So I think I've decided to make the switch to Nikon. I love my Canon gear, but I've always considered myself brand agnostic, and the people I shoot with all shoot Nikon. I had to liquidate all of my L glass at the end of last year due to personal issues, so I have very little gear.
Here's my issue--I don't know anything about Nikon glass beyond what DX and VR mean. I'm trying to cover the spectrum as best as possible with a very small amount of money, and I need some options.
The body is a gently used D200, so AF and AF-S are both fine. I generally shoot primes, but I'll listen to any advice you have to give.
I'm picking up a Nikon 50mm f/1.8D for sure, but beyond that, I'm clueless. Everything else has to fit within a budget of around a grand. I was looking at the 105mm f/2.8 VR Micro since it covers two bases, but reviews of the VR version are pretty up in the air.
I tend to shoot in the mid to telephoto range with high apertures.
What should I look at? One nice workhorse or a handful of acceptable glass?
If you're picking up a 50/1.8 for sure, I'd get the following for around $1000 total:
Nikon 35mm f/1.8 AFS
Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AFD
Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D (2 ring version)
If you take out the 50/1.8 and get the 35/1.8 only, here's what I'd get:
Nikon 35mm f/1.8 AFS
Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 AFS (a highly regarded midrange zoom lens that I own and LOVE)
Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D (2 ring version)
The D200 should give you amazing results in terms of image quality, focus speed, and responsiveness with all of the lenses listed here.
jbarket wrote:
I tend to shoot in the mid to telephoto range with high apertures.
I would think that a 28-70 F/2.8 would be nice, but you would be spending all your budget on one lens. Otherwise I like my 35-70 F/2.8, which is less than half the price of the 28-70.
p.1 #10 · Switching to Nikon, Help Me Spend Money!
oobie wrote:
What do you shoot?
Portraits more than anything else, but wild life and architecture too on occasion.
I'd like to start shooting landscapes too and be genuinely well rounded, but it's never been something I've excelled at. Wider than 17mm on a 1.6x crop body is a complete mystery to me, haha.
Thanks for your quick responses everybody. I'm running through reviews and making a list now.
p.1 #11 · Switching to Nikon, Help Me Spend Money!
For portraits on a budget, the 80-200/2.8 will deliver. Landscapes can be done with any reasonably sharp lens, and the 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 AFS is sharp as a razor by f/5.6 at all focal lengths.
Those two zooms will have you largely covered from 18-200mm and the 35mm f/1.8 prime will give you a lot more low-light capabilities in addition to being a good candid portrait lens.
Good luck with your purchases!
Nov 16, 2009 at 05:52 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · Switching to Nikon, Help Me Spend Money!
If you like primes and are OK with f/1.8 instead of f/1.4, you get most of the performance for a lot less cost.
Those four lenses should do the trick nicely. If you need true wide angle on DX format, you options are zooms for the most part as the Nikon WA primes are not great. The exception being the 14mm but that is a big chunky and expensive piece of glass. Fortunately Nikon zooms are great. Also, one great thing about Nikon is it has great consumer-level zooms for a decent price:
10-24 DX
18-70 DX or for more $$ 16-85 DX VR
70-300 VR
p.1 #13 · Switching to Nikon, Help Me Spend Money!
I'm pretty much with Andre here.
The 85mm f/1.8 is great. I have the f/1.4, and the have played with the 1.8. Having that said, I may eventually get an 1.8 for my gf. the 85 is a great lens to work with, esp for portraits. I used to do headshots with a 105 macro (not VR) in the film days, but the 85mm quickly replaced it when I went DX, and stayed with it when I went FX. The bokeh on the 1.4 is to die for, but the 1.8 is no slouch - it is marginally sharper than the 1.4, and, from what I've been told, has a lot less CA.
The 35mm is definitely a nice fl to have, as it sorta replicated the old 50mm "normal" angle of view on film. The 180 will be nice as well for something that reaches out a little further.
The 70-300 is very nice as well. A very flexible range/lens, and under-rated most of the time. I told my boss about it when he was contemplating a 70-200, and he told me I was crazy that a <$600 lens was going to perform as well as the 70-200. Well, he got it at the end, and loves it on his D700.
Those four lenses should do the trick nicely. If you need true wide angle on DX format, you options are zooms for the most part as the Nikon WA primes are not great. The exception being the 14mm but that is a big chunky and expensive piece of glass. Fortunately Nikon zooms are great. Also, one great thing about Nikon is it has great consumer-level zooms for a decent price:
10-24 DX
18-70 DX or for more $$ 16-85 DX VR
70-300 VR
p.1 #16 · Switching to Nikon, Help Me Spend Money!
105mm VR is a great lens that I use exclusively for my stock photography and photo illustrations for the paper. However I've heard you can get just as good of quality with the older AF-D 105 Micro for nearly half the price, but if you look around you should also be able to find a 105 VR for around 750 used. As for the 50 1.8. I have it and love it, other than the fact that it is not nano coated as most of my other lenses (other than the 70-200) are. Still an awesome buy at the price it goes for though. Also since you said you only shoot primes, you may want to consider the 200 f/2 in the future. It's a beast of awesomeness that I can only drool over as I do not have one but I've seen the amazing shots that can be had with it.
