'Got $300 at hand = What lens to buy?

<p>Hello all,<br>

I normally shoot weddings. I do own D300s and D80 bodies with Nikkor 17-50 mm f/2.8, Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8, and Nikkor 50mm f/1.7 micro. [i've also got SB900, SB800 and SB600 speedlight flashes].<br>

I now have $300 bucks at hand and 'was thinking of investing it on a lens, that I could also use it for portrait photography, at times.<br>

Any suggestion?</p>

<p>Thanks a lot,<br>

Alex </p>

<p>The thing you're missing is a 70-200 2.8. Ideal would be the Nikon but that's a lot more than $300. Sigma has their basic version for about $800. You have overlap with your 17-50 and 24-70. The 17-50 is probably better quality of the two. But in terms of coverage, you could sell it and get enough for the 70-200 Sigma, then maybe get something like a Tokina 12-24 to cover the wide end. That would give you complete coverage from 12-200. Another alternative is the Sigma 50-150 if that's still available or the Tokina 50-135, either one matched up with the 17-50. I don't ordinarily recommend moving away from Nikon glass but I'm thinking coverage and price.</p>

<p>I like Craig's thinking. (except I wouldn't buy a 70 to 200)<br />I think the $300 is burning an hole in your pocket.<br />I would save the money and logically plan the kit you want / need. <br />As is, there is too much overlap for only three lenses; as such it is neither efficient in respect of coverage nor lens speed – basically you have two cameras and two main zoom lenses and one short telephoto.<br /><br />WW</p>

<p>I agree with WW.</p>

<p>You have a huge amount of focal length overlap, which is what I'd remedy before purchasing another lens...but if your $300 is burning a hole in your pocket, you could invest in a 35mm f/1.8DX for about $250US...which is another lens that would overlap your current setup.</p>

<p>With DX format, I prefer to have zooms that cover 17-200mm at f/2.8~f/4 and either a 35mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.8 for low light.</p>

<p>Example:<br>

17-55mm (D300s)<br>

70-200mm (D80 for ceremony)<br>

35mm f/1.8 (D80 during reception)</p>

<p>Hope this helps!<br>

RS</p>

<p>85mm f1.8</p>

<p>Thank you Craig, Richarch, William and Dave for your suggestions!</p>

<p>Craig and William, I like the 'burning a hole' expression. It is normally true in my case. That is probably why I don't think I would be rich. :)</p>

<p>I noticed the overlap a long time ago but didn't do anything. It is probably a good time to either trade off or sell my Sigma. Although, I don't know which would be a good candidate for the trade off, if that is what I decide to do. </p>

<p>70-200 mm f/2.8 that most of you agreed up on seems to be the ultimate goal, which I will have to rework on my budget. I will save the $300 for now [May God help me do so!].</p>

<p>BTW William, I like your exmaples. Very informative.<br>

Dave, in which of William's example would you fit 85mm f1.8?</p>

 

<p>Good advice so far. Buy nothing. Save some more...</p>

<p>On a related note, many people often recommend 70-200's. They are certainly great optically (don't know about the Nikon equivalents) but they are certainly not 'must have' lenses for weddings or portraits.</p>

<p>I'd save it too. When you have $3000 you can talk about a new lens...</p>

<p>Keep the cash and wait for a time that you have a need. Add to it (save) and get the best you can when that need arises.</p>

 

Thanks, Mark, Colleen, and David W! You got good points and the 'save-now-buy-later' is out weighing the 'do-whatever-it takes' or 'fulfill your dreams at any cost' arguement. And I am convinced.

 

talk to you later,

Alex