Ideal lens for Nikon D300

<p>I own a Nikon D300. I am planning to buy the following two lenses.<br>

1. AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-85mm f 3.5-5.6G ED VR from Nikon<br>

2. AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED (4.3x)<br>

My main interests are Landscape,wildlife (Birds mainly) and portraits. My kit lens is 18-135mm. I request you to kindly give your views whether these lenses will serve my purpose.<br>

Thank you.</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

Those 2 lenses are both very solid performers, at a good price. They would serve you right, but... neither is really ideal for your purposes:<br>

- landscape: the 16-85VR is in my view darn close to ideal, though a wider lens (i.e. Tokina 12-24) also still has its uses. But the 16mm end is, in my view, much nicer than 18mm of the other lenses.<br>

- Portrait: both lenses are a bit slow; portraits often use wide apertures, and that's where both fall short. At a budget, consider the AF-D 85 f/1.8. If the budget is very flexible, the 85 f/1.4 is nicer. Others to consider are the 50mm lenses, or manual focus 85/105 mm lenses. Depends a bit on what you find a nice distance for portraits, the 18-135 can tell you your ideal focal length.<br>

- Wildlife, birds: 300mm is a bit short. Birds very often are done with very long (and costly) lenses. At a budget, the 70-300VR is about as good as it gets, but if the budget stretches further, others come into play (Sigma has interesting long lenses, Nikon 300 f/4 with TC14, and some more).</p>

<p>So, clearly the main question for me would be: what is your budget for this?</p>

<p>I'd go with the 10-24DX, 50 f1.8, 70-300 VR, and keep the 18-135 but that's just me.</p>

<p>Good comments so far. I'd consider a wider f2.8 zoom, perhaps the Tamron, instead of the 16-85.</p>

<p>I just sold my 70-300 - I found I hardly ever used it - as commented above it's too short for most wildlife shots.<br>

I don't see that a 16-85 will contribute much to your collection either if you already have a 18-135<br>

I have the same interests as yourself, and I use a Sigma 105 macro for portraits, a Tamron 200-500 for the wildlife. My next purchase will probably be 12-24 to get those wide landscapes.</p>

<p>Robert,</p>

<p>I suggest keep your existing 18-135mm kit lens and go for the AF-S 300mm f/4 and a TC 1.4EII for your birds. at f/5.6 at the long end I think the 70-300mm VR is a tad slow for wildlife and birds.</p>

<p>The AF-S 300mm f/4 is a full stop faster at 300mm and works brilliantly with the 1.4 TC on the D300 to give you effectively a 420mm f/5.6 telephoto lens.</p>

<p>For landscape use the lens that gives you your vision. It could be wide, normal or long it depends on what you want and your vision. Personally I like a 28mm to 35mm most often in the FX format. Your 18-135mm could serve you well or you may want something wider or longer to add to it. You might concider a short fast tele for portrait work depending on your style. A fast lens used wide open can give a very nice blurred background. For birds you will need good technique and knowledge of the subject. Probably a very good tripod setup and the longest lens you can afford. IMHO 400mm is not long enough for small birds when shooting in the field. If you have a blind or are near a feeder a 300mm can work very well.</p>

<p>The lenses are a solid choice for general photography, but I'll throw out another idea. Instead of the 16-85mm, look at a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. The f2.8 means you can shoot in much lower light. It might also be a bit better for portraits. I would also buy a circular polarizer for the landscapes. I think both lenses take a 62mm filter, but you could check on that. For portraits you will also want to eventually buy a Nikon SB-600 or two.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

<p>Forget about the 70-300mm for birds. Instead, look for a used Nikon 500mm f 4.0 P lens. It is manual focus, but is electronic and will meter on your D 300. An alternative, though short in focal length for birds, is the Nikon 300mm f 4.0 AFS plus the 1.4x tc. Do not buy the older AF version for birds in flight. For portraits, consider the 35mm f1.8 G AFS DX lens. I would sell your kit lens and get the 16-85mm. When your budget can afford it add the Nikon 70-200mm f 2.8 VR II lens. Joe Smith</p>

<p>The Nikon 16-85mm VR zoom lens is a very good match for the D300. And it is the perfect lens to use when shooting in low light because it has VR, "Vibration Reduction", which the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 lens does not have.</p>

<p><em>"it has VR, "Vibration Reduction", which the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 lens does not have."</em></p>

<p>dave, there is a VC version of the 17-50/2.8. what the nikon has that the tamron doesnt is an extra 35mm on the long end.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Ah well silly me, I didn't know the Tamron had that feature. Still, if I had a choice and didn't need f2.8, I'd go with the Nikon for the 1mm wider and 35mm extra telephoto. Overall I've found Tamron lenses to be superb, but I'd choose Nikon over Tamron if given the choice and money was no object...</p>

<p>Generally speaking, landscape, wildlife, and portraiture require somewhat different lenses, or at least lenses with different characteristics. </p>

<p>The 16-85 is a very nice lens, aside from its slow variable aperture, it's quite a good performer; and its fairly long zoom range makes it a versatile and lightweight travel lens. It's a good choice as long as it's not used to shoot moving subject in poor lighting: it's good for landscape. </p>

<p>For wildlife, and especially birds (which could be quite small and distant), long telephoto lenses with the largest/brightest aperture you can afford is ideal. I think if you're on a budget, primes like the 300 f/4 AF-S will get you better quality images than similarly priced, slower zooms. The 70-300 4.5-5.6 is a f/5.6 lens at 300mm, which's noticeably slower than the 300 f/4. This would make your situation challenging if your subject is moving (motion blur dude to the lens' slow speed), if you're shooting in poorly lighting (less light is entering the lens, and you have to compensate for it while sacrificing quality), and the AF system might struggle. (f/5.6 is by definition as slow as Nikon's AF systems can handle)</p>

<p>You might also want to check out the third party 70-200 f/2.8 zooms (with a teleconverter) as an alternative to the 70-300 f/4.5-5.6. </p>

<p>I'm not sure what kind of portraits you're taking. There're obviously different types of portraits utilizing different FLs, DOF, technique, and so on. Generally speaking, a faster lens (large aperture) would be ideal. As others have mentioned, a f/2.8 normal zoom should be fairly versatile for this job; as it offers a fast aperture for low light shooting and subject isolation, and a variety of FLs for different compositions. </p>

<p>A high quality, fast, and light prime lens could also be a feasible alternative as a portrait lens. The 50 f/1.8 AF-D and the 35 1.8 DX are two solid choices, assume you prefer the look and perspective of your respective FLs. </p>

<p>The 70-300 is a good allrounder maybe a touch short for some wildlife and a t/converter would be impractical.<br /> VR is usefull at the long end.<br>

If your budget extends to an F2.8 lens Tamron 17-50 its worth doing. VR is just hype on wide angle lenses but a faster F2.8 will be far more usefull.<br /> Nikons 18-200 VR is usefull with close focusing and light weght; but VR is only usefull at the long end to compensate for the slow aperture.<br /> For low light the Nikon 17-55 without VR is superb; get a used one if you can.</p>

<p>Dave,</p>

<p>Many, including myself, have found times when VR is very very useful at the wide end of a lens.</p>