I've decided I jump from Canon (1D mkI, Sigma 24-60 f/2.8 and Sigma 70-200 f/2.8) and have settled on getting a D300 in the next few months. I shoot a lot of low light work (concerts, events, occasional wedding) as well as a few landscapes and portraits. I prefer using primes for the gorgeous bokeh, and have my eye on the following few lenses:
-Sigma 10-20 meaning landscapes are covered.
-Nikon 50 f/1.8 just because it's £70 and can open up wide.
-Nikon 135 f/2 so I have a short telephoto covered.
-If the 135 is too pricey, maybe the 105 f/2.8 so I can learn a bit more about macro work?
This should be just within my budget, and give me a nice foundation of glass to start on. Do you think these lenses are suitable for my purposes? If not, what would you choose? Please consider my budget is around £500 for glass.
I am using the 35mm F2AFD instead of a 50mm. I think it is a better lens.
You might want to think about a 35mm F2 and 85mm F1.8 combo. The 85mm F1.8 AFD is very nice and not expensive.
I don't have the 35 (I use a Sigma 30), but I agree that the 85 f/1.8 AF-D is a superb (and inexpensive) piece of glass. I do also like my Nikon 105 Micro (non AF-S), which I got from William, by the way.
I really like the 105 f/2 and assume the 135 f/2 would be just as nice, but it's rather expensive for your budget. The 85 f/1.8 is a really nice alternative for price considerations.
Lots of choices to be made into your own reality. Lens kits can be modified over time to reflect what you are currently doing. I like to get good gear that is not being used to it's fullest into the hands of someone who will appreciate it and use it more than I will.
I will say that the 105DC is also a very nice lens, with or without the DC feature being used.
