Got the $$ to spend on equipment

[Ric]

Due to an anomaly of cash flow (legal btw) in my office I have a rare opportunity to purchase equipment. :D Unlikely that this will happen again. I”ll have about $2000 to spend to round out my kit. I bought the D80 in July with the 18-55mm kit lens, a Promaster 70-300 and added in September the 50mm f1.8. So far I have been shooting my kids (6 and 8) sports (baseball, soccer and surfing) and architecture. I'd like in the future for landscapes. No wildlife.
I’m thinking of purchasing the following:

Nikon 18-200mm VR lens or 80-200mm f2.8
Sigma 10-20mm lens
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8
SB-600 flash
Bogen/Manfrotto 3221 Tripod
Bogen/Manfrotto 486rc2 ball head.




Any suggestions/criticisms ? Upgrade of body not an option.:confused:

[fionndruinne]

Why not get some low-light glass - it will help with those sports shots a lot. The Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 and 50-150mm f/2.8 would give you a low-light, high quality almost-equivalent of the 18-200mm VR for a hair above $1000.

[Rooz]

Nikon 18-200mm VR lens or 80-200mm f2.8

definitely the 80-200. great lens that you will love for your sports shots and it makes great portraits too.

Sigma 10-20mm lens

i believe the tokina is better for architecture cos it has less distortion at the wide end. some users may be able to comment.

Tamron 17-50mm f2.8

yepp, that or the sigma 18-50 f2.8 Macro is a good choice.

SB-600 flash

yepp.

can you get all that plus a tripod for $2k though ?? :confused:

[fionndruinne]

Won't that Nikkor f/2.8 lens eat up most of your budget itself?

[Rooz]

80-200mmf2.8 is around the $850 mark. its not the 70-200VR.

[fionndruinne]

So what are the essential differences? Since it's quite close focal-length-wise, there must be a lot about it that's cheaper than the 70-200mm?

(just hijacking things for a wee little bit:cool:)

[K1W1]

So what are the essential differences? Since it's quite close focal-length-wise, there must be a lot about it that's cheaper than the 70-200mm?



No VR makes a big difference in the price.

[fionndruinne]

That much of a difference? Considering the 55-200mm VR is only about $70 more than the older 55-200mm? Sounds a little extreme.

I guess it can fluctuate a lot.

[Rooz]

That much of a difference? Considering the 55-200mm VR is only about $70 more than the older 55-200mm? Sounds a little extreme.

I guess it can fluctuate a lot.

there's alot more to it than VR. apart from better optical peformance, there's also SWM, the lens contruction itself is different, AF-S, IF motor etc. not to mention that the AF-D has a rotating front element which makes it very hard to use with CPL's.

[tcadwall]

80-200 f/2.8 is a great option, just check out bythom.com first. I know he has some good chronology of the lens, along with generally preferred favorites. I think there actually IS a AF-S version(silent wave) but it is pretty rare to find one for sale.

The 70-200 is a better lens, and VR is very handy at the tele end. But the cost difference means that most of us wouldn't be able to justify the difference. The 80-200 used to be pretty pricey itself until the 70-200 came out.

[LR Max]

Here is my suggestion:

Used 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S lense. Some say they are rare, but they are out there. ~850 is about average price. Hands down, this is about one of the best telephoto zooms available (70-200VR is better, but this is half the price). For your kids sports, this is what you want. Also, with this lense, while you are out there taking photos, you'll be the only one that looks like they know what they are doing :D. Heck, you might even be able to make a few $$ off prints because other parents WILL come up to you, asking for photos.

Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 HSM. Its got the autofocus motors built into the lense. This is awesome. Not too shabby on price, neither. This will probably be the lense you use the most. I can assure you, no one ever complained about having constant f/2.8 apeture. Great indoor lense for the kids. Possibly look at the 24-70 f/2.8 sigma. I just bought one yesterday but I am still playing with it. Might keep it, might not.

SB-800. Yeah, a wee bit more than the SB-600 but its worth the extra money once you start getting into off-camera strobing.

Wide angle (I have no experience with wide angle lenses, so I won't say anything).

New bag to carry all of it in.

Go ahead and buy fast glass. You'll end up buying it eventually, might as well cut the crap and have it now. Thats what I am learning. All the pros have fast, nice glass. I figure they *might* know what they are doing...

[herc182]

i have the 55-200 VR and find that the 200 is still a touch short. 300 would be ideal or buy a teleconverter (if you anticipate taking many shots from a distance!). However you lose the f2.8 with a teleconverter (correct?).

I own the sigma 10-20 and have absolutely no complaints with. apparently the tokina is better built and faster (f4?) but I love the sigma. it was the first lens i bought and would not part with it.

I also own the sigma 18-50 macro f2.8 (not HSM) and its quality (of photo) is very good. However, not as solid as the 10-20 in construction. Probably get the 17-55 f2.8 (NIKON) if you can afford it. I have heard its pretty awesome.