I NEED advice from some good photographers

[cmulcahy]

I'm diving back into photography. 20 years ago I was seriously thinking about

professional photography as a career. Of course back then I was using film, but

I was getting pretty good at it (not to sound arrogant) I was teaching a

photography class for a HS art teacher who knew nothing about the art. I taught

kids everything from how to use a dark room to photo basics and really had a lot

of fun w/ this. I invested a good amount of money into my camera and lenses at

that time. When I was 21 years old all of my equipment was stolen so my

hobby/passion died. I now have a good career but I really want to get back into

photography as a hobby and possibly a little bit of professional work.

 

I'm thinking I want to get the new D300 for my body. What I'm not sure about is

the lenses. I am on a budget so I think 2...maybe 3 lenses is all I can even

think about right now. In order of importance what 3 would you suggest for a guy

like my self?

 

I like to do low light photography, indoors, of people. Some portraits but

mostly shots that are not posed. I prefer black and white but do some color. I

also enjoy landscapes and architecture. I do have a family so action shots,

sports, and parties are a factor but not my primary reason to getting back into

this hobby.

 

Would you recommend a prime lens for the D-300? If so what lens?

 

I was thinking a wide angle lens would be nice as well. Any suggestions?

 

 

Considering my preferences and skill level what 2 or 3 lenses would you

recommend. I know the glass is every bit as important as the equipment if not

more, so I want to make a sound decision and I can't seem to get a straight

answer out of the guys selling the stuff. I'd like to keep the lenses under

$1000 but I don't want to buy some cheap kit lens.

 

Thanks for any advice you may have.

[cmulcahy]

I'd like to add, I plan on taking a photography class in the spring to refresh my memory and get my skills/knowledge back up to a respectable level so that I can utilize the equipment that I plan on spending entirely too much $ on. lol

[juanjo_viagran]

Chad, if going to start with a set up of 3 I'd say get two good zooms and one prime..

 

if getting D300, (DX) my suggestion is:

 

Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 AFS, 80-200mm 2.8 AFS (don't want to scare you with the 70-200mm which cost a little fortune) and a prime is pretty much up to you, and your budget..

I'd get an 85mm 1.8 or 1.4D as a first prime, AWESOME or portraits..

[juanjo_viagran]

ohh, about the title, I'm not a good photographer, I'm just a lens junky.. ;)

[ryan_hamilton]

80-200mm 2.8 (push pull) used for $450-550, 10-20 sigma - I use it for real estate and find it does a fantastic job at the wide end (will need a external flash for indoors), get a used 18-70 nikkor great lens and lots out there from people upgrading to faster glass, if you still have room 50mm 1.8. $1000 doesn't really get up much since most lenses under that price point are kit lenses, except for primes.

 

That should give you a nice range of 10-200mm plus one really nice prime in the 50mm

 

Just my 2 cents

[cmulcahy]

I should have titled it "experienced" or "knowledgeable" Sorry about that - I know realize that title sounds a little arrogant. :)

[juanjo_viagran]

ouch, I miss your budget was $1000..

disregard my post...

[ShunCheung]

I am not sure that I quality for a "good photographer" either, but the D300 is certainly a fine digital camera. I would recommend 1 lens which is a bit over $1000, namely the 17-55mm/f2.8 AF-S DX:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/300490-USA/Nikon_2147_17_55mm_f_2_8G_ED_IF_AF_S.html

 

I suggest you to use that one lens for a while and see what is missing before adding a 2nd lens, and then use that for a while before you add the 3rd.

 

A good and inexpensive lens for low-light is the 50mm/f1.8 AF-D. Just keep in mind that it is a short tele on the D300 (or any other DX DSLR).

 

Finally, unlike it was 20 years ago, zoom lenses are excellent today and a lot of people use them.

 

P.S. If what you meant was that all 3 lenses total should be within $1000, I would say you are spending way too much money on the body. I would downgrade the body and spend more money on lenses.

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

Juanjo - - I think Chad wants to keep lenses under $ 1000.00 in total, but I may be wrong...

 

If in total then that list would have to be drastically changed.

 

If total is to be $ 1000.00, then I'd recommend 85mm f/1.8 for fast indoor lens for many things & excellent for portraits. 12-24mm Tokina for landscape & architecture (I know pros who use that lens) & a 18-70mm Nikon kit lens (or the 18-135mm kit lens).

 

I'm not a good photographer necessarily. I just hang out on a lot of boards & have learned a lot about lenses etc.

 

Also, I presume you know that the D300 is a crop sensor. Since you're used to film formate, you need to know that a 50mm is no longer a 50mm in FOV on the D300 - it has the FOV of a 75mm lens.

 

Lil

[nancy s.]

If you don't mind shooting manual I suggest you get a Nikon 105 lens.. they are very bright and you can get them AI'd inclucing extra machining to clear the sensor.

