D300 - Which Lens for All Around?

<p>Hi,<br>

I have been doing a lot of reading and have decided that a D300 is going to be the way to go for me. Now

that I have decided on a camera I am moving on to which lens would work best for an all around lens if there is such

a thing.<br>

I have the following lenses from years ago when I was using my Nikon FM:<br>

Nikon Series E 50mm 1:1.8<br>

Nikon AI-S 105mm 1:1.8<br>

From what I have learned on here both lens will work with the D300 with the exception of the AF. This is good so that hopefully I can get good results with these and save a little money for

now.<br>

I would like to buy a kit with the D300 purchase and get at least one good AF lens to be my all around lens to

the best extent possible.<br>

Photography is a hobby for me (not a professional) and I will mostly be taking pictures of my kids sporting

events (football, basketball, horse riding, etc...). Everything will be outdoors with the exception of basketball

as far as their sports go. I will be able to get close (baseline, sideline, etc...) and don't mind walking around to

stay close. I live on the water and get fantastic sunsets that I would also love to photograph.<br>

I am looking forward to getting back into it and learning the new technology! Thanks in advance for any

input. This site is great!<br>

Jeff</p

<p>I think you'll find that a 50mm (and especially a 105) is too long for your all-around lens. A 35/2 (like Nikon's) or a 30/1.4 (like Sigma's) may turn out to be far more useful if you're absolutely opposed to including one of Nikon's less expensive kit zooms in with your purchase. <br /><br />The 50/1.8 is so inexpensive, though, that I can't see any reason to skip that while also getting something like the 16-85 VR general walk-around type use.</p>

<p>in my very unexpert opionion that i have made from reading many discussions on here and other forums/reviews...the same lense i intend upgrading my kit lenses for<br>

....the 16-85mm VR</p>

<p>Jeff.</p>

<p>I would go for the AF 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED-IF AF-S DX.<br>

Almost never left my D70/D200 when I had those cameras. I think it is the best lens for the money. Can't see the reason for VR at such short lens.</p>

<p>Matt,<br>

A zoom is what I am looking for, I should have specified that. I have read up on an 18-200 2.8 VR which seems like it would work great, but many suggest using a tripod/monopod and it is very expensive. I am guessing this lens would be too heavy as a walk around type lens.<br>

Would a 16-85 be long enough to do sports like I was talking about while still fitting the bill for a good walk around lens?<br>

Jeff</p>

<p>The Nikon 18-200mm VR is not a heavy lens, and would probably be your best bet for what you want.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Another vote for the 16-85. Very good general use lens. I have one and it lives on the camera most of the time.</p>

<p>Another vote for the 18-70 zoom. It's cheap and probably sharper than the 18-200. And remember, the angle of view on the 18-70mm is the same as 27-105mm on a film camera.</p>

<p>i am one of the lovers of the 18-70mm kit lens here. it's a lot faster and sharper than the 16-85mm and 18-200mm, especially outdoors and indoor with flash. i have used it succesfully with high school sporting events. but that is probably its limit. your 50mm and 105mm will complement it well. i use this kit lens in my everyday-carry d70s, together with the 50mm f/1.8<br>

there will be other suggestions coming. good luck.</p>

<p>I use the 18-200 VR on my D300 daily as my standard walk around lens. It is very versatile and can produce some beautiful results. It is not fast, but for most of your shots, you will not need a tripod or monopod. The VR really does work to improve your handheld shots and the high quality, high iso ability of the D300 will also extend the range of low light shots that you can get. The D300 is my first DSLR after shooting with Canon film SLRs for years. The capabilities of the D300 just blew me away when I first started using it and even though it's been a year, I'm still amazed at what an incredible camera it is. I think you'd be pleased with the 18-200 VR. I also bought a Sigma 30 f1.4 prime to use as my standard lens which has been just wonderful and works quite well with the D300 indoors in low light. Enjoy your new camera! You'll find lots of good help here.<br>

