Zoom recommendations for Nikon D80

I am sure that this question has been answered quite a few times in one way or another, but I hope I can

prevail upon the collective wisdom one more time for a few ideas!

 

My kids and I purchased a Nikon D80 for my wife's mom's day/birthday present and paired it with a Nikon

18-70mm zoom. I was hoping that the older 70-200mm Zeiss CPU-type lens she had would work, but

unfortunately that was not the case as the lens itself if broken (also the folks at Nelson photo here in San

Diego said it should be replaced as the zoom works on a push/pull basis, which tends to draw dust into

the camera and onto the sensor.

 

So....she loves the camera, is taking some really great photos, but needs a zoom to fill in the gap above

her 18-70. Although I am leaning towards the Nikon 55mm - 200mm f/4-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX VR, the

Nikon 70-300 DX VR lens is pretty interesting and I am sure there are some good Tamron/Sigma

alternatives that should be considered as well.

 

I would appreciate any advice that I can get on what lens to choose (staying within a budget of ~$400 or

less). What has the group's experience been with the 55-200?

 

Thanks in advance!

I've been happy with the Nikon 70-300mm f4-5.6 ED zoom lens, which can be found second hand for less than $200. This is not the G version of this lens, which has a plastic mount, but the ED version which has a metal mount and an ED glass element. I think this zoom offers the best "bang for the buck" of all available zooms under $400, though I don't have any information on other manufacturers zooms which may also be very good.

 

Dave

The Nikon 80-200mm 2.8 AF two rings is a GREAT lens but even used out of your budget, they go from $550 and up used.

 

The next best thing IMHO would be the Tokina AT-X pro 80-200mm 2.8, you can get a good used one for around $400 +/- .

 

I have the Tokina 100-300mm f:4 ATX AF-II and I'm very happy with it, but is a hard to find lens.

 

here is a few shots with the Tokina 100-300mm and D2H.

 

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c41/EastCoastHucker/_DSC0079-1.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>

 

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c41/EastCoastHucker/_DSC0120-1.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>

 

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c41/EastCoastHucker/_DSC0100-1.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>

good job!

I suggest you try both lenses you are interested in for yourself, at the same time, and make a decision based on your results of side-by-side testing. Return the one you like least. There are many retailers that will take back lenses without a restocking fee.

 

Personally, I have owned the non-vr versions of both and did not like the 70-300 at all, especially beyond 200mm. I bought my 55-200 for a job that came up after I had sold my 24-120 and was waiting for my 18-200 to arrive. I kept it because the image quality was superior to any lens I had ever used up to that time. Although I currently own the 70-200 VR and the 18-200 VR, I kept the 55-200 because it truly is a superb lens, offering image quality comparable to the 70-200. It is lightweight and fun to use.

 

Considering the price difference between the 70-200 and the 55-200, you would think there would be a noticable difference in picture quality between the two. At least for my lenses, there isn't!

I have the Nikon AF-S 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 G VR and find it to be very very good. I paid $550

at Samy's Camera in Los Angeles, walk-in, so mail order may be less. I recently shot a

philharmonic rehearsal with a Nikon D70s in a gym with florescent light, all hand held and

got some very impressive shots:

 

http://www.kohanmike.com/rehearsal.htm

Jim, How much total weight does your wife want to deal with? You need to take her to a camera shop and try out the different lenses. I have the 70-300VR on a D50, the lens weighs around 2lbs and personally find it acceptable around my neck for serveral hours. Quality of the pictures are excellent, Photozone.de has it rated at 3.95 out of 5.0. The G version is rated at 1.76 and the ED version at 2.52. Good luck.

Nikon D50 with 70-300 VR lens<div></div>

2nd picture with Nikon D50 and 70-300 VR lens

I have the 18-70 mm lens and I decided to supplement it with the 55-200 mm lens. There have been some occasions where it would have been convenient to go longer, but they are few and far between. The 55-200 mm is a lot less expensive than the alternative and it is adequate for my needs. Also, the overlap with the 18-70 mm lens comes in handy.

