best lens for nikon D80

[petaros16]

Hi all...I'm going to buy a Nikon D80, and I was wondering what would be the

best all round lense for me to buy. I shoot a variety of stuff (landscape and

action shots), and I've looked at the 18-200mm vr but I think its a little

expensive. Would a 18-70mm 3.5-4.5 lense be a good beginner? Also would it be

a good idea to get a 50mm 1.8 prime lense, as they are relatively cheap?

 

Thanks,

Is

[penwaggener]

Not sure about the best kit lens, but the 50mm is a _VERY_ good idea.

[Matt Laur]

That 18-70 is pretty hard to beat for the price... but can you wait just a bit? There's talk of a new VR lens in that range. Might be worth looking at, or might provide some downward pressure on the price of the 18-70. The Nikon stuff will be announced at the end of this month, I believe. That 50/1.8 is a worthy addition, regardless. Sharp, and will help you out in lower light.

[hmelcher]

Nikon 18-135mm is another good idea

[petaros16]

Thanks! how about the Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18 - 55mm f/3.5 - 5.6G ED and the Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED--I can get both for $275. Good deal?

[juanjo_viagran]

Isaac,

 

your thread title says "best lens...." and the 18-55mm and 55-200mm are on the opposite direction from "the best".

 

they are good for the price I guess and you can still take great pictures, but I'm a little confuse about what are you looking for...:/

[s._mangrove]

Your requirements

- 'all around lens'

- 'shoot a variety of stuff'

- '18-200mm vr but I think its a little expensive'

- beginner lens

 

I'd say your 18-70 example is the best choice consider your scenario. Its well built, provides great range, and is affordable.

[photo5]

the 18-70mm is the best value in a Nikon kit lens. I've been consistantly impressed by it again and again for nearly three years now. I tried the 18-200mm VR, didn't like it. I tried the 18-55mm cheapo kit lens and it didn't come close to the quality of the 18-70mm.

[diane_madura]

Hi Isaac. While I agree that the 50mm f1.8 lens is a great deal, I wouldn't recommend it as your first lens. I think you'll find it's on the long side, and I think you'd be unhappy with it as your first and only lens. Maybe add it only after you get the 18-70.

[tri-x1]

What Dave Lee said. You won't get a better lens for the money (and sometime for more money) than the 18-70mm kit lens

[carl_becker2]

From landscape to action shots for me would require two lense's. One of them would have a fast f-stop. Landscape I could and do use the 18-70mm. In good light the speed is not so critical but inside or evenings its harder to get a fast shutter speed at f5.6. A 80-200mm f2.8 zoom might be a good choice for action/sports.

[petaros16]

Thanks you guys...I think that I will try the 18-70mm.

 

Sorry Juanjo, I wasn't quite specific enough...and also my question evolved:)

[tim_knight]

Isaac, get both the 18-70 and the 50/1.8. The 50/1.8 is an excellent portrait lens and fast enough to get those shots in low light conditions. The 18-70 is a great walk around lens that also takes great portrait pictures when stopped down and using a tri-pod. I have both and use them a lot.

[ronald_moravec1]

18/70 is my first and I return to it often. Primes are good if you need speed. 55/200 is

decent, VR better, but made of a lot of plastic. 60 or 55 if you want a good macro.

[Rich B NYC]

Another vote for the 18-70. It really gives the much more expensive 17-55 f2.8 a run for its money. Stopped down to between f8-f16, it's a real eye opener.

 

The 55-200VR isn't a bad lens at all. Build quality leaves something to be desired, but it's a real Nikkor with VR for $230. It's more than sharp enough and shows almost no distortion or CA. What more does a lens have to do?

 

I use my 55-200 when I want to travel light and have never been disappointed. I'd love it to be faster at 200mm, but then it would cost a lot more than $230 and probably weigh twice as much.

 

You can do an awful lot with those two lenses. Add a 50mm f1.8 for low light work and you have a nice 3 lens kit for less than the cost of an 18-200.

[hbs]

Consider the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. It's fast (a constant f/2.8), very sharp, and a lot cheaper than the highly regarded Nikon 17-55.

[ptkeam]

I shoot with 2 D70's and one of the lenses I use is a Sigma 18-200mm DC lens. (not the OS version) I thought about digging deep in my wallet and getting the Nikon version, but didn't want to spend over twice as much as the Sigma costs.

I have been really, really happy with it.

I don't think VR is a really big deal. Think about it. Maybe you can shoot at 1/15th of a second @ 200mm with a Nikon VR but this is only practical if your subject is STATIONARY. It's really of limited utility.

[sandeep_kumar10]

I use Nikon 50 f/1.8 on my D80 and have been very happy. I have kept my kit lens 18-55mm, its plastic, but gets the job done. You might also want to try Nikkor 70-300mm VR instead of 55-200mm. Not as fast as the 80-200 f/2.8, but I have found it pretty useful for nature photography. Finally, if you are interested in Macro, a used Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 is usually a good bet, unless you want to invest in the 105mm VR lens.