lisa_marie_mclaughlin Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 I'm about to buy a Nikon D200, my first foray into the digital world. I need to pick a lens(es) to go with that will fit my budget and accomodate my needs. I love to take pictures but am relatively uneducated in photography. I take lots of photos of my kids and friends' kids and like to shoot the occassional wedding for friends. I need a lens or lenses to fit 3 basic situations 1) shooting quality portraits indoors with available (window) light 2) shooting portraits of families outdoors and 3) shooting wedding ceremony pics indoors with low light and no flash allowed. My budget is ~$1000 to buy a lens or two or three. Recommendations? I like sharp pictures that I typically blow up to 11x14 prints and don't want to spend too much time editing on a computer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ky2 Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 1) Nikkor 20~35/2.8 AFD 2) Nikkor 50/1.8 AFD 3) Nikkor 85/1.8 AFD Or 1) Nikkor 24/2.8 AIS 2) Nikkor 35/2 AIS 3) Nikkor 50/1.8 AIS 4) Nikkor 105/2.5 AIS Or 1) 18~70 Kit lens 2) The new upcoming 70~300 VR lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klix Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 For those needs, IMO, if you can find one, the 18-200mm AFS VR lens meets all 3 requirements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrettPrucha Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 You've got lots of choices. I would go with 35 f2, 50 f1.8, & 80-200 f2.8 The 80-200 is quite a big lens but can produce excellent results and is very versatile at the long end. If it is to big I would replace it with the 85 f1.8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ky2 Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 KL IX, <i>"3) shooting wedding ceremony pics indoors with low light and no flash allowed"</i> with a slow VR lens? ... I don't like D200 images at ISO 1000... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 The 18-200mm VR is NOT a good lowlight lens for portrait or otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 This is a current and similar thread: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00HLF1 If you are not sure, buy the 18-70mm AF-S DX as the "default" lens. That should cost around $300, cheaper if used. Save the remaining amount until later when you know what other lenses you want to buy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph_smith3 Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 I recommend the 17-35 AFS f 2.8 lens. I know this violates your budget rule. This is a lens you want to end up with. Given your budget constraints, I recommend the 20mm af f 2.8 and the 18-70mm dx lens in addition to the lenses already recommended. Please go to this link for some excellent info on Nikon lenses: http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html Joe smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramon_v__california_ Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 get the startup team of the 18-70mm kit lens, 50mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.8 to cover all your needs mentioned. you will have speed, low-light capability and versatility. from this system, you will know where to go next or even stay with them and enjoy your hobby. you might still have change for at least an sb-600....the 18-200mm will not be good for low light situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_sauer Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 18-70 kit lens for general use. 35mm f2 for lower light. the 50mm 1.8 is good for portraits and only costs $100. But it's really a bit telephoto for general use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subhasis_laha Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 Lisa: If you can relax your budget by 10%, you could buy the Nikon 17-55/f2.8 DX for $1100 after Nikon rebate (rebate valid till July 31 purchase date). It is excellent optically and otherwise - will meet pretty much all of your needs, especially low-light needs. Only if you are doing very tight portrait (head only), you will need a longer lens like the 85/f1.8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klix Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 I would prefer ONE VR zoom lens versus juggling 3 PRIMES when shooting a wedding. I don't think you'd be shooting at 1000 ISO -- there is typically enough light at weddings to let you shoot at 400 WITH A VR LENS, i.e., you may be shooting at shutter speeds of 1/30. Also, since subject movement will be minimal/slow, this is an ideal scenario for a VR lens. I would also hate to fumble for focus at a wedding, or make sure I have sufficient DOF. That's where AFS comes in handy. As to its quality, no, it's not in the same leagues as the 85/1.4 AFD or "traditional" portrait lenses, but a budget constraint of $1000 is a compromise, and IMO, the 18-200mm best suits that compromise. Yes, even if within budget the 17-55mm is in another class, and would be ideal, but since it is NOT a VR lens, you'd probably shoot with 1000 ISO even at f2.8. KL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnmarkpainter Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 Lisa, I personally prefer fast Primes but can't justify two D200's. Yaron's suggestions are great. If you could spend a little more money, You might consider the 17-55/2.8 and an 85/1.8 The 17-55 is a great running around/candid lens and at 2.8 is fast enough for most uses. The 85/1.8 is a good balance for being a Long-ish Lens, excellent optical quality, fast, small and inexpensive ($200 used from KEH) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_m3 Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 Lisa, you're 'relatively uneducated in photography' yet you want to shoot weddings. You're going to spend $1700 on a D200 and another $1000 on lenses. Why not take a few steps back, pick up a D50 kit for $800 or a D70 kit for $1000 and learn a bit more before spending three times that on a pro body and lens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bwcombs Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 I agree with Shun. Get a basic (18-70mm) and shoot for a bit. Then you will realize what you want and need for your purposes. If you shoot weddings and portraits, you will most likely need some lighting equipment as well. So, a couple or more SB800s would be in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lisa_marie_mclaughlin Posted July 19, 2006 Author Share Posted July 19, 2006 Thanks to all for the helpful advice, the link to Bjorn Roslett's page helped immensely. Gave me a decent basis for comparison of the recommended lenses to current lens. The choices are almost overwhelming, aren't they? I'm still wavering between blowing the big $$ on the 17-55/f2.8 and going with the starter 18-70 for all-purpose and the 50/1.8 for low light. I am buying an SB-800 as well, but prefer to use natural light whenever possible, especially for pics of my babies. Don't get me started on how frustrated I am to hear my practically new SB-80 won't work on the digital Nikon. And to Robert, no need to be so condescending.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_m3 Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 Lisa, apologies. Just trying to save you a couple thousand. Spend away! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaron l Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 Get the 18-70 for versatility, the 50 f1.8 for low light and awesome sharpness and the SB-800 so YOU can control your light. Then get decent at picture creating and learn to know what you need. Don't blow big bucks yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_in_PA Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 If it were me, and I was shooting weddings, I'd SERIOUSLY consider Canon instead of Nikon (and I am a Nikon shooter!) because you'll get a little more lens for your money. but sounds like you may be studk on Nikon... nothing wrong with that... I love my 18-200 but it's no good for weddings, I agree with that... For me, I'd want two bodies, one with a 17-35 or 17-55/2.8 and one with an 80-200/2.8. Everyone I know that shoots weddings INSISTS on the fast glass. you need it! the 18-70 just won't cut it without flash (and get two flashes or more, not just one!). And everyone I know that shoots weddings insists on at LEAST two bodies handy. There just isn't time to switch lenses! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now