jasoncallen
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.1 #8 · Good lens for Nikon d200? | |
This is my first post on FM, so hello everybody. I am new to the world of DSLR's, but have been shooting a lot with my little point and shoot camera. I have talked to a professional photographer and he said the best thing to do is to buy a used nikon d200 and just start shooting with it. My only question is what lens should i start off with? (I am on a relatively low budget)
I intend on buying a 50mm 1.8D but am also in need of a low power zoom with the versatility of a f2.8 aperture. I have found the 24-85mm 2.8-4D and the 35-70mm 2.8. For those of you that have these lenses, can you tell me which one you like more and why?...Show more →
First off, welcome to the FM Nikon board!
I would disagree that the D200 is the best place to start off... having owned that camera, and a D90 as well, I'd say that you're better off in many ways with the more forgiving low-light performance of the newer D90. The D200 is built tough-as-nails, and is very responsive, but the D90 is also a professionally capable camera, and you're not losing many significant features vs. the D200.
The only thing I would miss going from a D200 to a D90 would be the light metering capabilities with classic manual focus lenses.
Assuming that you're starting with a D90, and are looking at a low-power f/2.8 capable zoom lens (I assume low-power means wide-angle-to-slightly-telephoto), I would say that you're looking at the wrong lenses. All of those lenses are good pieces of glass, but you're gonna be backed into a corner (literally and figuratively) if you ever need to shoot nearby subjects in a cramped space. On DX cameras, 35mm is roughly what your eye sees. 24mm is marginally wider, but not significantly so. 16-18mm is what I would consider the beginnings of "wide angle" focal lengths on these cameras.
For a more versatile kit, you should have coverage of the wide end, and coverage of the short telephoto end (which the 50mm f/1.8 will take care of very well). As others have suggested, the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is a great lens! I owned one for about a year and a half. It's almost as good as the triple-the-price Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 AFS, which I also own.
Alternately, the 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 is a VERY good deal for the money. It is just as sharp as my 17-55/2.8 AFS, at only a slight decrease in light intake (f/3.5 vs f/2.8 on the wide end, and f/4.5 vs. f/2.8 on the long end... 1/2 stop difference on the wide end, and 1 stop difference on the long end roughly). I used an 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 on my D90 for professional shooting for about a year as I had little need for f/2.8 in that focal range.
Among the lenses you're considering in your first post, the 35-70mm f/2.8 is fantastic, but it will leave you lacking any wide-angle capability. The 24-85mm f/2.8-4 isn't very good at f/2.8, though it is reasonably sharp at f/4-5.6... but if you have to stop down to f/4-5.6, it's not an f/2.8 lens, right?
My advice to you is this: Instead of a D200 and less practical lenses, get a D90, 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 AFS, 50mm f/1.8, and SB-600 flash... or get a D90, Tamron 17-50/2.8 version 1, SB-600 flash, and skip the 50mm f/1.8.
Either setup will run you roughly $1200, which is about what a good condition D200 + 35-70/2.8 + 50mm f/1.8 will cost (approximately $1100-1200), but with the addition of a flash, more flexible glass, and with better low light performance.
I was looking through some of my dad's old film gear and found a Nikkor AF 35-80mm f/4-5.6D lens. Would this lens work on a D200?
The 35-80mm f/4-5.6 lens will mount on any Nikon DSLR, and it will meter on all of the DSLRs, but no auto focus on the D40/40x/60/3000/5000. It's an OK lens, but very poor light intake, and kinda soft wide-open.
Happy shooting!
-J
|
