nikon D300 + what lenses??

Hi all.

 

I decided to change from my Pentax K10D to a Nikon D300. I would like to focus

on architectural and portraits. What lenses should I add to the D300 considering

that I have a budget of maximum $2500.

Many thanks

 

Ovidiu

12-24mm f/4G + 17-55mm f/2.8G + 70-200mm f/2.8G + 24mm f/2.8 Tilt/ shift PC Nikkor (but the combination of the above blows your budget by at least 100%.)

Is $2500 the entire budget or just for the lenses? Are used lenses allowed? What are your opinons on using Sigma/Tamron lenses? Do you prefer zooms or fixed, or does that matter at all? Lots of avenues to choose from.

for portraits Nikkor 85/1.8, a Sigma 10-20 for the architecture and a Tamron 17-50 2.8 for common use. I think you wil close or just over the $2500.

2500 is for the WHOLE thing. Camera + lens(es). Are my hopes a bit too high ? :)

The truth is that I am trying to develop a portfolio in architecture (I am an architect myself) and portraits and then try to earn a bit of money, just enough to support my hobby. I do not want to break the bank by going totally crazy and then realizing that is not working so I am trying to go somewhere in the middle. Buying a decent body ( D300) and 2 decent lenses should be a start but...what lenses??

I got the D300, paid $190 for a used 18-70 Nikkor, $350 for a like new Tokina 12-24 and #100 of a 50mm f1.8 Nikkor (great portrait lens).

You can certainly get a D300 and two decent lenses for $2500. However, the lenses will not be optimised for anything as specific and demanding as architectural photography.

 

Without a PC lens, it's nearly impossible to prevent "keystoning" without backing way off from the building. If you can live with the distortion caused by this effect, a Tokina 12-24 f4 would work nicely.

 

For portraits, you can use a 50mm f1.8 which works out to a 75mm equivilent field of view on a DX sensor body.

 

Add these to a D300 and you come in at a little under $2500.

 

Personally, if I was trying to put together an architectural portfolio, I'd start with a lens such as a used manual focus Nikkor 24mm PC. They can be had used but are not inexpensive. It really depends on whether you really want professional looking results.

If it's not "pro" architectural photography, then Wayne's list is spot on, imho.

 

If it's pro, then 2500 isn't nearly enough...

with $2500 I'd go for a 17-55mm and 70-200mm.

 

two lenses that you may NEVER need to upgrade.

Also, not sure what kind of gear outside fo the camera you have, but a really really nice and stable tripod with a nodal ninja or similar panoramic head and a 10.5mm fisheye would be a good investment. This will allow you to do the QTVR panoramas of rooms. The 10.5mm fisheye is not a must for this though. That 12-24 Tokina, or other similar lenses (10-20 Sigma) would work as well.

 

If you don't mind Manual focus, there are a lot of nice and cheap older lenses out there that may do pretty well also. But you will definitly want some nice wide angle lenses (non-fisheye) for shooting your interiors.

 

I will be putting up a much older (no tripod collar/push-pull style) 80-200 AF-D f2.8 for sale here pretty soon. That lens, or one similar are awesome for portraits.

If your talking about $2500 for both, Nikon has a deal running now for THE D300 and a 18-200 VR lens at about $2200 bucks for the set.

BTW, that still leaves you enough left over for a 50mm f 1.4

mitch, i'd hardly suggest the 18-200 for architectural use. bad idea.

to the OP, get a 12-24 for architectural use, you can save $500 by getting the tokina. that puts you up to $2200 ($1700 d300 +500 tokina 12-24) not including batteries, memory cards, flash, and filters.

 

for portraits, you could stay within your budget with a 50/1.8 ($110). but for around $400 you could get the tamron 28-75, which is super sharp. or you could get the nikkor 85/1.8. but if i were you i'd start with a zoom and add primes later.

Very strange advice indeed to get a 12-24mm lens for architectural work. I think the 17-55 is a must, why have a D300 and a toy lens.A used manual focus perspective control lens is a great idea and a used 80-200mm there's three lenses well within budget.

Steve

I'm with Eric and I'd also go with an inexpensive 70-300mm lens, say the Tamron. It's slow but the lens is more than adequate for what you want to do. Then you'd be able to photograph interiors, use telephoto compression outdoors, and have coverage of enough focal lengths that you won't miss anything from wide to long.

