New and need some help

[jarodd_lawson]

I'm goin to buy a D80 and need some help in the lens department. I will be

taking pics of my kids and pets in the house and in the backyard. I also want

to take pics of there sports activities. Should i go 18-70mm or the 18-55mm w/

vr and maybe the 70-300mm vr for outdoors and sports. What about the 18-200mm

vr for the only lens, how is it indoors and sports?

[Matt Laur]

None of those lenses are particularly good for fast-moving subjects in low light. Meaning, their maximum apertures are all a little on the "slow" side, and they don't gather a lot of light. The 70-300 or the 18-200 would be fine in good outside light while capturing busy kids/pets... and the VR on those lenses DOES allow you to use them well in lower light. But the VR does NOT cause a moving subject to freeze during that longer, shake-free exposure that the stabilization buys you.

<br><Br>

Unless you really need the (marginally longer) reach that the 300 gets you, it might just be easier to get the one lens (the 18-200), and have less fussing to do over lens changes. When you really do need to deal with some low light, a $109 <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FNikon-50mm-Nikkor-Digital-Cameras%2Fdp%2FB00005LEN4%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Delectronics%26qid%3D1199255937%26sr%3D8-1&tag=uplandlife-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325" target="_blank"><b>50mm/1.8</b></a> is pretty indespensible for the price. You will get MANY opinions on this subject!

[bmm]

Jarodd - I recently got a D80 and opted for the 18-200VR and the 50mm f1.4 prime for low light stuff.

 

The 18-200 is handy as a general purpose lens, but as I progress it will be replaced with better glass. If you browse this site you will read many (!) opinions on this lens and not all good. The 18-55 and 18-70 are far cheaper and, though not having the reach, are arguably better glass in terms of optical quality.

 

I absolutely love the 50mm f1.4, and all my best photos have been taken with it.

 

If I had my time again I would start with the 18-70 as my zoom, and either the 1.4 or 1.8 (if you want to save ~$200) version of the 50mm. That's plenty to get started on, and good value to boot.

 

Then when you've gained some experience you can decide what extra glass you want.

 

Beginners hint from one who made the mistake - don't skimp on the tripod. Cheap tripods are a pain in the derriere.

[jarodd_lawson]

Thanks guys for the quick response. So the 18-200 has enough speed to take action shots and is ok for typical inhouse shots. alot of talk about barrel distorion and vignetting on here and photozone. How much will i notice this and can it be corrected w/ software I have photoshop but havent used it much yet.

 

Also should i consider any 3rd party lenses

[trunfio]

If you are serious about sports and want low light capabilities without breaking the bank,

check out the Sigma 18-50/2.8 and the Sigma 70-200/2.8. You can probably do most

everything that you'd want to do with these two lenses.

[mjt]

when folks refer to a lens being "fast" they are referring to the f/stop of the lens, not the fact that it can stop fast action. think of the f/stop of the lens equal to the opening of the iris of the eye - it opens wider in low light conditions to allow more light in.

 

the "typical" fast zoom lens has a value of f/2.8 and most probably, a constant f/2.8. fast prime lenses will have a lower f/ value, usually f/1.8 or f/1.4.

 

this has nothing to do with how "fast" you can take a shot in terms of the shutter speed, although indirectly it does. all lenses will allow high shutter speeds. what folks are referring to is the ability to use a fast shutter speed in low light conditions.

 

for example, if you're shooting night sports, you really do need a lens that provides an f/stop of 2.8 or "faster" (i.e. f/2 or f/1.8 or f/1.4) so that you can use higher shutter speeds to stop the action.

the faster the shutter speed you require, the more light you need to pass through the "iris" of the lens.

[trunfio]

For action, even in good light, you often have to bump up the ISO to 800 or more to get a

fast shutter speed (1/400 or faster). The wide aperture of the fast lenses allows you to shoot

at reasonable ISO and fast shutter. If you have a slow lens, then you have to bump up the ISO

even more to compensate and the autofocus doesn't work as well with slow lenses anyway.

For Div. 1 college hockey in well lit rinks, I shoot at ISO 1600 to get a 1/500 shutter. You

need a fast lens to get away with that.

[jarodd_lawson]

Thanks again guys.So at my kids weekend soccer games the 18-200 will be ok if I have the right settings? Also true for random inhouse shots? I know I could get better pics w/ multi lens for each situation , but I would like to stick w/ one lens and maybe a good portrait lens. Alot of my pics will be of my kids running around inhouse and outdoors.

[ShunCheung]

Jarodd, since camera manufacturers tend to announce new products before the annual PMA meeting, which will begin on January 31 this year, I suggest you wait a bit until mid to late January and see what Nikon has to announce. There is a chance that the D80 will be replaced and there are rumors that there will also be some new 16-85mm lens.