 

You can get a 105mm 2.5 lens for under $100. I have one and it is awesome for your subject material. I do not know if it meters with the D 300 and being an old manual lens it probably does not, not that it matters. I assume you have a hand held light meter anyway. The 1.8 is also available for bigger bucks... and it is a 62mm lens not the standard 52mm.

 

BTW I am a good photographer and solid in my craft. I offer up no assumptions of greatness. ;)

[mark_chappell]

<I>If what you meant was that all 3 lenses total should be within $1000, I would say you are

spending way too much money on the body. I would downgrade the body and spend more

money on lenses.</i><P>

 

I agree completely. In the digital world, lenses remain 'current' much longer than bodies

(although despite what camera manufacturers would like us to think, bodies remain perfectly

functional even after more advanced ones are introduced).

[cmulcahy]

No I was thinking under $1000 per lens if I got 2 lenses. sorry for not being more clear.

 

I did some reading on that 17-55/f2.8 AF-S DX and I think I'm sold. Does it handle the low light situations that a decent prime lens can? I'm thinking in terms of 15-20 years ago I never had a lot of luck w/ zoom lenses but apparently things have changed.

 

Would this perform as a good wide angle for landscapes?

 

Would this be good for portraits? What do you mean the 50mm/f1.8 AF-D is a little short? Would a 60mm or 85mm be better for portraits/people shots? My past experience was the 50mm was the perfect prime lens. But from the sounds of it there isn't much need for a nice prime lens given the quality of the others. Is this correct?

 

BTW thanks for everyone's time and education

[les_barstow]

If you're going to be looking for low-light lenses and are on the budget you suggest, primes may be the only way to go.

 

Depending on your emphasis and preferences, I would take either Shun's suggestion (spend just a bit more and get a 17-55 f/2.8 plus a fast prime), or some variation of Lil's advice (the Tokina 12-24, plus a fast prime, plus a kit lens for family events).

[terry foster]

Hi Chad, the lens above are all good, but i think just as important is to get some good editing software like Photoshop, you will find it great to learn all over again with digital. Good luck hope you enjoy the digital experence, and don't get your gear stolen this time.

[dcraton]

Chad, if you do not know the term "crop sensor", most of Nikon's "D" series DSLR's have approximate a 1.5x crop factor. That is to say a 50mm lens is always 50mm, but with the crop factor, the end result is about 75mm. So the 17-55mm will approximate to 24-80 or so. You can do the math on the rest of the lenses.

 

I shoot a lot of what you do and would agree with Shun concerning a couple of things: buy slow--a lens at a time and learn to use it and spend your bucks on good glass.

 

I use all Nikon lenses except for one. Either the 50mm/1.8 or 1.4 will give you excellent results as will the 85mm for primes. For zooms, yes, the 17-55mm is a very nice lens and I use it often. I also have a Sigma 10-20mm for wide and a 80-200mm AF for a longer zoom. I have other fast lenses as well. They all perform well. I do a lot of portraits and use the 50mm/1.4 and 85mm/1.8 most of time.

 

I went through the same change to Nikon digital from film and took the process slow. I have primarily used D80s and now use D200s, although I do keep a D40 in my bag for backup or beach. For me, I am still waiting on the verdict of the D300 as IMHO, I will wait for the beta testing period before buying a new release. But, that is my way, neither right nor wrong.

 

You will get a lot of good info here and glad to see you getting back into it. If you want to skip class, there are some great tutorials here at photo.net (and other places) and as a full time working photographer with a journalism (college) background, I have found that using my right index finger to depress the shutter release and subjecting my work for criticism has been the best teacher. Oh yes, I read a lot as well and constantly am asking questions. But, do what is best for you. BTW, I would not classify myself as "great", just real good and constantly learning as I turn 50.

 

One other thing you will need to consider is a good darkroom: software to process your images. But that is another post and you can search here all you want.

 

Good luck.

[cmulcahy]

OK thanks again for the advice. What do you think of this decision? I've narrowed it down to 2 lenses:

 

17-55mm/f2.8 AF-S DX = $1200

 

85mm ---but 1.4 or 1.8???? = $400 to $1000 I found several 85mm lenses but a big range in price - which one should I get?

 

and then on my wish:

 

a 12-24 or something similar and not too pricey. Suggestions?

[cmulcahy]

david Carlton - thanks I think what you say makes a lot of sense. I think I'll stick w/ trying to afford 2 lenses and saving up for a decent wide angle.

 

I originally was looking at the D200 but after reading about the d300 and the small price difference it seemed to make the most sense to just get the d300. That was the rational in my decision on the body.

[joseph_smith3]

Here are some other lenses to consider. I am ignoring the fact that they may not be needed if you buy the expensize zoom already recommended: 20mm AF f 2.8; 35-70mm AF f 2.8 push pull zoom; 12-24 mm dx zoom; and the 300mm AF f 4.0. I agree with your logic for the D 300 over the D 200. I also agree with Shun's thoughts on the need to buy the best glass you can afford.

