See anything wrong with my choice?

[eigtball]

Hello Nikon!

 

I am a current canon film user. My investment in lenses is minimal so I have

been swayed to the Nikon camp and I am impressed.

 

Unfortunately I don't have any real experience with Nikon gear except for my

S500 (which I am very happy with as a pocket camera). I have been in talks with

my local camera store. I have decided to move to the Nikon line and I was

wondering if my choice of gear was a little crazy (lens mainly).

 

D300

17-55 F2.8

SB-800

 

I am a street, nature and people photography. I have been shooting these for a

while now. I plan on expanding to the 70-200 2.8 and something a little wider

in the future. I have read and re-read recommendations. I am sure this is a

good combination, however I just want to ping the minds of the forum before I

drop the 4K on the equipment (taxes in Canadian ugh).

 

Cheers,

[dirtlawyer]

I have the combo you listed, and am delighted with it. I use the 17-55 for indoor photography so that I can avoid the use of flash. Unfortunately the 17-55 doesn't really work with the photographic interests you show. All of them need more focal length than 55mm.

 

For what you are doing, I would recommend the 70-200 if you can manage it, saving the 17-55 for later. If price is a real problem, you might consider the 18-200 as an all around general purpose lens, and get the others later.

[Matt Laur]

Sean: Well, you'd be very pleased with that combo. The only question - as raised by Gerald - is where your near-term priorities are, focal-length-wise. You really can't start out with only the 70-200 (though you'll be very glad the day you add it to your collection), but if you think that a great deal of your time might be spent in that area, you could consider the very inexpensive and quite useful 18-70 "kit" lens as a helpful walk-around tool to round things out, and a 50/1.8 for speed (and low price there, as well). Whether the 17-55 is going to have the reach you need, early on, is a very situational thing. But it's a terrific lens when its range meets your needs. Tough call! Great body, great speedlight. Lenses depend on your style, but you're hitting all the right notes.

[al_sandberg]

My suggestion for a D300 (not a D3) would be the 18-200mm DX VR and the AF-S 12-24mm DX f4 G IF-ED. This combination would cost about what you would spend for just the 70-200mm f2.8 VR and be lighter to carry as well as smaller in size.

 

And look at your focal length coverage with this combo -- and the lens are really of very good optical quality in my experience

 

Really think about the fact of the 70-200 f2,8 VR being a heavy lens and that it takes almost as much space as does the above two lenses combined. This might be a factor in your decision making process. Personally I usually go with my 18-200 unless I anticipate needing the speed of my 70-200 VR.

 

Matt's suggestion of getting the 50mm F1.8 when you need speed is great; it is a super lens at a bargain price.

 

If I was asked to rate the lenses I am talking about my experience says it would be a 9.5 (on a 1-10 scale) for the 70-200 f2.8 VR and a 9.0 on the 50mm f1.8, 18-200 VR and 12-24 DX. No experience with the 17-55 but my "kit" 18-70 is a solid 8.5. [Have never ranked a lens above 9.5 as who knows what the future might bring --- an example being the new 14-24mm f2.8 G ED which I rank currently at a 9.5 and have a feeling that it might go even higher once I learn to use it better on my D3.]

 

Hope this long-winded answer helps in your decision process.

 

Al

[photo5]

Take a look at the Nikon 18-70mm DX zoom, it's inexpensive, lightweight for a good street lens, and very sharp. I'd also avoid the 70-200mm VR, not only is it very big, it's also very expensive! Take a look at the Nikon 70-300mm VR zoom. It is highly regarded and a good value for the money.

[al_sandberg]

Sean,just thought of something else.

 

Since you mention nature and people as two of your three main interests the Nikon 105mm f2.8 VR is an excellant lens for macro nature photgraphy and also is an excellant portrait lens.

 

Have used it on a D70 to shoot ravens in flight last year on a trip to Yellowstone Park and the lens was lightening fast on a D70 which is not a particullarly fast focusing camera body. It also gave me some outstanding flower photos and never gave me a poor result (operator error excepted). This lens is a solid 9.5 on my rating scale. Build quality rivals the 70-200 f2.8 VR and 14-24 f2.8, great optics and it should just fly on your fast focusing D300.

 

Welcome to the Nikon "world". As a former Canon and Konica film photographer and former Canon digital photographer I believe you are making the right choice.

 

Al

[eric_arnold]

nothing really wrong with that choice, except perhaps that the nikkor is a bit overpriced IMO.

 

it's also fairly bulky, so i'm not sure it would be my first choice for street.

