Need help with lense selection(s)

[JB9903]

I recently won a Nikon D80 at a photography fair. I've used Minolta and Canon film SLRs in the past, but I've never owned a DSLR before (nor have I done much research into them or their components - I guess you could call me old school in that regard). I won the camera from a vendor who said I could trade it for another camera and pay the difference. However, I've only read great things about the D80. I guess I could pay a little more for the D200 (~$500) to get the metal body and the 5fps, but I'm not sure if it's worth it - although I'll use the camera for outdoor sports about 30% of the time. I'm looking for an all-around lens or multiple lenses to suit my needs. I hope I can get some great suggestions! From my browsing of the forums, it looks like there are plenty of knowledgeable people here.

Budget

~$1,200

Features

Image quality - 10

Do you care for manual controls? Either auto or manual focus will work for me.

General Usage

What will you generally use the camera for? In order: 1. Landscapes 2. Architecture 3. Outdoor sports (i.e. soccer, football, baseball) 4. Portraits

Will you be making big prints of your photos or not? Yes.

Will you be shooting a lot of indoor photos or low light photos? Maybe 20% of my photographs.

Will you be shooting sports and/or action photos? Yes.

Miscellaneous

Do you need any of the following special features? (Wide Angle, Image Stabilization, Weatherproof, Hotshoe, Rotating LCD) Image stabilization (since I don't always take my tripod with me) would be a plus. Since I've never used a DSLR before, I'm not sure how important imgage stabilization within the lens is and if it's always necessary - I've never seemed to have a problem with non-IS film SLRs in the past. Wide angle (i.e. landscapes, architecture) would be a must. I don't know if I could get all of this in one lens to get the best photographs, but I don't mind hauling around multiple lenses to get the best shots.

[jcon]

Nikon 18-200VR. It's not the best lens for sports but it will cover everything else.

[XaiLo]

You'll get good to fair low light performance with the 24-85mm (low light & landscapes)

and 70-300 will give you great picture quality and the extra zoom you'll want for sports.

24-85mm f/2.8-4D IF AF Zoom

70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom

Best of all both can be had for just under $1200. :) hth

[Prospero]

You'll get good to fair low light performance with the 24-85mm (low light & landscapes)

and 70-300 will give you great picture quality and the extra zoom you'll want for sports.

24-85mm f/2.8-4D IF AF Zoom

70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom

Best of all both can be had for just under $1200. :) hth

Good advice. I would go for a two-lens solution as well. Perhaps less convenient, but in terms of performance it is definitly better.

However, instead of the 24-85 f/2.8-4D I would pick either the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 or the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 (or the Tamron f/2.8). These lenses have the wide apperture throughout the whole zoom range and are therefore better in low light.

I believe this will be cheaper than 1200 dollar, so you would have money left to buy the Nikkor 50 f/1.8, a great lens when the light is really low or for portraits.

Alternatively, you could consider buying a flash, for instance the SB-600 with your camera. An external flash will give a lot better results than the onboard flash, especially when it is bounced of the ceiling or when a diffuser is used.

EDIT: Only now I read that you say that wide angle is a must. In that case you may want to consider a wide angle lens such as the Tokina 12-24 or Sigma 10-20. Both lenses are excellent. I have the 10-20 myself and am really happy with it. If you get a wide angle lens (instead of either the 50 f/1.8 or SB800) with the lenses I suggested you would go over your budget by 200 dollar or so.

[Ketama]

I would agree that a wide zoom would be a good idea if you want to focus on landscapes and buildings. Ideally something like the Nikkor 12-24mm f/4...this is an expensive lens however, and it would leave you with very little budget and a whole lot of focal range to cover.

The Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 or the 10-20mm that Prospero suggests, would be cheaper alternatives that would yield good results.

I have seen some excellent shots with that new Nikkor 70-300 VR, and it looks like an interesting lens. It could be used for daytime sports, but it might give you some trouble shooting night games, especially if your subject is moving quickly. The VR might help with panning shots, but I have never used this lens, so I can't really say for sure.

The Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 would be a great choice for indoor/low light photography, especially if you dislike flash photography like I do. It goes for around 100$ so it won't break the bank either.