I have the 70-300vr..I traded in my 70-300 ed lens because I simply could not get a clear shot over 200 without a tripod..too shaky. I would highly recommend the vr lens in either range.It is a must unless she likes carrying a tripod around! Sounds like the 70-300 vr would fill the gap. Its a very nice lens (much better then the ED version)..a bit heavy but I have gotten use to it. Get a nice strap OPtech for $20 to bear the extra weight. Also read kenrockwell's setting for the D80..they are right on!

Thanks for all the responses so far. We just got back from spending the afternoon at Cabrillo

Point in San Diego and my wife definitely was wishing she had something with longer reach

than the 18-70. We stopped by a Ritz Camera this afternoon and looked at both the 55-200

and 70-300 VR lenses. Regarding the weight, don't think that is an issue since I am the one

that is carrying the camera bag... :). She like both and appreciated the overlap she would get

with the 55-200. The issue right now is the lens mount - the 55-200 is plastic while the

70-300 is metal. Not sure how much of an issue that really is, so any advice/thoughts on

this would be helpful. Any thoughts on Sigma or Tamron lenses in this range?

Hi, I have the 18-70 nikkor lovely lens. I also have the 18-200vr and now the 18-70 is almost never used. even though its sharper. May be selling it soon.

 

However back to the point. When I was using the 18-70. I sometimes wanted to a longer lens as your wife notes. however when I wanted longer its always quite a bit longer. I borrowed my BrotherInLaws 55-200 when we went for a holiday. and its not bad when I needed long. But I didnt find the over lap useful since the 18-70 was a much better lens so I tended to swap back to the 18-70 when I wanted 50-100 range. (You can crop a 70mm image to make a 100mm Frame of View without loosing too much IQ)

 

It really depends on what your wife likes to take photos of.. different people see the world in diff FOVs if she is really keen on tele then maybe the 70-300vr would be a better choice to suplement the 18-70. I might(but not likely) have chosen this option had the 70-300vr been available when I got my 18-200vr. since you really dont need an overlap because you can crop. You may consider the 80-400VR or the sigma version 80-400 OS which reviews well. or even the 100-300. or the 50-500 sigma. but the prices start going up... and you will need a strong tripod as the lenses start getting to be fairly large and heavy.

 

again it all depends on how your wife sees the world. which will be her main lens? if she is tele person then maybe the 70-300 or 55-200 is what she wants. if she is a wideangle person the 10-20 or 12-24 is nice. I have the 12-24 but I hardly use it. I find that my ranges are 18-24 (40%) and 60-70(20%) and 150-300(40%) so the 18-200 suites me very well. but I am wanting more reach sometimes but not often unless I am chasing birds. for that I have the 200-500 tamron on my wish list. Good luck with your choices! I hope my musings helped.

Good questions. My wife sees the world with an eye towards human interest photos, though she definitely has an eyes for artistic nature shots, landscapes, etc. What she wants is a great lens that will allow her to catch people during those unguarded moments that define the true nature of human interaction, a view that probably reflect the mentoring she received under her photojournalist father. Hence, she wants a zoom that works well in natural light, both indoor and outdoor. She is a little concerned that the 70-300 might not work as well under those conditions. VR definitely is a benefit for the shooting situations she will find herself in as a tripod is a little invasive during those candid moments.

My Two Cents:

 

The best type of lens for people shots is a normal to tele zoom with a constant aperture of f/2.8. I have the Sigam 50-150mm f/2.8 and it's perfect for people shots. It may be a little out of your price range though. I paid $580 at www.sigma4less.com. But if you can find a used 70-200mm f/2.8 or something similar for around $400 that would be great. I find that I really like the extra on the wide end of the Sigma lens, but she may like the extra distance on the long end of a 200mm lens.

 

An f/2.8 lens is great for people. You can use it with natural lighting indoors, and you can use it outdoors on gloomy days or as the light is getting low in the evenings. The wide aperture will really blurr the backgrounds to really focus your attention on the person in the photograph, and it will allow for faster shutter speeds to freeze the action, weather it's a running child or someone throwing their head back in laughter.

 

If you feel you need even more distance to not be noticed by those you are photographing, then a 70-300mm VR would be the next best thing. I highly recommend VR if you are using anything 200mm or more. It doesn't have a wide aperture so it won't handle low light situations as well, but the VR will definitly help with hand shake at the long end.

 

Remember: You can always use a monopod to make up for VR, but there is no replacement for a wide aperture.