 

A good dedicated lens for sports photography will probably be well over $1000. Unless you have that kind of budget, the 70-300mm AF-S VR should be good for children sports. The reach to 300mm should give you more flexability. I would get something like the 18-70 for the people and pet images, and any potential 16-85 can be good for that purpose as well, although the rumor is that the 16-85 is only f5.6 on the 85mm end. As already mentioned, the 50mm/f1.8 is good for indoor, no flash photography if a short tele fits your needs.

 

The 18-200 is great for those who emphasis convenience. It is excellent for traveling when you would rather not carry a lot of lenses. If you tend to shoot some sports, I think you are better off with a dedicated tele zoom, such as the 70-300 whose entire range is tele.

[phototransformations]

Jarodd,

 

You keep mentioning shooting photos of kids running around the house. The 18-200 is likely too slow to shoot these images with a fast enough shutter speed to freeze action, and the VR won't help -- you'll just get stable backgrounds and blurry kids. You might consider a wide (like the Sigma 18-50/2.8) or medium (like the Tamron 28-75/2.8) for indoor shots, and either the 18-200VR or the 70-300VR for outdoor sports.

 

A point several have been trying to get across is that the variable apertures of the 3.5-5.6 lenses will greatly reduce the amount of light coming into the camera, which may make it impossible to get a sufficient shutter speed for indoor shooting of fast-moving objects (like kids). Outdoors, this will be less of an issue.

[carl_becker2]

For sports I think a 80-200mm f2.8 would be much better in the long run. You might be able to find a older used Nikkor. In doors catching kids I think you should look at a 28mm through 35mm prime at f2 or faster. One of the 18-50 or so f2.8 Tamron or Sigma zooms might also work well. I think the 50mm f1.8 is a great value but a little narrow in a house to photography kids in much of an environment. Take your time, go to a camera store with your kids and see what the lense focal length will allow you to capture. I have the 18-70mm but not for in door use, to slow of a lense without flash.

[simon_hickie1]

Jarodd, Shun's advice re. waiting to see what PMA brings is sound - UNLESS you absolutely need something now. I'm a D80 user & primarily use the 18-200 lens - it meets my needs to travel light and minimise lens changes. Having said that, I made do with the 18-70mm for over a year.

 

With the D80, I've found shadow noise to be an issue at ISO settings as low as 200. Therefore, faster glass is probably my next step (Tamron 17-50mm + Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 lenses are possibilities) where absolute image quality is more important than flexibility.

[eric_arnold]

tamron 17-50 f/2.8 -- not that much more expensive than the 18-70 and better in every way

 

tamron 28-75 f/2.8 -- more of a portrait lens than its cousin the 17-50. good for sports when you need more reach than a 17-50 and arent concerned about wide angle

 

nikon 70-300 VR -- best consumer-grade lens for sports and tele subjects (in daylight or bright night lighting, that is)

 

nikon 50/1.8 -- the best $100 you'll ever spend on glass

 

nikon 35/2 or sigma 30/1.4 -- for when the 50 is too long indoors

 

sigma 50-150/2.8 - i wouldn't get this to start out with, but it's excellent for sports, portraits, etc. fast AF, versatile range, superb optics and fairly lightweight for what it does.

 

70-200 and 80-200 are also good for sports and action, but you'll probably need a monopod at least. both are much bulkier than either the 50-150 or 70-300.

[morena]

I had to share my recent story which may be of relevance to your situation. After my son

was born in august I decided I wanted a dslr so after much deliberation I decided on the

d80 and the 18-200vr as a one lens solution. I love the camera but the lens was the wrong

choice and after only having it for 2 months i sold it at quite a loss. The f5.6 was just too

slow and if I was wider at a f4 I would zoom in and forget to compensate resulting in a

dark picture. I bought the tamron 17-50 f2.8 and haven't looked back. For longer range I'll

probably get the sigma 50-150 2.8 even with a 1.4 extender it's still a f4 which is fraster

than most consumer zooms. For daytime soccer the nikon 70-300 would be a good bet,

the 5.6 wont be such a problem. Just remember for available light nothing is better than a

fast aperture I wish thought about it before my initial purchase. Good luck and have fun!

[eric_mudama1]

Personally, I don't think 200mm is long enough for soccer, even on DX cameras. Depends on how old your kids are/how large a field they play on. If it's a 110-120yd regulation field, or if you're not allowed near the edge, I think the 70-300VR is a better choice, or 70/80-200 with a 1.4/1.7TC if you have the budget.

[les_barstow]

If you're just taking informal shots of your kids indoors, I'd personally recommend a flash and a general-purpose lens like the 18-55 or 18-70. If you want or need to use "natural" indoor lighting, you'll need the faster lenses that everyone here has been recommending.

 

For sports, go for the 70-300VR to start. Any significant improvement over that will cost real money (in the multiple thousands of dollars department).

 

Waiting for PMA is a good suggestion; Nikon seems to be doing a general overhaul of their entire line right now, so new options may be popping up soon.