New lens and flash for my D80

[kcbryan]

I received a lot of good advice on this forum in the past on deciding between Canon and Nikon.

1- Flash SB400 vs SB600 vs SB800
Mainly shooting a very active 4 yr old and other candids. my thoughts are the 400 is not enough, the 800 is probably overkill, and the 600 might be just right.

2- 16-85 VR vs 18-105 VR replacing a Tamron 17-50 2.8

Before switching to Nikon, I had always used Minolta film cameras. I never had much luck with flash, but also never took the time to really learn it. That was one of the reasons I went with the Tamron 17-50 2.8 instead of the kit lens. My thinking was I could crank the ISO, and use the F 2.8 in a lot of low light situations or the built in flash would be enough. What ends up happening on a lot of the shots is that part of the pic will be spot on in focus, but another significant part of the shot will be out of focus due to the limited depth of field. This really limits when I can use the wide apeture. If I can't use that, why put up with the heavy weight, somewhat limited focal range, and no VR. A little concerned that there are not a lot of reviews on the two lenses that I am considering. I am leaning to the 16-85VR, but don't want to regret the descision.

Other lenses in the bag:
35mm 2.0 - absolutely love it.
55-200 VR - ditto
Tamron 17-50 - seems to be sharp, but I really wish I had bought a different lens.

Any advice would be much appreciated.

[mladjo]

If you want to shoot 4yr old VR isn't going to help you at all. It gives you extra 3 stops, which are useful on static targets. Knowing that a 4yr old is everything, but static, I doubt that VR will suit your needs. On the other hand, with proper use of SB600 or SB800 you can achieve amazing results. If you plan to by more flashes in the future, go with SB800. If not, go with SB600.

That Tamron is one great lens and by changing it you won't improve your shots.

My 2 cents.

[Visual Reality]

Before switching to Nikon, I had always used Minolta film cameras. I never had much luck with flash, but also never took the time to really learn it. That was one of the reasons I went with the Tamron 17-50 2.8 instead of the kit lens. My thinking was I could crank the ISO, and use the F 2.8 in a lot of low light situations or the built in flash would be enough. What ends up happening on a lot of the shots is that part of the pic will be spot on in focus, but another significant part of the shot will be out of focus due to the limited depth of field. This really limits when I can use the wide apeture. If I can't use that, why put up with the heavy weight, somewhat limited focal range, and no VR.
Heavy weight? It weighs 1/2 of the Nikkor 17-55.

[K1W1]

You may have trouble buying a SB800 now as they have been discontinued by Nikon in lieu of the SB900 which is considerably more expensive.

[Rooz]

tamron advantages:
2.8 thru the range

nikkor advantages:
blistering AF speed
quiet AF
more accurate AF
VR
extra range
better build quality

for kids, the faster AF is much more desirable than the 2.8. the nikkor locks on focus much faster and can keep up in af-c mode. the tamron simply, cannot.

sb600 is a solid choice and they are pretty cheap. i have the 400 and love it cos its small and light. dont hesitate in buying the flash, it will dramatically improve your indoor shots. think about the lens decision carefully. i'm not a big fan of the tammie but 2.8 is well...2.8. at say 50mm, the nikkor will be around the f5 mark i'd guess which around 1.5 stops of light. if you were shooting at iso400, you're up to iso1000 right there. thats a pretty substantial difference.

[n9nf]

Hi TS ... newbee here.

I do own Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 w/motor. Gives out nice IQ. And because of the large appeture, its possible to snap your 4yr old.
But I'd prefer Nikon primelense of 50mm F1.8. It shoot better and sharper than Tamron. And with f1.8, its obviously the best choice in low light situation / indoors. This pix was taken with 50mm prime, indoos with a little help of D80 flash covered with LUMIQUEST.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3232/3011811791_038be1b4d9.jpg

[kcbryan]

mladjo - I agree, but it sure would be good to have the VR at other times. When I am trying to take a shot of 2 or more kids, it is very unlikely that they are both going to be in focus shooting at 2.8. The same for the kid and the dog, or most anything that I am shooting that isn't static. I do have the 35mm 2.0 for low light shots.
You say, getting rid of the Tamron won't improve my shots, but do you think the Nikon 16-85 would be worse.

Rooz - Exactly what I was hoping. Seems like I would gain a lot of advantages, and the only disadvantage is something I can't use very often.

Does anyone have an opinion on the 16-85 vs the 18-105. I know the 16-85 is about twice the price. I don't want to throw money away, but as long as the 16-85 is as sharp or sharper than the 18-105, then I think I would get more use from the 16 end rather than the 105.

Thanks for the info.

[erichlund]

As we were discussing the other day, there are other things as well that make the 16-85 a better lens then the 18-105. The build is better and the manual focus override is available all the time without flipping a switch.

Before you replace the f2.8 lens, think about just getting the flash. With flash, you don't always have to shoot wide open, but it's still available when you want it.

You can always add a lens later.

[Visual Reality]

mladjo - I agree, but it sure would be good to have the VR at other times. When I am trying to take a shot of 2 or more kids, it is very unlikely that they are both going to be in focus shooting at 2.8. The same for the kid and the dog, or most anything that I am shooting that isn't static.
If you stay near the wide end, the depth of field is a lot better than you'd think. DOF is greatly affected by focal length...more so than by aperture.


Before you replace the f2.8 lens, think about just getting the flash. With flash, you don't always have to shoot wide open, but it's still available when you want it.
That's what I do. I shoot at f/4 almost all the time since its quite a bit sharper than f/2.8 on the Tamron. With the flash its a non-issue, just bounce off the ceiling and you're golden. Regardless, you should have the flash anyway to improve your quality of light.

[n9nf]

agree with erichlund. with flash, U can do wonders.

Im still using D80. Like U. You wanna get another lense.
As for me, thought of buying D300 because of the ISO's. So freakin tempting. After much thinking, I setteled for flash instead. No regrats.
I even hv spare $'s. Will get my hands on D300 or maybe better nikon, next 2 yrs.

anyways, click http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1221/cat/13 for 18-105mm

and http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1177/cat/13 for 18-85mm

both with user reviews ...

hope it'll help you ... :D

[kcbryan]

Thanks to all for the comments. Points well taken on getting the flash first and waiting on the lens later. I am going to do that, but I have a feeling I am going to end up with the 16-85 VR before the next vacation.

n9nf - thanks for pointing me to slrgear.com. Very helpful. I had not run across that site before.