marshall Posted August 29, 2008 Share Posted August 29, 2008 The 28-75 would be good. The 50/1.8 would be very good, but not very versatile. I've done some low-light (concert/performance) shooting with a combination of a Tamron 17-50 and a Nikkor 85/1.8. Because I like to be able to get a fairly-wide view, I find the 28-75 more limiting and quite like the 17-50. Also, not that it's specifically the topic: I've done a bunch of ISO1600 stuff with the D200 and been pretty happy with it. It doesn't deal well with any underexposure, but correctly exposed, ISO1600 files can be quite useful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shuo_zhao Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 >> " "The for one-lens-does-it-all lens, you'll need to go for the 18-200 Nikkor " not if you want to shoot low-light, no-flash stuff such as bands. much better to separate the focal range with a 28-75 and 70-200 or equivalents and get constant 2.8 aperture, or even get a collection of fast primes all the way up to 200/2. unfortunately, much more expensive too." I only made that claim because she specifically wanted the 18-200 coverage. Obviously a fast lens with that type of coverage does not yet exist, while multi-lens alternatives are most likely too expensive and complicated for her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hensil Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Laura, You have already received very suggestion but Eric Arnold has said everything i wanted to say. Get Sigma 1.4 because you said you loved your dad's 50mm and 30mm on D200 will give you same FOV. You'll need a fast lens because ISO above 800 on D200 is not so good. F/1.4 compared to f/2.8 is 4 times less light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stwrtertbsratbs5 Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 The 85/1.8 AF is an excellent lens. And, if you need more reach, consider a manual focus 105. There are f/1.8 and f/2.5 versions. More info here: http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofey_kalakar Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 35f2AFD<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurapond Posted August 30, 2008 Author Share Posted August 30, 2008 thanks for everyone's responses! i ended up buying the 50mm 1.4 since i can't afford the 30mm right now. i will probably buy the 28-75 soon because i still like the idea of that lens, and if i continue to do with the bands, i'll probably buy the 30mm down the line. i'm happy to have my 50mm again, my mother (my unwilling test subject) was not haha thank you again for all of your comments and suggestions! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now