Dick</p>

<p>I agree with Kent. I have the 18-200, and it's the lens that stays on the body most often when I don't have any particular plan, and want to keep things versatile, light, and down to one lens. It will serve passably well for sports in good light. Your D300's ability to work well at higher ISOs means that you can stop the lens down a bit and still maintain high enough shutter speeds for some action.<br /><br />Normally, when I'm shooting action stuff in the field, I like a faster lens (say, f/2.8), but sometimes things happen when I'm not out carrying the big guns. <strong><a href="../photo/7830418&size=lg">This one</a></strong>, for example, was indeed taken with the 18-200, at 200mm, in so-so light. ISO 320, 1/400th, at f/5.6 (which is as wide-open as that lens will go at 200mm). Sure, I'd have liked a higher shutter speed, which a larger aperture would have provided. This was taken with a D200, which I hate to shoot much about ISO 320 or 400. Your D300 could easily have made a clean shot of it at ISO 800, and thus get close to 1/800th, shutter-speed-wise, or perhaps 1/640th, and stopped the lens down a bit for some more sharpness.<br /><br />So, as much as I get along with the 18-200, you'll get along with it even better, since the D300 can let you use it in more of an exposure and sharpness sweet spot, given the same light.</p>

<p>You can get one of those 16, 17 or 18 to nnn zooms as a "walk around" lens, but if you are serious enough to get a D300, you'll need a more dedicated lens to shoot sports, somthing faster and longer for football and horse riding. A slow f5.6 zoom will not be a good match for the D300 for shooting sports.</p>

<p>I think there is a difference between a walk around lens and a action lens. I like the 16-85 for its wide end as a one lens does all for daytime snaps or tripod landscape work. I had the 18-70mm and thought it was a good daytime walk around but a bit lacking on the wide end. A 85mm f1.8 and walk or a f2.8 zoom would work much better IMHO for sports action work.</p>

<p>Get a D90 and spend the rest on glass.<br>

The 18-200 is not of course 2.8. Nice if it was. Ummm very nice.</p>

<p>Okay from the sounds of it I would probablly need to lenses to do what I want to do. With that of course only comes more questions:<br>

"Walk Around Lens"<br>

16-85 or 18-70 from what I have seen so far the 16-85 is twice the price of the 18-70 but has VR<br>

"Sports Lens"<br>

70-200 f/2.8 VR or 80-200 f/2.8 from what I have seen so far the 70-200 is twice the price of the 80-200, but has VR.<br>

Do you think the VR is that important to pay twice the price?<br>

Would the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 be too slow for sports?<br>

I think I saw a 18-200mm f/2.8 VR for about twice the price of the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6<br>

Thanks again for all of the input. This is very helpful in trying to make a correct choice.<br>

Jeff</p>

<p>In the case of the 70-200/2.8 VR vs. the 80-200/2.8 (no VR) - <em>specifically for sports</em> - the VR isn't that much of an issue. Why? Because most of the time you're at high enough shutter speeds (to freeze the action of your subjects) that the VR isn't going to make much of a difference for that specific type of shooting. You can use a tripod or monopod to help steady yourself on the sidelines.<br /><br />Just remember: the wider open the lens, the more shallow the depth of field. At 200mm, at f/2.8, on middle-distance subjects... not a lot will be in focus in front of, or behind the point at which you're focusing. That makes it all the more important that the camera is helping you to keep things in carefully in focus, on the subject you're shooting. And while Graham brings up an interesting point (the D90 is a nice camera, and less expensive that the D300), one of the the most important things that the D300 brings to the table is a very nimble auto focus system, very well suited to sports type shooting. The D300 is also better weather sealed, more rugged, and shoots faster - all of which can contribute to more success in the field. Likewise the greater externality of many of the controls on the camera body.<br /><br />Unless you expect to use the 70(or 80)-200/2.8 in <em>non</em>-sports situations (low light social events like weddings, or candids, or portrait-style shooting off the tripod, etc), the VR does add a lot of cost that you might be better off spending on something else you'll get a lot of use out of: a very good tripod, and a strobe like the SB-800. <br /><br />You will not, by the way, find an f/2.8 18-200 lens. Just ain't so.</p>

<p>Slow down. For everyday, the 18-200mm VR is light-weight, has great range, produces terrific walk-around images. It is extremely versatile and the VR works wonderfully. It focuses relatively fast IMO. I'm no pro, but the pix produced from the D80 & this lens were awesome and the D300 is even better at lower light. Photos have been stunning with this combination and the results are by far more limited by the guy using the equipment (me) than by the equipment itself. No, it isn't a 28-70mm f/2.8 but the 18-200mm also won't give you agonizing back pain after 6 hours around your neck and has greater range. <br>

