Lens Choice (please dont flame me Im confused!!)

[jason_copeland1]

I have searched and narrowed my choices down to 3 possible solutions:

 

1) D300 with Nikon 18-200 VR - Looks to be a fair all rounder and very

convenient lens. I just worry that I will be disappointed when it comes to

sports and am also concerned by the mixed reviews.

 

2) D300 with Nikon 18-70 & 70-300 - My first choice when I started looking into

a DSLR and both seemed to get a general nod of approval on here.

 

3) D300 with Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and ??? well I don't really know what to look at...

I thought about maybe pairing it with the Nikon 18-70?? I would like to be able

to capture landscapes and general shots of the kids too without whipping out a

huge lens. The main use of the camera (apart from the above) will be sports so

I thought the Sigma would be a better choice in that department than the 70-300??

 

Any help is most appreciated! I think I have read too much and am now confused!!

 

Thanks

JC

[Rene11664880918]

Jason... I know it is confusing and also hard when you go and drop a bag of cash in

exchange of camera and lenses. We've all been there!

 

Please don't take me wrong and I'm not trying to be rude but somehow IMHO your choices

look too me like so much camera and not enough glass.

 

I don't know if you are advance or just a beginner but if I was to buy a D300 I would pair it

with better glass like 17-55/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 VR. That's in the case you were an

advance photographer.

 

I'm sure a lens like the 18-200 VR must be a good lens but that kind of lens I would pair it

with D40x or a lower grade camera than the D300 and that would be a very good set for a

beginner or for a snap shooter.

 

If money is a problem I would recommend a cheaper body and a little more glass.

 

Just my opinion, you will get much more help here from every body else.

 

Good luck in your choice, enjoy it and happy holidays!

 

Rene'

[Peter_in_PA]

Jason,

 

Mixed reviews on the 18-200? I've yet to read a less-than-great review in a publication,

and online reviews are overwhelmingly positive, too. I would submit that those who don't

like it are expecting it to be a pro level lens, which it is not.

 

I think the 18-200 would be a GREAT choice with that camera unless you think you are

going to do a lot of cropping or printing really big. In an 8x10 photo, you will be hard

pressed to tell the difference between a well-shot photo (under decent lighting conditions)

with that lens and any of the others. (It might be better than some of the others). It's also

INCREDIBLY convenient to be able to go from real wide to tele with one turn of a zoom

ring.

 

As far as sports goes, none of the lenses you mentioned will do them real well. For that

you need fast glass, and imho, you need fast NIKON glass. Sigma lenses, in my

experience, don't focus as fast or as well as something like a 70-200 f2.8 Nikkor. But it

depends on what kind of sports you shoot, and the fact is that that lens would cost nearly

what your camera does. Kids outdoor sports during the day? Most of what you mention is

probably just fine.

 

You're talking about landscape shots, kid shots, and sports/action shots. The fact is, that's

two or three very different lenses, depending on how critical your eye is. If you're on a

budget, I think the 18-70/70-300 might be fine, and the 18-200 is great if you really

think you're going to want to switch back and forth between VERY different focal lengths

often (GREAT for kid photography). I don't know enough about that sigma to know to

recommend it, others will pipe in, but I've been frankly disappointed in other Sigma lenses'

ability to focus well on Nikon DSLRs. (Still thinking of getting a 10-20, though, since

focusing speed isn't an issue for me on a lens like that.)

 

Oh... and try to work at least an SB600 into your budget, too.

 

Hope that's not too much or un-useful info.

[mjt]

budget plays a lot into the selection of camera/lens. and there's a lot of truth in the old saying, "glass is forever and a body is a commodity". next comes your level of experience and your commitment to photography, overall.

 

Thom Hogan rates the 18-70 very high (esp for its price). and again for the 70-300, Thom rates it way up there for the cost.

 

and once again, Thom rates the 18-200VR as a great lens - and he goes on, quoted, "Good enough that it has replaced both my 18-70mm and 24-120mm as the walk around lens of choice for when I want to go light and with one lens."

 

the one caveat i have is that you mention sports photography. my experience here is that fast glass is required, since all games are not played in daylight. the 18-200, 18-70, 70-300 will not get the performance you need at night games. (at 98% of sporting events i shoot, flash it not allowed or not powerful enough to make a difference).

