not weather sealed), extra configurable AF is only confusing and not easy in practise... a D80 will be fine.

For lenses that are usable on both, forget about any APS-C lens.

APS-C lenses can be recognized by:
Nikon : DX
Tokina: DX
Sigma : DC
Tamron : Di II

Sigma DG and Tamron Di lenses are full frame.

So... I would think of one specific lens for the D80 (or D200), to cover 1.5x crop factor wide angle... like a Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 Di, or a 17-35 f2.8-4 DG from Sigma. This would also cover 28mm on the F5... and 50mm on APS-C 1.5x.

Then get a Nikon 50mm f1.8 for the F5 (and portrait 75mm on APS-C), and whatever you will want for longer focal ranges.

[tcadwall]

Not to beat a dead horse. The D80 is a good camera, and may be what you want. But I am speaking from my experience with my D70s (D80 predecessor), and I am also speaking from the upgrade path that I have watched a lot of OTHER Nikon DSLR owners go. Most upgrade to the D200 from whatever they started with. This is real Nikon users' experience.

[jcon]

I just wanted to add that weather sealing isnt just for rain or something the human body would need to be sealed for. It also plays a huge role in keeping dust from leaking into the body through those tiny unsealed cracks, like say on my D50 body. Weather sealed bodies are a huge advantage over ones that arent.

I too would suggest the D200(which I think has some very strong comparisons to the D2Xs, and in some aspects is favorable to the D2Xs) but the OP said he/she would like to "ease" into digital. I really dont know what ease would mean to him or her, but a D200 wouldnt be easing in. With that said, you not wanting to upgrade soon would point you toward the D200 as its a pro body and will take many many more shots than the lower end bodies. Anyone serious about photography needs to seriously think about the D200.

Just my own somewhat educated opinion.:o

[T06]

, weatherseal is great & a must in my preference. I have a very good friend with a '5D' that both he & I shoot the same children quite often, realising that there are variables in this equation but quite often my photos get chosen over his. As for the really good zooms if I was going for what you want for mine it would be the 28-70 f/2.8 & also the 70-200 f/2.8, these I would put on a D200, you will be very very happy with these in the real world on both of the Nikon cameras you have mentioned.

[coldrain]

I just wanted to add that weather sealing isnt just for rain or something the human body would need to be sealed for. It also plays a huge role in keeping dust from leaking into the body through those tiny unsealed cracks, like say on my D50 body. Weather sealed bodies are a huge advantage over ones that arent.
Have you ever had "dust problems" on a non weather sealed camera?
I have taken my olf 1970's Nikon Nikkormat, my EOS 300, Canon S30, Canon 350D to mountains, snow, waterfalls, australia, USA, all over Europe, dusty dessert and dry vulcano landscapes... Sorry to report that the only things that had a problem with dust were my shoes.

In short: weather sealing is great for professionals that need to use a camera in sand storms and hurricanes and rained on football matches. Bit I have never seen any of my cameras develop a "dust problem", nor have really felt the need to use the camera in pooring down rain. Light rain a human and a camera can stand.
And keep in mind... your lenses are not really weather sealed to begin with. A rubber ring on the mount does not make a weather sealed lens.

So, I in all fairness and honesty say that weather sealing is mostly a marketing tool. And it seems to work. I have 4 working cameras (well more, but 4 that actually get some use now and then), the oldest being from 1975 or so, and dust problems? No. Weather sealing has never been an issue.

[jcon]

Then by all means, be happy using a non weather sealed body, and I will be happy using my weather sealed body. I find it funny that its called a marketing tool. You hardly ever hear mention of it in sales/marketing. If it were a marketing tool, it would be brought up everywhere. Megapixel is a marketing tool, weather sealed, I would disagree.


By the way, I never mentioned anyhting about weather sealed lenses.

[coldrain]

Then by all means, be happy using a non weather sealed body, and I will be happy using my weather sealed body. I find it funny that its called a marketing tool. You hardly ever hear mention of it in sales/marketing. If it were a marketing tool, it would be brought up everywhere. Megapixel is a marketing tool, weather sealed, I would disagree.


By the way, I never mentioned anything about weather sealed lenses.
I did not at all mean that you mentioned sealed lenses, I was just pointing out that that is how much weather sealing means... you can be in pooring rain, your camera will be fine... but your lens will not in the long run.
You WILL want to protect your $1200 17-55 f2.8 DX from water getting into the lens I am sure... (and yourself from getting very very soaked).

And marketing doesn't have to be done my advertisements... You see it happening here. People who never needed weather sealing before in earlier cameras, sometimes over decades, all of a sudden put importance in it. Because Nikon has a relatively affordable camera with... weather sealing!

It now is used as argument for buying... And Pentax hops on the same band wagon with the K10D. Now people go into shops, and see... hey! That Sony/Canon/Whatever does not have weather sealing... that Nikon does.

So, yes, marketing tool... it is for most people of no importance practically, yet most will think it is a plus. Just one of the things camera makers are trying to differentiate themselves.

[Ray Schnoor]

You see it happening here. People who never needed weather sealing before in earlier cameras, sometimes over decades, all of a sudden put importance in it. Because Nikon has a relatively affordable camera with... weather sealing!
I'm going to change a few words here...

You see it happening here. People who never needed constant phone coverage before in earlier times, sometimes over decades, all of a sudden put importance in it. Because everyone has a relatively affordable phone with... cell phones!

