Jump to content

One nice lens for D300 and a petite person?


savitri_wilder

Recommended Posts

<p>First of all I am an amateur who would love to get better and maybe (if I ever get to be worthy enough) later get paid (portrait). I'm taking a photography class now and really enjoying it. My main subject now are my kids and when we travel it's landscape and architecture.<br>

Currently I have a Canon XTi (my husband uses this now) and a Nikon D300 + 50mm lens. The Nikon is what I'm wanting your thoughts on.<br>

I'd like to get a nice all around lens. I'm not a big girl and I often go places with the girls (a 5-yr-old and a 4.5 mo. that I carry around in a carrier -- so far she does not like her stroller). I'd like to get a nice all around lens that's not heavy but with a good quality lens and decent range. I love the 50mm that I have. Light+fast and honestly I haven't needed anything more but we will be living in England for the next four years and would love something decent for landscape, architecture, and people.<br>

I did some reading and even though the 18-200mm has a nice range and not that heavy, the image quality isn't very good and since my goal is to get better so that later I can charge I'd want something that's decent in terms of image quality. I also read up on the 17-55mm and even though it seems like a great lens, it's heavier.<br>

Oh, we have a 70-200mm (I think) for the Canon and I've only used it twice (our trip to Neuschwenstein). I guess if it's too far I'm not interested. I rather get a wide angle than a zoom. <br>

So, should I get the 18-200mm or should I go for a wide angle (10-24mm maybe or the Tokina 11-16mm) + something in between (16-85mm) and maybe later get a longer lens? I also like fast lenses (and bokeh) but they're all so heavy it seems. Between the weight of the D300, the 4lb Manfrotto and baby I don't have a lot of muscles left :) Budget: $1,500.<br>

Also, how do you know if you're good enough to charge people? I have friends asking me if I'm for hire but I don't feel confident.<br>

Thanks!!!!!</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I would skip the fairly heavy D300 and buy the very similar but smaller D90. Image quality will be the same, and the D300 offers you no advantages for the extra weight. For a lens, the Nikon 16-85mm VR is a good performer with a wide range. It's not fast though. There is another lens out there that I think would get you started that is fast and doesn't weigh nearly as much as the Nikon 17-55mm VR. It's the new Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC. Lens has been getting very good reviews, and I think it will do what you want. You can later add another lens such as Tokina 11-16m f2.8 or something like a 70-300mm VR. You never know, Nikon (or Sigma) could come out with a relatively fast 80-200mm f4 lens at some point soon. That would be about right for what you're wanting.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>You have used fast glass so my guess you would not be happy with any of the slower zooms. I recommend you get the Tamron 17-50/2.8 and a flash unit. The Tamron is light and takes great pictures. Go to a retail store and ask if you can mount the 17-50 on your camera and take a couple of pictures so you can see if you would be happy with the weight and picture quality.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The 16-85 seems like the lens for you. The 24-70/2.8 would be better for portraits, but it's big and for general use is limited on the wide end on a D300. The 16-85 is a reasonable compromise between quality, portability and range. Bear in mind that you do need to make compromises regarding, quality, weight, price, range and convenience.<br>

For charging, try to get some critiques from objective sources (i.e. people who will not just pat you on the back) and try to check out what other people in the business in your area are offering to know the market. Knowing the market (i.e. style, fees, quality of work, types of packages offered) is really important.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Tough call. The 17-55 would be an obvious choice - but you already state that it is too heavy. A lighter alternative then is the Tamron 17-50. Problem with both is that one often misses a bit more range at the long end. And for those architecture shots one wishes for more at the shorter end. The 16-85 looks like the best compromise for an all-around lens - but I am not that keen about the f/5.6 at the long end - it's rather limiting for portraits. The Tokina 11-16 is a nice lens (I have one) but the range is quite narrow making it rather a specialty lens. You don't say which 50mm you have - I assume it is the 50/1.8 - a nice lens in its own right. Considering your budget, I'd probably go for the Tokina 11-16 (or the 12-24) and the Tamron 17-50. If you feel the 17-50 is too short, get the 16-85.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 17-55/2.8 is superb and will give great results. It's bigger and heavier but I got used to it very quickly. You might consider a used one and pick up an 85mm prime for portrait work. I have used Tamron for years and have been pleased. You might consider their 17-50 and use the savings to add some type of portrait lens. A 105/2.5 that is AI will meter on your camera and is an incredible portrait lens. The manual focus is dirt cheap these days, like under $150.00. You can take that budget and put together a first rate group of lenses. Add an 80-200/2.8 which may come in handy and a good flash and you are set for the long haul.

 

Rick H.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Sounds like you literally have your hands full, Savitri! Lots of good suggestions here.<br /> Kent, she says she already has the D300 -- I'd agree with you, though. A smaller-bodied camera might be part of the solution. The 18-200 VR rarely leaves my D90, but my next purchase will be the 35mm 1.8. Compact, fast and versatile.<br>

[edited after re-reading the OP]</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>If you were absolutely only going to have 1 lens, </em> the 18-200mm is without a doubt the way to go.</p>

<p><em>"how do you know if you're good enough to charge people?"</em> Do a few events for free. If you are your customers are happy with the results, you are probably ready.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Wow folks, lots of suggestions!!! I didn't expect to get an answer (a lot of it too) within a short length of time.<br>

I just skimmed (got to finish cooking) and yah, the extra camera isn't possible. If I got another one, lighter Nikon, my husband would shove the XTi back at me and tell me to take the D90 back :)<br>

After the kiddos are asleep I'll come back and check all the recommendations out and again THANK YOU sooooo much!!!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>i would recommend the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 or the sigma 18-50mm f/2.8. the tamron is a little lighter and takes 67mm filter. the sigma tales 72mm. i have both and they both suit me fine for similar situations that you call for. but my primary use for both of them are for weddings and similar events. ........but i am glad you have gained experience in using just the 50mm ----- great for portraits, too. i use it for portraits that i get paid for. complete your trio with the 11-16mm or 10-24mm and you're all set, and well within your budget.</p>

<p>the 18-200 will add extra weight on your D300. and you said it yourself, if it's too far, you probably won't/don't like it :-)</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I am learning lighting now but more natural lighting. I have a few studio pieces but rarely practice. I do use my reflector. I will take studio next semester. I also have access to lens/equipment rentals on campus (free due to me taking photo classes) although the Nikon ones are limited.<br>

But because of our military move I'd like a (or two) nice lens (my own and not a rental) to take pictures with besides the only one I have. I've had my D300 for only a few months and went w/ the inexpensive 50mm 1.8 to test the camera out and my comfort level with it. Now I'm ready to buy one-two lens before our big move.<br>

The Tamron... will it last? Do you get what you pay for sine the cost is so much less? I have no intention of sitting in the cold for a bird picture or hiking with it but I will use the lens.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Nikon 18-200 af vr. I used it 99% of the time it has wide angle for scenes, buildings while at the same time it is a good lens for shooting portraits on the run. I also use an 80-400 while on the street, however it is very heavy and would not be good for your use I believe. I have the 85 1.8 nikon which is a great portrait lens, but you do not have the flexability of the 18-200 lens. The 18-200 lens pretty much never leaves my Nikon D300 body.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Nikon 18-200 af vr. I used it 99% of the time it has wide angle for scenes, buildings while at the same time it is a good lens for shooting portraits on the run. I also use an 80-400 while on the street, however it is very heavy and would not be good for your use I believe. I have the 85 1.8 nikon which is a great portrait lens, but you do not have the flexability of the 18-200 lens. The 18-200 lens pretty much never leaves my Nikon D300 body.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...