Which Zoom lens w/ d50?

[jams]

I was wondering if the Nikon 70-300mm G is a good buy?

 

Any other cheap zoom lenses that you guys recommend?

 

I shoot mostly Urban Landscape and potraits. THanks!

[tlavigne]

For the money, it's a decent lens. You can't expect much for $140. It does give nice long reach, but it is terribly slow. It takes forever to focus too, you're better off using manual focus with it. I bought one for photographing birds but unless it is super bright out it isn't worth using on anything fast. I rarely use it now. That being said, if you just want a long lens for cheap, I'd say go for it. It'll probably keep you happy for a couple months.

 

As far as urban landscape goes, 70-300 might not be wide enough especially with the 1.5 crop factor. I'd suggest starting out with the 50mm 1.8. Not a zoom but the best cheap lens you can buy ($110), period. It will take great portraits, and will let you work in low light without a flash. Then maybe check out the 28-200 ED IF ($275). That would be a decent walkaround lens that you can go wide enough to do cityscapes, and will give you enough zoom for portraits, close-ups, etc.

 

Avoid the 28-80 kit lens like the plague! If you have one already, sell it on ebay and use the money towards a better lens.

 

Good luck.

[mars790]

hi James. you don't say which lenses you have now. i see you have/had the 18-55. your

best starter lens would be the 18-70 for now. i wish i still had mine to keep on my D70

but when i got the D200 and the 17-35 and 70-200 in March - something had to give.

looking back and viewing what i did with the 18-70 with new eyes - the lens produces

solid results. i'm on the lookout for a pristine one second hand.

 

Tyrone's recommendation of the 50 1.8 makes sense. i have the 50 1.4 for the smoother

bokeh (background blur wide open) but have heard many raves about the 1.8 for the

money.

 

then when you can afford it, look into the Tokina 12-24 for your ultra wide option. it

compares very favorably to the Nikon and is almost half the price. i really love mine.

 

good luck...

[Gary Naka]

For an intial low cost entry lens, the 70-300 G is a decent lens. Not a GOOD lens, but a decent one especially at only $150.

 

Personally I think a 300mm on a digital camera is too long for most people. Thats the equivalent of a 450mm on a film camera. Most people can't hold a 6x lens steady, much less a 9x.

 

Lens speed (aperture) is relative. I used to use a 300/f5.6 on a film camera, so I don't think the speed is bad at all. Just raise the ISO level 1 stop to 400, same as using Tri-X, full daylight exposure is 1/500 sec at f16.

 

Focusing might be a different matter, but focus speed also depends on what you shoot. FAST moving action like hockey, probably not good. But for general and travel probably OK. I would guess that it would focus faster that what I did before with manual focus lens on manual cameras.

 

Also look at used:

The 70-210/4-5.6 the non-D version. The D version has been stoked into price nonsense. Granted it might be faster to focus, but for most of us, the less expensive non-D version would be fine.

 

Gary

[elliot1]

I have used both the 70-300g and the 55-200dx.

 

I found the dx lens to be superior to the 70-300 in both contrast and sharpness. It is also a slow focussing lens compared to more expensive lenses but more than acceptable for what you would be using it for. Unless the subject is moving very quickly towards or away from you, you won't even notice. Depth of field is very narrow unless you shoot at f8 or f11 (or higher).

 

Both lenses are about the same price, and offer excellent results, but I think the 55-200 is a much better value.

 

I also have the 50mm 1.8 - exceptional quality at a bargain price. I use it for low light events and portraits. If you get the 55-200, you won't need it (unless you shoot a lot under poor lighting condtions).

 

Best bet is to try both for yourself and then make your decision. Make sure you buy from a store that will take back the lens if you don't like it.

[jams]

wow thanks guys for your great insight!

 

Hmm...i think you guys convinced me...im going to buy a 50mm 1.8d first.

 

yeah...right now i have the 18-55mm which id like to replace...the 12-24mm sounds real good, Ill go check it out!

 

once again thanks!

[cnhoff]

There are certainly better tele zooms, but even a pro like John Shaw occasionally uses this lens when he wants to travel light. So it can't be THAT bad. The simple "workaround" of stopping down a few stops from wide open might not be applicable though with a 300mm zoom without VR.

[myount777]

I was happy to pay the small difference between my 18-55 to get the 50mm 1.8. What a turd that 18-55 was. The 70-300mm G is really a good lens for the money with alot of reach.

[jams]

icic yes...i am actually selling my 18-55dx today for $115.

 

So now i have about $200 to spend.

 

Either getting a 50mm 1.8d or

 

the Tokina 28-70mm at-x pro

 

bleh...we will see

 

thanks!

[sharilyn_neidhardt]

i get a ton of mileage out of the 18-55mm DX kit lens, but most of the time i walk around

with a cheap, non-DX 28-200mm zoom. i'm a photo journalist and that gets me just wide

enough for most work, with the flexibility to zoom in when i need to (i carry a monopod, my

hands aren't *that* steady). i'm also extremely fond of an old used 20mm f2.8, for cityscapes

there is no equal. i can't imagine shooting landscapes (urban or otherwise) with a 70-300 on

a digibody, it would be way too long for me personally. the 12-24mm DX is indeed dreamy

but i can't justifiy the expense. my favorite FAVORITE glass for both professional and non-

pro applications is the 50mm f1.4. it is the greatest lens ever made.