Just because it wasn't readily available before, doesn't mean that there isn't a need or use for it. Yes, a camera and lens can stand a light rain. A weather sealed camera and a non-weather sealed lens can stand it even better. Are you also saying that that little rubber ring doesn't help at all when it comes to keeping dust off the sensor?

You are correct that it is part marketing gimmick, but that doesn't mean it isn't useful if you don't have weather sealed lenses.

For what it's worth, I don't have a weather sealed camera.

Ray.

[coldrain]

Dust really does not get between the metal on the mount, no... not normal dust anyway. The rubber is for water.
Dust on the sensor comes from changing lenses.

And your analogy is not really correct. Because the advantage of your example is real and makes a big difference with before and after.

But if you never had problems with "dust entering and damaging your camera" before weather sealing, and no problems with "dust enteringa nd damaging your camera" after weather sealing, what has the weather sealing brought you?

It is like gold plating a camera so the sun doesnt heat its internals up. It sure will help when it is baking there for hours in the baking hot dessert sun!
And then being in a store and thinking "wow, nice... now my camera will not heat up in the sun anymore".
But... you never had a camera fail on you because of the sun heating it up, before.

My point is: weather sealing, nice for certain conditions, mostly for pro's who NEED to do their job. But not really needed for you and me, we did always fine without weather sealing in the first place, and weather sealing will not make a difference.

I was making photos while it was snowing, a few weeks ago. It was around melting point. The snow stuck to my camera and lens, and melted too. I was a lot more worried about water seeping into my Canon EF 70-200 f4 L USM and Tokina 12-24 f4, than I was about water entering my non-sealed camera. All three are fine still, though.

[Ray Schnoor]

Dust really does not get between the metal on the mount, no... not normal dust anyway. The rubber is for water.
Dust on the sensor comes from changing lenses.

And your analogy is not really correct. Because the advantage of your example is real and makes a big difference with before and after.

But if you never had problems with "dust entering and damaging your camera" before weather sealing, and no problems with "dust enteringa nd damaging your camera" after weather sealing, what has the weather sealing brought you?.
I along with many people do have problems with dust getting on the sensor cover in my camera. I can't say for certain whether or not the seal between the camera and lens would lessen this or not since I do not have that seal on my camera. I can say with confidence that it certainly won't increase it. I wasn't aware that you had made that comparison.


My point is: weather sealing, nice for certain conditions, mostly for pro's who NEED to do their job. But not really needed for you and me, we did always fine without weather sealing in the first place, and weather sealing will not make a difference.

I was making photos while it was snowing, a few weeks ago. It was around melting point. The snow stuck to my camera and lens, and melted too. I was a lot more worried about water seeping into my Canon EF 70-200 f4 L USM and Tokina 12-24 f4, than I was about water entering my non-sealed camera. All three are fine still, though.
I'm not saying that a camera will not continue to work after being subjected to light rain/melting snow. I, however, am not willing to say that this trace amount of moisture repeatedly getting into a camera will not be the cause of corrosion inside the camera ultimately being the cause of a camera failing.

That may in fact be a reason why it is so easy for Nikon/Canon/Sony/whomever to refuse warranty work. They only have to point to the corrosion inside a camera being the cause of failure and the obvious fault of the consumer submerging the camera in a lake/river/ocean/bathtub, even though this in fact may not be the case.

This very well may increase the lifespan of a weather sealed camera over that of one that is not weather sealed, even if non-weather sealed lenses are used.

Ray.

[tcadwall]

You also might consider, that weather sealed on a 1970's camera is not nearly as beneficial.

First, the sensor (film) is ONLY one frame at a time, one tiny speck of dust will only show up in one photo. On a Digital sensor, the sensor is used for every shot. Also, the combination of dust and moisture cycles can make the dust more stubborn when cleaning. I find it hard to imagine that CR shoots his camera as often as his mouth 8o), but if he does, how has he not had dust on his sensor?

Second, electronics do not like moisture. Even high - humidity produces an unfriendly environment. Fortunately today's electronics are much better at handling this, but it still isn't friendly. The sealed body will help *SOME* to discourage these effects.

Corrosion - as pointed out - does not show up right away. Does this matter? Maybe, maybe not. By the time my camera corrodes enough to affect its usefullness, I will likely be using something else.

This thread has obviously reached a point where the whole decision seems to be about a sealed body - as if that is the one and only difference between a D80 and D200. THAT is the part that is pretty sad. It is sad that people put out their advice, which is often very good, and then an attack on their acuracy or points sidelines the whole discussion.

The OP has already stated that he is going for a MFA. That shows that he is serious. He has said more than once that he is leaning toward the D200. Unless I am missing something, he didn't ever say he wasn't serious about photography. He said that in the past he hadn't seriously used Digital Photography.

[coldrain]

Weather sealing really has NOTHING to do with dust on the sensor. Totally nothing.
Dust does not get on the senser at all from outside. I guess you never had a look at your camera's internals, the mirror box.

The dust that gets on the sensor because you get lenses off and on the body. Nothing mysterious about that. Or are you trying to say a D200 or Pentax K10D or Canon 1Ds MK II will not get dust on the sensor?

Weather sealing is for when the camera's internals need protection from dust and rain... electronics (and mechanics in film SLRs). They need that in extreme conditions.

My 1970's Nikon has been through a lot, just not extreme conditions. Why? Because it never has been used in dust and sand storms to report a war. Or in down poor to report a football game. I am not a pro, and my camera will never be used in such conditions. With or without weather sealing.