 

I have to wonder about your choice of camera, though, since you wrote.:

 

>I do not want to break the bank by going totally crazy and then realizing that is not working<

 

That's what you're doing with the D300. Why not a D80? You'd save a lot of money and then, if you're any good at selling your work, and you make money at it, you can still purchase the D300 and use your D80 as a back-up (I don't think a professional should be without a backup), or sell it.

The best all round lens for the D300 is up to now the 17-55/2.8. As Juanjo says, you`ll never need to upgrade it for this camera. The longer end is a bit short for portraits; if you want to save a bit here (the 70-200 is pretty expensive) I would probably add a Sigma 50-150/2.8.

Wow..so many advices. I am totally confused now.

Dave. I think I am good at selling my work:). I just completed an assignment( architectural photo montage) and got $3571.8 ( ?3000) and shot everything with a $100 Sigma 28-200. I also know I could save money by getting a D80. I could save LOADS of money by sticking to my existing K10D together with the multitude of Pentax lenses I bought in the last few years but I love the new D300. The focus system is amazing and my idea is to get a camera that will still be a good camera in a couple of years. Zach Ritter mentioned the rest of the gear that I am going to need and he is perfectly right. I might have to expand my budget enough to allow for a good flash and a good tripod. Thats probably another $1000??

At the moment I am using a K10D together with Pentax SMCP-FA 50mm f/1.4 Lens+Pentax A 50mm f/1.7 MF+Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6+Sigma 28-200 f3.5-5.6+Pentax AF 360 FGZ Flash+Pentax BG2 Battery Grip. I know that I am not going to match this gear but I could always keep it as a backup gear and get the Nikon D300 plus a stunningly good lens.

Thank you all for your help.

Ovidiu

<<Very strange advice indeed to get a 12-24mm lens for architectural work. I think the 17-55 is a must, why have a D300 and a toy lens.>>

 

first of all, i'd hardly describe the tokina 12-24 as a "toy" lens -- it has a better build and about the same IQ as the nikkor for half the cost. (hmm, do i detect a bit of nikkor snobbery?) please remember that the OP's max. budget is $2500 including camera, or about $800 for lenses. given those limitations, 3rd party variants would be a solution.

 

second of all, while juanjo is right that the 17-55 is a workhorse, at $1200, it would completely blow the OP's budget while leaving him with only one lens.

 

thirdly, while 17-55 on a DX body is great for many situations, it's not really long enough for portraits and not really wide enough for interiors, which are important in architectural photography.

 

fourth, the tokina does have some distortion at 12mm, but it's easily-correctable in post-, unlike the sigma 10-20. (the sigma 12-24, which is a full-frame lens, would also work for architecture, but has other issues, like not being able to accept front-mounted filters.)

 

of course, if the OP wanted to get a lightly-used d200 instead, that would roughly double the amount left over for lenses. however, even $1500 is not enough to get the 70-200, much less two pro nikkors, so we're back to where we started.

Eric

You are right a used D200 a used 17-55 {mine cost $875 from Samy's} and a used 80-200 would be right on budget with bus fare left over, my point is that buying a D300 and putting a Kit lens on it makes no sense, if money is such an object surely a used D200 is a better bet. I have had two 18-70mm lenses and as good as they are optically they are still toys compared to 17-55, I just don't see the sense in breaking the bank to buy a D300 and putting a second rate lens on it. I just saw a thread where a guy wants to put a 17-55 on a D3 that's like putting diesel fuel in your Lamborghini. What's the point!

Steve

Ovidiu,

 

My advice would be to start with a base of lenses. Pick two lenses that fit your needs and build from there. There is not rule that says you need the 5 best lenses at the beginning. It is far worse, in my opinion, to buy lenses like Sigma and Tamron. I don't mind Tokina however (for the 12-24mm). Every photographer on this site will give you varying opinions because different lenses work for them. I started out with a D80 and two kit lenses. I have not upped my lenses to the 18-200mm VR, and the 80-400mm VR. I plan to add an 80-200 or 70-200 within a year or so. I am not in a rush because I plan to work at photography for a while. The two lenses I have are core for what I like to shoot. Buy the two lenses that are core for what you want to do. In this case, 1 for architecture and 1 for portraits. That said, I do like the inexpensive 50mm f1.8 for portraits ($109.95 NEW) or the 85mm f1.8 ($364.95 NEW). For your indoor work, you will need wide angle. You can correct distortion easily in Photoshop. If that helps, GREAT! If no, feel free to ignore it.