 

if you absolutely have to have the shot at sports, and money is no object, the 2.8 glass is the way to go. the 70-200 2.8 VR is an excellent lens for most events. you could pair that with the 17-55 2.8 DX lens ... of course, you'll be missing the 55-70 range.

 

i cant speak about Sigma's or Tokina's or Tamron's, etc, since i have no experience with them (personally, Nikkor glass is the only game [sic] in town - the 3rd party lenses don't perform as well).

 

so to conclude ... i you shoot the occasional sporting event in daylight or very well-lit indoor lighting, then the 18-200VR should suit your needs. no need to get the 18-70/70-300 and have to switch out the two lenses.

[paul_ferrante]

It really depends on your needs and how much cash you have. The 18-200 VR is excellent if you only want to carry around your camera and one lens, a great walk around lens but is a little expensive. However you just bought a D300, so you must be loaded. ;>) I have a D80 and limited budget I went with the 18-70, for landscapes you generally don't need VR. And the 70-300 VR, reasonibly priced with good glass. I like to shoot wildlife and birds so I wanted a little more length and both together costs less then the 18-200 alone. Again however, if you have the cash get the faster lens with good glass. What type of subjects do you like to shoot?

[drew_golden]

I have both, the 18-200mm VR and the 70-300mm VR.

 

The 18-200mm VR has become my lens cap, it's on my camera all the time. Why? I have

far better lenses - but the VR is so small and easy to carry and the results are very

acceptable.

 

The 70-300mm VR does not get used nearly as much as I expected - BUT, it produces

very nice results and it not as costly as the more pro lenses. I have yet the be

disappointed by it and it is FAR easier to carry around than the more pro 70-200mm

f/2.8.

 

Get both; if you need a big zoom the 70-300mm will not disappoint.

 

I would not worry about having overlap in focal lengths - all it does is provide better

coverage and less lens changes.

 

drew

[Matt Laur]

Jason: I'd stick with the D300, which you'll love, and the 18-200VR, which you'll also love. It isn't a lens for high-speed-at-sunset sports shooting, but you'll need to go to lenses that cost as much as the camera before you even approach that with professional results.

 

I use the 18-200 regularly, despite having my much loved 70-200VR available when I don't mind the payload. I've got other choices as well, in shorter/wider/faster configurations. But for general use, that 18-200 is very hard to beat, and while I can pick on it about a bit of softness compared to lenses that are twice as expensive and three times as heavy, having that lens mounted allows me to capture images in a dynamic environment (at sports? sideline crowds followed by a goal shot and then a close-up... around kids? from a group to a tight shot of a smiling face, as quick as they happen, without changing lenses). I won't tell you that it will compare to the 17-55 or the 70-200 once you get into really demanding light, but what it WILL do is provide you with an easy-to-carry option that you'll use frequently, and which will help you to discover what focal lengths you DO need when you, inevitably, buy a pro-grade lens. As many have done here, I've gone back and looked at a year's shooting and found myself quite surprised by the focal lengths I actually ended up needing when fast glass did or would have really made an important difference. Consider a stellar $100 50mm f/1.8 if you find yourself really needing to do some portraits or lower-available-light stuff. That one's a must-have. Have fun!

[michael s.]

Not really a direct answer to your question, Jason, but if initial reports of the high iso prowess of the D300 -- calling it either "astounding" or just barely below "astounding" -- prove to be widely accepted, then you may not have much to worry about at all. In more challenging light, you can crank up the iso, pay only a tiny noise penalty, and still get more than acceptable results.

 

I don't have the lens, but friends who do use the 18 - 200 VR tell me it rarely comes off the camera, even though they have other high quality, and in some cases pro level lenses. And I've seen a bunch of photos. To my eye, they look very good.

[waltflanagan]

Is this your first DSLR? Are you already an experienced photographer? For someone starting out and wanting to shoot sports I think the D80 with the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR is a better combo. For the kids the 18-70 or even the 18-55 combined with a 35mm f2 or 50mm f1.8 for indoors low light would be great. A flash like the SB-400 which allows you to bounce for diffused light is also worth far more than a better camera. You save money AND get better pictures.

[waltflanagan]

Instead of the 70-200 VR, a used Nikon 80-200 f2.8 AF-s is also a great choice for sports.

[michael s.]

Should have added that I have and use both the 18 - 70mm Nikkor and the 50/1.8 Nikkor, and I like them both a great deal. (Agree w/ Matt about the 50mm, by the way.) I even have a non-VR version of the 70 - 300mm ED lens, bought used, and in good light that's no slouch either.