[Rooz]

i agree with whats been said, BUT if wide angle is a must, (you seem keen on landscape and architecture), anything more than 18mm is a no-no and will frustrate the hell out of you.

if you only want to buy one lens, the 18-200mm will be your best option. but for the same price you can probably pick up the sigma 10-20 and the sigma 17-70, then later on down the track you can buy a 70-300 sigma or nikkor VR telephoto.

VR/ IS will not be an issue so much for you given the photography you will be doing. especially at the lower focal range.

[JB9903]

I greatly appreciate all of your suggestions! After doing a little research, it looks like I can get the Sigma 10-20 for (US)$500, the Sigma 12-24 for $700, the Sigma 17-70 for $400 and the Nikkor 70-300 VR for $530. Since I want some versatility, should I start with the Sigma 17-70 and the Nikkor 70-300 VR (~$1,000 total)? With the crop factor, I believe the 17-70 becomes essentially a 24-100, right? At least with the Sigma 17-70, I'll be able to take landscape, architecture and some portrait photographs. I think if I go with the Sigma 10-20 I'll be limiting myself in the beginning. I have very little experience with "specialized" lenses. I've always used my 18-135 lens with my film camera and been happy with my very amateur results. What do you all think?

[Rooz]

sounds like a good plan. lotsa people have that 17-70mm and are very happy with it. i have the 70-300 VR and i love it. imo, jump right in and get the 50mm aswell. it's only a hair over your budget and you will love it. who knows, if you do a package deal they may even do the lot for you at a better price ? no harm in asking.

btw: there is also a sigma 24-70 which is a constant f2.8 at a similar price. you lose the wide angle, (which you could always cover later in a 10-20 or 12-24mm), but you get f2.8 throughout the focal range. just another option to consider.

i wanted some feedback on that 24-70 aswell a while ago but very few people seem to have it. :confused:

[Prospero]

sounds like a good plan. lotsa people have that 17-70mm and are very happy with it. i have the 70-300 VR and i love it. imo, jump right in and get the 50mm aswell. it's only a hair over your budget and you will love it. who knows, if you do a package deal they may even do the lot for you at a better price ? no harm in asking.

btw: there is also a sigma 24-70 which is a constant f2.8 at a similar price. you lose the wide angle, (which you could always cover later in a 10-20 or 12-24mm), but you get f2.8 throughout the focal range. just another option to consider.

i wanted some feedback on that 24-70 aswell a while ago but very few people seem to have it. :confused:

George Riehm and Esoterra, both are members of this foum, have the 24-70 f/2.8. If you have questions about that lens you could send them a PM. I believe they are both very happy with it. I believe Esoterra once compared the lens to the Nikkor 28-70 and he said that the 1800 dollar lens was not all that much better.

The lens is sharp and there is no vignetting.On the downside, it is a quite heavy and bulky lens. The range may be more suitable for portraits than the 18-50 f/2.8 lenses, though.

That said, I have never regretted that I bought the 17-70 instead of the 18-50 f/2.8 or the 24-70 f/2.8. The range of that lens and the close focussing distance is very convenient, and the sharpness of this lens is amazing.

17mm is mostly wide enough for landscapes and architecture. You can always stitch multiple pictures together if you need a wider view. Of course a wide angle lens will be better, but having only a wide angle lens and the 70-300 will give you an enormous gap in your zoom range which is limiting.

[Rooz]

whats the f-stop at 50mm prospero ?

[Prospero]

Here are the appertures of the lens:

17-19: f/2.8
19-22: f/3
22-24: f/3.2
24-28: f/3.3
28-34: f/3.5
34-42: f/3.8
42-50: f/4
50-60: f/4.2
60-70: f/4.5

So it's f/4 at 50mm, it will give some background blur for portraits and isn't that bad in low light either. It's one f-stop worse than the f/2.8 zooms and 2.3 than the 50f/1.8, though.

[fionndruinne]

If I were you, I'd pick up the 50mm f1.8 prime as well. I'm seeing beautiful pictures taken with it, and it's only $109 on Amazon!

Congratulations on winning such a nice camera, as well. Fun!