<<It is far worse, in my opinion, to buy lenses like Sigma and Tamron. I don't mind Tokina however (for the 12-24mm). >>

 

you're entitled to your opinion, but there seems to be a huge gap in logic here.

 

you say, "Pick two lenses that fit your needs and build from there." okay, what if my need is for the widest possible zoom on a dx body? or for the fastest wide aperture prime with an internal motor? or for a lightweight constant 2.8 zoom for a dx body with a wide end? or for a handholdable 2.8 tele zoom that wont scare people? for each of those situations, nikon does not currently make an applicable lens, but tamron, sigma and/or tokina do.

 

similarly, tokinas have great build quality, but dont always automatically have the best IQ or features. let's say you're trying to decide between their 50-135 and the sigma 50-150 (nikon doesn't make a dx zoom in this range). both lenses have great IQ. the fact that the sigma has HSM and is therefore faster-focusing makes a difference in low-light and action situations, which is an obvious application for such a lens.

 

i think you make the mistake of making broad generalizations here, but the fact is that each potential lens whether OEM or 3rd party has to be evaluated on its own merits and also by how much it meets your needs.

 

dont get me wrong, i love my tokina 12-24, but i also like my sigma 30/1.4 and 50-150/2.8 and my tamron 17-50, which basically orphaned my nikkor 18-70 kit lens since it was so much sharper and had constant aperture. my sharpest nikkor is actually the cheapest, the 50/1.8. i understand that lenses are status symbols for some, but i care more about bang for the buck.

Few days ago I had the change of having a professional studio+ a model for myself. I have shot with my Pentax K10D equipped with the vulgar Sigma 28-200 and a Nikon D3 with some expensive Nikkor lenses. At the end of the day I sat with the studio owner and looked through the photos. At one stage he spotted a shot ( a close up of the model's eyes) and said. WOW..you can see the advantage of shooting with Nikkor lenses here. look at the sharpness in this photo. And the photo was indeed very sharp but....it was shot with the Sigma 28-200 ($100). He didn't believe it so I had to show him the Exif. He did not say anything. He just blushed and moved on to the next shot. The morale is...you know it.

My decision is that I am going to get the D300 with a good kit lens ( I can see loads of people saying..woahh..eejit) and concentrate on the photography. At the end of the day if I shot with the Pentax K10D or with the Nikon D3 and based on my level of knowledge the result is going to be the same. I have to work on my artistic side first.

every test i've seen has put the nikon 18-xx zooms close to the 17-55 in optical quality. sometimes the devil's in the details. you're obviously gonna get more distortion with the 18-55 vs. 17-55 and you arent gonna get fantastic bokeh or constant aperture from a $99 zoom lens. but at f/8 or f/11 you'd probably have to pixel-peep to see the difference.

 

the 18-70 and 16-85 are 'good' kit lenses. the new the new nikon 14-24 and 24-70 are a notch better, with the nano coating are a step up. but i think your example of the sigma being sharper than expected proves your point.

I know the threads a few months old, But if you havnt already then here's my two cents.

 

d300 body - (A must, the best camera in its price range, with the sony a700 not matching clarity & the cannon e40d struggling under lower lighting and higher iso settings.

 

12-24mm - Perfect for your architectural shots., I dont use lower focal lens's myself, But I could lst more than enough recommendations

 

50mm - a great portrait lens. I use a nikon 50mm myself, and on both d80 & d300 its a brilliant portrait lens, although at times, (especially for more active sittings) i will often use a nikon 18-200 (see below)

 

18-200mm/18-250mm - For $200-$300 its worth getting a half-decent "all-in-one" lens, more for general use, holidays, etc.

I say it to everyone, but I feel every photographer amateur or more needs a good all-in-one lens, and sometimes, through any specialisation (portraits, architecture, etc, etc) there will always be a time when you could do with that extra focal length.

 

I'm in England, so cant be 100% sure on prices, But From UK conversions and some US prices i've seen, I think you should be able to get most of the above,

even if you opt for the slightly cheaper Tamron/Sigma lens over my preferred choice of Nikon Lens's.