[Rene11664880918]

Jason.... Now I am confuse! I came back to see what everybody else had advice you and

seems that your choice is very good. what confused me is that according to your previous

posts it seems that you bought a D200 in August with a 18-70 and a 70-300... or didn't

you? Also it seems you are really into taking pictures of rugby that's according to the

expensive tripod you bought or wanted to buy.... for that I would say that the 70-200 is the

way to go.... anyway... enjoy your D300!

 

Cheers!

[douglas_greenberg]

All of the lenses you are considering will be just fine optically unless you are making immense enlargements. The key questions seem to be whether or not VR is important to you, whether changing lenses in the field is particularly inconvenient for you, and whether 200mm. is sufficient for your purposes.

 

You mention that you shoot "sports." If you are shooting youth sports and are close to the action, 200mm. likely is enough. If you are farther away and/or need to have in-their-faces closeups, you will need at least 300mm.

 

As others have mentioned, the high ISO performance of the D300 is apparently very, very good, so in lower light or fast action situations you can raise the ISO to the point where perhaps VR is a luxury, not a necessity.

 

So basically, no one else but you can make the decision, but I guess the bottom line here is not to worry about "bad quality" from any of these lenses; they all are plenty good enough. Try to envision yourself out in the field taking photos and decide which alternative fits your needs and photo-taking style best.

[simon_hickie1]

Jason, I have the D80 + 18-200 combination and a few more consumer grade lenses besides. My 18-200 is virtually a permanent fixture on the D80 - simply because of the convenience rather than for its absolute image quality. If money permitted, I'd be looking to upgrade to the D300 for its better low light performance, active d-lighting and more reliable metering.

 

I'd be inclined to try the 18-200 & see how it works out on the D300.

 

BTW, The 70-200 f2.8 Nikkor is a pretty big beast & I guess the well regarded Sigma is similar.

[ntv666]

Hi Jason,

 

D 300 is best camera and you should it with a good Nikor Glass. For your landscape your should have 17-55mm /F2.8 DX or 17-35mm/2.8 and for your sports you can bet on the AFS 300mm/f4. It is really very good and excellent lense.. For medium zoom you can go for 70-200mm/f2.8 VR. All this depends on your budget ofcourse. These three lense will serve all the purpose.

[jason_copeland1]

Wow, thanks everyone for your input!

 

Rene':

I did have a bundle in mind back in August but held off the D200 because I had read about focusing issues with it, then the D300 rumours started and I thought I may as well hold off (I wish I hadn't as I have missed out on some great memories due to a poor Fuji)

 

Paul:

Not loaded, just want to be sure that in 40 years I can look back at a second in time of my children's lives and see it as clear as my eyes saw it when it was taken (eyesight permitting!)

[kohanmike]

In the past, the pro film world centered on two zooms, 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8. Now

with digital C size sensor, the choice is slightly altered, that's why I'm looking at the Tokina

16-50mm f2.8 Pro or Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC Macro HSM, and Sigma 50-150mm f2.8

HSM, which gives that equivalent, and the reviews are very favorable. (Then again, I always

have 2 bodies, D70s at the moment, but sometime in the near future, D300.)

[jason_copeland1]

Well it looks like the 18-200 has won me over.

 

I looked at Ken Rockwell?s site and was impressed by his 'out of the box' shots, not for the saturated colour but for the detail that seemed to be there. Also Victor F. Newman's review on Nikonians says it would easily track athletes on foot and is only limited by the AF capability of the body (D300 should be ok then?)

 

I'm going to give it a try! Fingers crossed I will get it before Crimbo!!

 

Thanks so much for you help and advise everyone.

[mark amy]

Hi Jason,

 

You've made a good decision with the 18-200mm! I got my first DSLR, the Nikon D80, back in August and before that went through the same decision nightmare of what to get with it. I finally decided on the Nikkor 18-200mm VR after reading so many good things about it and I definitely made the right decision, it's just so good for every occasion:)

 

It does all add up though in the beginning. You've got the camera, the lens, the tripod, the flash unit, memory cards, UV filter and maybe a circular polarizing filter, the good camera bag and on and on and on!!

 

Since then I've also bought the Sigma 10-20mm and now I'm going through decision nightmare time again about what new lens to buy....it never ends:)

 

Good luck with yours, you won't be disappointed:)

 

Mark