 

for what that lens costs, you could get the tamron 17-50 and get the same IQ and much lighter weight, plus have 800 USD (not sure what the Canadian equiv. is) left to spend on more glass. if you're going wide, i'd also think about the tamron 28-75 and tokina 12-24 combo, both of which work really well on a d300, and don't cost and arm and a leg. you'd still have enough left over for a nikkor 50/1.8 or 50/1.4 if lack of brand loyalty when it comes to glass troubled you.<div></div>

[bruce_margolis]

Sean, I have a couple cents left in my pocket so I'll throw it into the ring......

 

If you can live without the ultra wide for your nature photography and you aren't looking at portrait-type people shots, the Nikon 17-55mm will serve you well. I agree with Eric that it is a little overpriced but even though I also opted for the Tamron, the Nikon is far better built. For street photography, it is downright outstanding if you are willing to accept the price of the lens. BTW, I also use a D300.

 

Obviously many here would take a less expensive lens alternative and use the difference for additional glass but you won't go wrong with your choice. Enjoy it.

[diane_madura]

http://bythom.com/DigRecs.htm

[kohanmike]

You might also want to consider a Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 HSM. Between that and the 17-

55mm Nikon (or Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 HSM) on a D300, you would be getting the classic

professional focal range of about 24mm to about 200mm, and with Sigma, very good

pricing.

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

Sean,

 

I have the D300 with the 17-55DX f/2.8 & it's an excellent combination. IF it's the right lens for you or not - - that's something only you can determine. Is it a great combination - - yes, it is.

 

JMHO

 

Lil

[eigtball]

Well generally I do shoot a lot of street. I will be doing a series of hikes into the Gatineau hills of Ottawa (very beautiful). I have read a number of thoughts on the 18-200 and the 18-70. I am considering the 16-85 and a 50 1.8, but I am not sure still.

 

to Gerald Taylor - I know what you are saying with the 17-55 as its short. I do like the wide end but I find my self 50mm+ most of the time (roam with a 50mm 1.8 around town for buildings).

 

So now I should consider these

 

18-200 VR

16-85 VR (67MM!!! what are they thinking)

18-70 (fast, light, sharp, inexpensive)

17-55 for fast aperture, low light performer but short.

 

I should tell you that I will be getting inside of a year a 70-200 2.8.<div></div>

[carl_becker2]

Just get the same range in digital that you used in film. If you are comfortable with a film range of 28-80 then I think your choice of the Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8 is excellent but pricy. It should last you for a long long time. I use mostly primes and like the Nikkor 180mm f2.8 for its size and weight. If it where my money I would look at the Tamron 17-50, Sigma 10-20, Nikkor 180 and Nikkor 300 f4.

[eigtball]

I've always been leary of Tamron lenses or maybe Tonika. I can't remember. Price isn't a factor, but usability is. I've thought about a fast prime along with something for every day. Maybe a 18-200 or 16-85 then put in a fast 50mm equivalent. Around town I am shooting 50mm mainly. Composition is key as I don't mind getting in close. Maybe a 35mm, 50mm and 85mm primes, I say that as those seem to be my focal ranges. I can live without the 85mm, but sometimes lenght is right.

 

I might be getting my self into trouble here as I keep going back and forth. I don't want to spend money on a range then get something else in the future. The 24-80 range is pretty decent for what I am looking for. A little short however. Speed is excellent though and quality as well. Blah.

[richard_hedges2]

I have and use a lot all three. The 17-55 F2.8 is the YERY sharpest lens. Remember 55 on d300 is 82mm a people lens for many many years. The lens is not over priced. Please if you do not use a tool do not make a judgment on the tool.? In a neat big church F2.8 is SO nice to focus with and get the shoot. As for third party lens you get what you paid for. I know I got stuck when I had less experience. They are fine with little crop & 4-6 photos.

[walterh]

Sean - nothing wrong with your starting setup. All finest quality. If you can afford the lens go for it. The 50mm f1.8 AFD is a must have lens. While mechanically just "OK" it is a reference in optical quality at the price of several cups of Starbucks coffee. The 50mm f1.4 is not "better" but better tuned for low light. The 70-200 zoom is a great lens as well.

 

It may not have escaped your attention that one of the advantages of the Nikkor brand is the huge amount of used MF lenses. Take advantage of this pool of lenses. There are many gems out there.

[eigtball]

Walter: Another reason for me making the switch. Used gear. The amount of used gear I see for Nikon easily dwarfs Canon. Wife has approved the 4K for the body and lens (plus card and flash), but anymore is out of budget. I will be working towards a 70-200 2.8 in the future.

 

Based on the excellent information in this thread, which I thank all of you who answered I will get the 17-55 2.8. Being that I will be doing a lot of street photography this focal length will serve me well.

 

OK, so Lexar UDMA 4GB card?? :D