suggestion please

<p>Finally, I bought the D80. The next big questinmark is: what lens?<br>

Low light(indoor family shots, church, conferences, so it's not that dim like in a theater),tele but not for serious things like(flying birds or animals..people on the streets and landscape) and for general.<br>

I have 6 choices from to chose 2 or max 3 lenses, so: 18-55Vr(general), 55-200 Vr and for low light 50mm/1.8, 135mm/f2.8. My budget is max 300 $. Please help</p>

<p>If you want to spend all of it, buy the 50mm f/1.8 and the 55-200mm. The former will set your expectations of what good Nikkor glass is supposed to look like, and the latter is not a bad lens for its price. I did not care for the 18-55mm in version one, but version II is supposed to be better. It would have to be a LOT better IMO.</p>

<p>Ok, you've got 300 bucks total? That won't get you two lenses, let alone three. So, to start, you can pick up the Nikkor 50mm f1.8 for about a hundred bucks on ebay, or band new in a store for $130.00.</p>

<p>With a couple hundred bucks left over, you won't get a Nikon VR lens or any OS Sigma lens either. With that said, if you're only going to go with two lenes, shop around for the Nikon 18-200 VR. It's a great lens if you only have to have one main lens. It's going to bust your budget...but maybe some others will chime in with some other options....</p>

<p>i would get the 18-70mm af-s kit lens for general purpose ($175), the 50mm for low light ($100); and save a little more for 55-200 VR ($200); OR the 18-70mm with the 55-200mm, stretching your budget a little bit to about $375, and don't eat out for a few days to save for the 50mm :-)</p>

<p>50mm AF 1.8D for just over $100, lens 1. IMO, you simply have to have something 'fast' both for creative and functional reasons. </p>

<p>For $150, the 18-55mmVR which is horrible slow, and feels like styrofoam, but covers from wide-angle to short telephoto, lens 2.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>so, the 50mm is definetely the 1st lens, but..wide vs tele..I'm in trouble.thanx for the suggetions anyway:)</p>

<p> I suggest the 18-55 VR to go along with the 50/1.8.</p>

<p>A normal fast lens could be the Nikkor 35mm f2 AF-D. Look for a used one. For a general all round lens I suggest the 18-70mm, mine was pretty good and faster than the 18-55mm. You might be able to find a 35mm f2 and 50mm f1.8 and be in budget. both fast and both very good.</p>

<p>it could be worse, thomas. if you had bought a d40 or d60, you would have a lot less options to choose from as far as used and 3rd party lenses. definitely start with the 50 and the 18-55. you dont need VR for such a short focal length. with the $80 or so left over, start saving your $$ for the 55-200 VR. or look for some good used lenses.</p>

<p>Nikon 18-70mm ED AF-S zoom. It is the perfect match to the D80.</p>

<p>I would go for the 18-70 and the 50mm f/1.8. I had a D80, and the 18-70 was a great general purpose lens; wide angle to medium telephoto. Whenever I had to shoot in low light I would use the 50mm f/1.8. On a D80 I actually found that I used the 50mm more than I did my 70-200mm f/2.8.</p>

<p>I'm going nuts,(the 18-70 is not on my "list") and honestly I'm confused.Can anybody write pros-cons to each lens(why to buy the 18-55 and the 55-200)?</p>

<p>Slow lenses suck, so the less you spend on 'em the better, which would be an argument against the 18-70 ($269) and an argument for the 18-55 ($120).</p>

<p>The 18-55 vs. a 55-200 is a personal choice. I have no idea of your experience an vision, but I think there's *often* (generalizing horribly) a tendency in new photographers to gravitate towards telephotos, but when you start <strong>seeing </strong>and working with a wide-angle lens, and making interesting pictures...you'll have gotten somewhere significant.</p>

<p>Both the lenses you mention are optically good when stopped down from f8 to f14 . Construction and feel is instead pretty poor (if not ugly). You can forget the VR on the 50-200 and find it used on ebay for 100-130 $.<br>

A do not have the 18-55 anymore, I have found a good copy of tamron 17-50 f2.8 for 220$. Bought the 50-200 (not VR) for its weight. I am using it more and more and at the said the the 80-200 F2.8.<br>

If I was you, and given your budget, I would look for the said couple (used and without VR) plus a good flash (not Nikon), you can find a Metz 45 for 60/100 $ (and maybe less). You will have to learn how to compensate for some limitations and lack of automation in flash exposure.<br>

The D80, that I own and use, is not really good in low light. You can't go over 400ISO retaining a good image quality, so forget to use it handhold in low light even with really fast lenses or VR unless you are looking for camera and motion blur. Consider this: on a DX body with a 200mm lens you will need at elast 1/300 to handhold it successfully (1/75 with VR). 1/75 and f5.6 (at 200mm) at 400ISO requires some more light then generally available in internals (except, maybe, in sport environments), and this is to stay on the best condition you could have (VR). That's why you need a flash.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thomas, in the Photo.net classifieds...the very first entry of FEB 03 is an 18-135 zoom for $200. This is the original kit lens for the D80.</p>