 

With the D 300 and its ability to capture good images at relatively high ISOs, you need to figure out how fast a lens you really need. I shoot mostly outdoors so I do not need to spend a lot of money for those really fast lenses. I use a tripod 99% of the time and capture great images with Nikon glass many would not consider to be Pro quality. Technique is important too as you probably already know. I know Nikon Pros who use the 18-70mm dx lens. Joe Smith

[dan_brown4]

I'm not a good photog either, but spend the money on glass.

 

A D80 would be more than enough.

 

To me, the 35/2 is a must-have lens, and then quality zooms, such as the 17-55/2.8 and

80-200.2.8 (or the 70-200/2.8 VR is you can swing it).

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

I'm all for the 17-55mm DX f/2.8 - - my entire D300 gallery is shot with that lens. I use it for a lot & love it's quality. You can get one used one for less than $ 1,000 - yes it holds it's value. B&H new $ 1,200

 

The Tokina 12-24 is highly regarded by landscape & architecture photographers & is supposed to be just as sharp as the Nikon one. You can save money there. I will write it again. People who sell their shots use this lens. People I trust & respect.

 

I also recommend the 85mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 - though I don't own it. I'm basing this on photos I've seen taken with these lenses. Both are excellent.

 

I would consider the cheap 50mm f/1.8 for about $ 100.00 to round out your lenses. The f/1.4 is about $ 260.00 - - either are excellent.

 

As for being a good photographer - - that's all in the mind of the beholder. There are professional photographers in here. But others are no more nor less than you are.

 

Check out their own web sites, or the shots they have in their galleries here & decide for yourself if the person is qualified to make assessments. There are many forums for photography on the web. There are many opinionated people on the web. If they're qualified or not - - that's a different issue completely.

 

Also, there are many places on the web where you can read evaluations on lenses. I highly recommend visiting those.

 

JMHO

 

Lil

[eric_arnold]

<<OK thanks again for the advice. What do you think of this decision? I've narrowed it down to 2 lenses:

 

17-55mm/f2.8 AF-S DX = $1200

 

85mm ---but 1.4 or 1.8???? = $400 to $1000 I found several 85mm lenses but a big range in price - which one should I get?

 

and then on my wish:

 

a 12-24 or something similar and not too pricey. Suggestions?>>

 

well, for the price differential between the 85 1.8 and 1.4, you could get the tokina 12-24, so you have to think about whether you really need that extra 1/2 stop, and how much you will be using the 85.

 

a 50/1.8 should definitely be on your list, and i'd also consider a prime in the 24-35 range which is closer to a "normal" lens on a DSLR. two good ones are the sigma 30/1.4 and the nikkor 35/2. these might get used more outside of dedicated studio work, since the 85 will be a 127.5mm on a DX body, which is a bit long, especially for shooting indoors.

 

the 17-55 is a good lens with top-notch build and a top-notch price tag to accompany it. it's also pretty darn heavy. you could save $800 by getting the tamron 17-50 instead, which is optically pretty close to the nikon and much lighter. according to thom hogan, the only length the nikon clearly outperforms the tamron is at 17mm.

 

if you want a top-notch nikkor, i'd go with the 70-200 VR which IMO justifies its price better than the 17-55 (for which less expensive, reasonable 3rd party alternatives do exist).

 

it comes down to priorities and budget. figure out what your priority is, and budget around that. if you only want the most expensive nikkor glass, that obviously costs a pretty penny.

[RaymondC]

Just be aware that DX lenses won't be compatible with film cameras if like you want to get back into darkroom.

 

Per lens @ $1000, yeah, the others are spot on, 12-24, 17-55, 80-200 AF or AFS but not VR. They are all the pro lenses. A bit more like $500 and you could get the latest/greatest 70-200 with VR AFS.

 

One can also go cheap as well, not just in manual lenses but like - 3rd party 12-24 or Sigma 10-20, Nikon 35-70/2.8 push/pull, Nikon 80-200/2.8 push pull. Maybe $400 per lens for this combination or less.

[rjacksonphoto]

My vote is for the Nikkor 12-24 f/4, the Nikkor 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 G, and either the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8. The zooms cover a lot of ground and the prime gives you low light capability.

[brucecahn]

My suggestion will no doubt be unpopular, but here it is. Stay away from all that digital junk. It will all be broken or obsolete in 5 years anyway. Get a 4x5, 5x7 or 8x10 film camera. It will give you more satisfaction, make better pictures, never become obsolete, and will be much less likely to be stolen.

[cmulcahy]

Bruce I appreciate your opinion. I have a film camera and frankly I've found it to be a real pain the rear given my busy family life and most of all I have no control over the development. I'm so sick of labs screwing up my film and photos, ruining them, or just not giving a darn. Not to mention the cost of development. I've spent a lot of money at pro labs getting film developed and got only average results. When I had control of the development the results of course were great (and fun).

 

I use the computer a lot. I love having the ability to see your results quickly. Being able to share them quickly and easily, etc are all things I like about digital cameras. Obviously technology will progress but if I find a quality camera that will take great pics now, I don't see why I'd think they were no longer great 5 or 10 years from now.