Which of these lens' are best for my Nikon D50 camera please?

<p>I want to do nature, pet, and event photography and am considering buying one of the following lenses for my Nikon D50 camera to add to my lens collection. Which one would you recommend please?</p>

<p><br /> <br /> Nikon Nikkor AF 80-200mm f4.5-5.6 <br /> <br /> Nikon Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 G AF <br /> <br /> Nikon AF 70-300mm 300 mm <br /> <br /> Nikon 80-200mm f4.5-5.6 AFD<br /> <br /> Nikon Nikkor AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 G .<br /> </p>

<p><br /> Thank you for your help.</p>

<p>You say to add to your lens collection, what do you have already which isn't doing the job for you...and in exactly what ways is it insufficient?</p>

<p>Firstly, the easy bit: None of these lenses will autofocus on a D50, because none of them have an autofocus motor in the lens - they rely on an autofocus motor in the body, and the D50 doesn't have one. However, I notice you've got the 70-300 listed twice - maybe we're missing an important bit of the name. The magic letter sequence you're looking for is "AF-S" (or AF-I, but those lenses are rare). Just "AF" or "AF-D" won't autofocus unless you get a different camera.<br />

<br />

For a telephoto for your D50, I would suggest, in increasing order of budget:<br />

The "AF-S Nikkor 55-200mm 1:4-5.6 G ED VR" (cheap, optically good, image stabilized, autofocus on a D50).<br />

The "AF-S Nikkor 55-300mm 1:4.5-5.6 G ED VR" (same, but reaches to 300mm).<br />

The "AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm 1:4.5-5.6 G ED VR" (focuses faster if you're trying to follow a moving subject).<br />

The "AF-S Nikkor 80-200mm 1:2.8 ED" (wider aperture lets you freeze action better, discontinued).<br />

The "AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm 1:2.8 ED VR" (as the 80-200 but image stabilized, sharper than the 80-200).<br />

...but check reviews, don't take my word for it.<br />

<br />

Given the lenses you're looking at, I suspect the last two are out of your price bracket, even used, but I mention them in case you're in a position to splurge...<br />

<br />

However Stephen is right: we may be able to give better advice if you tell us what you're trying to achieve. Any of these lenses I've mentioned would complement the 18-55 kit zoom quite well, but any lens design is a compromise - we'd like to make sure we suggest the <i>right</i> compromise for you.<br />

<br />

Put another way, in addition to "what do you already have", "what kind of nature?" (landscapes are different from insects are different from lions), "what kind of pet?" (horse, big dog, lethargic cat, hamster, budgie, tarantula, fish...) and "what kind of events?" (football is different from a concert is different from a wedding is different from a night club).</p>

<p>I should add, if you find yourself considering the 70-300 that I listed above, also have a look at the Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 SP Di VC USD, which is roughly equivalent optically and might be cheaper. But I can claim only limited exposure to any of these, so please double-check for a second opinion.</p>

<p>I keep linking to the same thread when asked about lenses in this range. <a href="../casual-conversations-forum/00VVrS"><strong>Here are</strong></a> a couple of bird in flight photos taken with a D50 and the Nikon 70-300mm AFS VR. Should give you an idea of the sharpness of this lens wide open and its ability to focus. In the second shot particularly, the hummer was moving across my yard.</p>

<p>Nice images, Hector!</p>

Andrew, the D50 does have a built in af motor.

 

Regarding the 70-300 4-5.6 g, the cheap plastic one, not that great or that bad. Very soft at the long end. I would not

recommend it.

<p>Nathan: Oh poo. That's embarrassing - thank you for catching it. I did double-check, but clearly mis-read the compatibility chart. I should have remembered that the D40 was the first AF-S-only body, and it replaced the D50. Chloe: apologies for the confusion.<br />

<br />

I've also heard bad things of the old 70-300 (Canon and Nikon both released significantly improved 70-300 lenses at about the same time).<br />

<br />

I've dug up a review of the 80-200 4.5-5.6 AF-D that seems to like it, but I've no personal experience (though I've been happy with a 28-200 of similar vintage). As far as I can tell there's only one version of that lens - I don't think there's a non-D version. I think that suggests that, of the 80-200 and the various 70-300 lenses, you'd be better with the 80-200.<br />

<br />

However, if you can afford it, I still think a 55-200 VR (or better) would be the better choice - not least for the VR.</p>

Another option that would work, a 70-300 4-5.6 af D, available used for less than $150 in ex condition at KEH. I've only

used this lens one time and was amazed by the sharpness and build quality.

<p>Chloe, which lenses do you already have? What kind of events would you want to cover? What is your exact budget?<br>

Out of your list, the only lens I'd really recommend is the 70-300VR (Nikon Nikkor AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 G), as Hector's pictures show. The rest of them (including the 70-300D that Nathan recommends) simply aren't very good, and all of those have really slow autofocus (for sure the 70-300D and 70-300G are glacially slow). Else, the 55-200VR that Andrew suggested.</p>

<p>For event photography, I think all these lenses, including the 70-300VR, are challenging. The D50 isn't great in low light, and with these slow-aperture lenses, you're really going to be very limited. And for events consider the construction quality as well; most of these are lightweight lenses that will not withstand knocks and bumps all too well.<br>

But it would sure help to better understand what you currently already have, and what kind of work you look to do with this new lens.</p>