|
|
| *SoulEyes Photography>>>Landscape Photography |
Nikon Lens advice for DSLR - starting from scratch? |
I'm about to buy a whole new system from scratch. I'm probably going to buy the D80 with the aim to upgrade in the next few years in stead of the D200 now, and spend the money on the lenses. I want to shoot pictures of my children to blow up to large art prints and travel photography (landscapes and street shots). If you were to get a nice range what would you choose? Here are some I'm thinking about: Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX ~ $1200: apparently not usable on full frame (problem if I upgrade later) Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 ED-IF AF-S ~ $1500 Nikon 50mm f/1.4D ~$280 Nikon 85mm f/1.4 ~$1000 Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 ED-IF ~$1500 Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX ~$800 Any advice would be most appreciated 17-55 f/2.8: A great lens for landscapes, indoor shots, street photography and portraits. It's very good even wide open, so a great lens for low light situations. The zoom range will not get you close enough for long distance candids and field sports, however. It can also be a heavy lens to travel with (I do, but the camera is just about all I carry in my day pack). As you note, this lens is not usable on a film camera and won't be usable on a full frame digital body... if and when Nikon ever make one. The same goes for the 18-200. 17-35: The perfect landscape lens for a film camera. When stopped down, this lens produces better image quality than the 17-55. The zoom range is awkward on a D80 however... on any Nikon dSLR, for that matter. It's not quite wide enough to be a dedicated landscape lens (the Nikon 12-24 is better) and it's not quite long enough to be a walk around lens (the 17-55 is better). Nikon may or may not make a full frame camera in the future, but until they do, it's hard to justify buying this lens. 50mm f/1.4: A great low light lens, but if you have a f/2.8 zoom, you can probably do without. I mostly use mine for the extremely shallow depth of field or to look a bit less conspicuous (the 17-55 can draw attention.) They go for just $200 used - a lot of people buy this lens and discover that they don't use it at all. 85mm f/1.4: The perfect portrait lens for either digital or film. But portraits are about all you'll ever use it for. The 85mm f/1.8 is a tempting budget alternative. 28-70mm f/2.8: This was the perfect walkround lens for film bodies. Great image quality and great zoom range. But when you use the 28-80 on a D80, it effectively becomes 42-120mm - you lose wide angle coverage. So with digital bodies it's been replaced by... you guessed it: the 17-55 (which effectively provides 26-83mm) 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6: This is a big step down in terms of image quality and light sensitivity in return for a light weight, all-in-one lens. 70-200 f/2.8: You didn't mention this one, but if you're interested in the 18-200 for the extra zoom reach, the 70-200 is the logical companion lens for the 17-55 or 28-70. You've done your homework. Rather than just re-hash what OMG said, I'll just say, "Ditto." Bear in mind that the D200 sensor is the same size as the D80's, so you will not be tossing out any expensive DX lenses that you buy. The 17-55 is an awesome lens, especially for use inside at your children's parties, etc. You might check http://www.kenrockwell.com for reviews and discussion on Nikon lenses. |
Photography Categories--Copyright/IP Policy--Contact Webmaster |