When I go even lighter with my D300, I snap on the 35mm f/2 (about $320). For family portrait/events I often use the 50mm f/1.8 (about $100). All very light weight.<br>

Wide angle? I like the Tokina 12-24mm (built like a tank for about $400) but it's a little heavy to walk around with all day.</p>

<p>Try to find a used 18-70mm and 80-200 f2.8 (make sure you get the correct version, I don't know which has the fastest focus response) zoom. For sports I think you will want the D300 focus system.</p>

<p>Get a used Nikon 20-35mm f2.8 AF lens. It is super sharp lens</p>

<p>I *love* my 18-200. True, jack of all trades, master of none, but no shots missed when you don´t have to change lenses! And Capture NX corrects distortion nicely. For the price, it cannot be beaten.</p>

<p>If your not anal retentive, the 18-200 is a excellent lens for catching most things. If you can afford a multitude of top class glass and have the desire to change a lens every five minutes, then maybe it's not for you. But if you want a all rounder of pretty good quality, it's a good buy. There are some fantastic shots on here and other sites using it, like Matt's above, which may i say is beautiful. You wont need to use a tripod or mono pod, it's not that heavy, i love mine on my 300. Also, you can't go wrong with the 50mm f1.8 either for the money.</p>

<p>18-200 for walk-around. It is a great lens. It has distortion at some focal lengths, but this is easily fixed. Also some softness in the corners. That is the price for the zoom range.</p>

<p>Richard,<br>

I don't know enough yet to be that anal retentive. LOL!!! Maybe someday, but not yet. <br>

From the sounds of things and trying to stay in a realistic budget from me I think I am leaning toward the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VRII lens.<br>

After seeing Matt's picture in the field (by the way it was very cool). I think I can learn with this lens and with time I will learn if I need other more specialized lenses. Only buying one lens I think I will take the savings and buy a SB-800!<br>

Thanks again for all of the input. I hope someday I will be able to contribute to this forum as much as you guys do. <br>

You all have been a big help!<br>

Jeff</p>

 

<p>Richard Turner , Jan 07, 2009; 06:12 p.m. wrote: <br /><br />> If your not anal retentive, the 18-200 is a excellent lens for <br />> catching most things. If you can afford a <br />> multitude of top class glass and have the desire to change a <br />> lens every five minutes, then maybe it's not for you. <br /><br />No need for the exaggeration. The 18-200VR is generally a good lens if you're willing to accept its limitations (reduced contrast, strong barrel distortion at 18mm, soft at 200mm). <br /><br />But you certainly don't need to be anal retentive to dislike it. Nor is the alternative to change lenses every 5 minutes. Fact is, if it's a good lens, you shouldn't need to resort to hypberbole to promote it. <br /><br />For me, I found that after a year+ of ownership, I got tired of avoiding the long end and have sold it, replacing it with a 16-85VR instead. This way I get a wider focal length with half as much distortion, and the 85mm limitation is acceptable to me since I was avoiding the long end on my 18-200VR, anyway. And BTW, I do have some good glass (eg: 17-55/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 VR) but I still appreciate a smaller, lighter, more convenient lens...but I just wasn't willing to put up with the 18-200VR's quirks. <br /><br />My friend, who has worked with a much more modest set of gear (D50, 18-55 kit lens, 55-200) for a couple of years, just bought a D90 and 18-200VR package. Like me, he has a love/hate relationship with it, and this is after only a month of ownership. Loves the convenience and good results on the short end (and the VR) but hates the long end. <br /><br />> But if you want a all rounder of pretty good quality, it's a good <br />> buy. There are some fantastic shots on here and other sites <br />> using it, like Matt's above, which may i say is beautiful. <br /><br />You're right on that point. It is capable of pretty good quality. All lenses have limitations. If you can live within them, then there's no reason not to get that lens. <br /></p>

<p>Jeff, the 18-200 is truly a good choice. Here is an example from my D300 at f8, 1/200 sec, iso 640, 200mm, handheld. The VR helps and you can judge for yourself about the quality at the long end...</p><div></div>