D300 lenses recommendations please?

[bossanova]

Hi guys,

I am planning to upgrade from my D40 to my D300, and my budget is about US$ 2500 (but of course I prefer to keep it as low as possible).

Out of the above budget, $1320 will already be gone for the D300 body itself, and the rest of the money will go for:
a. a spare battery
b. a CF card
c. a CF card reader
d. (probably filters)

and the rest go to lenses......I am thinking of getting these:
a. 18-200mm VR
b. 50mm 1.8
c. 35mm 1.8

Do you think my choices of lenses are good? You may wonder what I like to shoot....well the answer is simple: I like to shoot anything, and I have no specific preference.

I want the 18-200 because it covers such a broad range of focal lengths, so it's convenient for me, since then I won't have to switch lenses too often (just to keep the D300 sensor clean).

I'm slightly concerned about the 18-200 though....I heard it's a little on the soft side? Is that true?
And I am interested in the 50mm and 35mm since I heard they are really sharp.

I wish I could also get the 24-70 and 17-55, but I think they are really expensive and are outside my budget for now. :(

Are third party brands (like Tokina, Tamron, Sigma, etc) of good qualities? What are the best amongst those 3?

I heard that the fact that they're not made by Nikon, they can cause problems with the onboard circuits within the camera, due to incompatibilities. What do you think?

I know that a lot of people praise the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8, but if you have similar alternatives, please feel free to suggest.

Thank you kindly for reading! =)

[TheWengler]

I wouldn't go the "all in one" lens route. I think taking 2 lenses to cover that range will provide you with much better results. A prime would also be nice as would a flash. Sigma, Tamron and Tokina all have some lenses that are good, but you should judge them from lens to lens, not just the brand as a whole.

[raven15]

I'd go 16-85mm VR and 70-300mm VR, plus a prime of your favorite focal length, a la Dread Pirate Roberts.

[bossanova]

I'd go 16-85mm VR and 70-300mm VR, plus a prime of your favorite focal length, a la Dread Pirate Roberts.

How does the 16-85 compare with the 17-50 Tamron?

[tim11]

....
....
I heard that the fact that they're not made by Nikon, they can cause problems with the onboard circuits within the camera, due to incompatibilities. What do you think?

I know that a lot of people praise the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8, but if you have similar alternatives, please feel free to suggest.

Thank you kindly for reading! =)

My Sigma 18-50 F/2.8 works like a gem giving me the sharpness that surprise a lot of people a lot of time. I have never heard of a 3rd party lens causing problem to a camera. Only very recently that I bought Nikkor 16-85 and it will be a tough competitor to the 18-50.

18-200 suffers from lens creep; that's the main complaint I think.
There is a list for you to choose from. In order of my personal preference:
Nikkor 16-85 VR
Nikkor 18-105 VR (inexpensive but a very good lens)
Nikkor 18-200 VR
Sigma 18-200 OS.

[tim11]

How does the 16-85 compare with the 17-50 Tamron?
Buy Tamron 17-50 only if you must have constant F/2.8; it's a good lens but personally I find 50 mm too short. The 16-85 receive very good reviews.

[jcon]

The most important thing to consider before purchasing lenses is what do you plan to shoot? What are your needs? I know you say you have nothing specific, but youre just wasting money until you figure that out! I could suggest the Nikon 17-55 F2.8 but you may need something longer, like the Nikon 70-200VR 2.8. Or you may not need a constant 2.8 lens at all... it really depends what you need. Figure that out first before you take any suggestions on what to look at!

[tim11]

I agree with Jason.
My list was based on Bossanova's suggestion for the Nikkor 18-200....and for broad focal range. There is no need to buy all lenses at once. Just buy one first if you haven't decided what kind of shooting you will do.

[tizeye]

I agree with Jason.
There is no need to buy all lenses at once. Just buy one first if you haven't decided what kind of shooting you will do.

+1
Even at that, there has been no mention of the lens you currently have with the D40. Presume the 18-55 (and possibly the 22-200). They would certainly work just fine on the D300, and argueable better than the all-in-one 18--200.

Are you planning on keeping the D40 as a second back-up or getting rid of it.

[bossanova]

+1
Even at that, there has been no mention of the lens you currently have with the D40. Presume the 18-55 (and possibly the 22-200). They would certainly work just fine on the D300, and argueable better than the all-in-one 18--200.

Are you planning on keeping the D40 as a second back-up or getting rid of it.

Woops! Yes, I got the 18-55, 55-200 VR, and an SB-800 speedlight. I'm planning to keep the D40 as a second backup.

[K1W1]

Woops! Yes, I got the 18-55, 55-200 VR, and an SB-800 speedlight. I'm planning to keep the D40 as a second backup.

Then it's a no brainer.
DO NOT BUY THE 18-200! (Yes I know that I'm yelling).

Buy the D300 body and 16-85VR. Use the 55-200VR you already own on both cameras and with the money saved buy a second CF card because you should never rely on only one.

Both the 16-85 and 55-200 lenses are better than the 18-200 imo. The 16-85 by some considerable margin. The only issue I'm having with my is lens flare because the standard hood is a bit ordinary so I'm looking around for a replacement hood.

[bossanova]

Then it's a no brainer.
DO NOT BUY THE 18-200! (Yes I know that I'm yelling).

Buy the D300 body and 16-85VR. Use the 55-200VR you already own on both cameras and with the money saved buy a second CF card because you should never rely on only one.

Both the 16-85 and 55-200 lenses are better than the 18-200 imo. The 16-85 by some considerable margin. The only issue I'm having with my is lens flare because the standard hood is a bit ordinary so I'm looking around for a replacement hood.

LOOOOOL, no problem with the yelling....it convinced me even more not to buy the 18-200.... :D

Any idea how the 16-85 compares with the 17-50 Tamron and 18-50 Sigma?

[K1W1]

Any idea how the 16-85 compares with the 17-50 Tamron and 18-50 Sigma?

Optically? I have no idea I'm not a test geek and honestly I don't care.
The 16-85 for me is a solid, well built lens that whilst not being pro level glass gives me results that I am very happy with (except the flare issue already mentioned). To me it covers an almost perfect focal length and I rarely remove it from my camera. When I had a 18-55 and 55-200 I found I was often using the 55-200 in the 55-100 type range. Now I don't need to and I only use the 55-200 for sports photos plus being that fraction wider just gives a little more flexibility.
Everybodies needs are different but for me at least the 16-85 is great.

[bossanova]

Optically? I have no idea I'm not a test geek and honestly I don't care.
The 16-85 for me is a solid, well built lens that whilst not being pro level glass gives me results that I am very happy with (except the flare issue already mentioned). To me it covers an almost perfect focal length and I rarely remove it from my camera. When I had a 18-55 and 55-200 I found I was often using the 55-200 in the 55-100 type range. Now I don't need to and I only use the 55-200 for sports photos plus being that fraction wider just gives a little more flexibility.
Everybodies needs are different but for me at least the 16-85 is great.


So, is the 16-85 sharper than both the 18-55 and 55-200 VR then? And better colours too?

[K1W1]

So, is the 16-85 sharper than both the 18-55 and 55-200 VR then? And better colours too?

yes and yes.

Have a look at this group (http://www.flickr.com/groups/dx16-85vr/) on Flickr. There are around 3500 sample photos for you to look at.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

It's a very sharp lens with good contrast and colour in my opinion but then I'm not really qualified to answer the question as I'm only a beginner and amateur.

I like mine but I do notice lots more flare with the 16-85 than any other lens I've owned including the 18-200VR.