What Lenses for D300

[arthur_tiger]

Shun Cheung and all the Nikon experts:

 

I have read all your reviews and found them extremely objective and helpful.

Thanks! Question: Assume i get a Nikon D300, (would have gotten the D3 except

for the weight), and my preferences are portraits, stage (low light), wild

life (i go on safaris once a year), and perhaps some sports, and lastly but

most important of them all, LOWEST POSSIBLE WEIGHT, what combination of lenses

should I get? How about:

50 mm F1.4 prime, and 180 mm F2.8 prime. I have been advised about the 18-200

mm but understand that to be a very ordinary lense. Thanks!

[Rene11664880918]

I love my 180. I started to use it more and more now days. It is very compact and light for a 2.8. The down side, slow focusing and the minimum focusing distance is 1.5 meters I think.

 

Rene'

[kohanmike]

I handled the D300 a few days ago and was rather surprised at how heavy it is compared to

my D70s. I plan on buying 2 later this year, but weight is not an issue for me. I wonder if

you should feel out the D80 in comparison.

 

I also have the Nikon AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR, which you may want to consider for

the Safari you mention, and well lit sports events. It's reasonably compact and light for a

lens with its reach. I even use it for rock concerts, although movement by the performers

does affect a lot of shots.

[seandepuydt]

If weight is an issue then primes will be your best option. The 18-70DX seems pretty light weight. I carry the 28-70 on my D300 so just about anything seems lighter. - Sean

[jose_angel]

Althought I do not enter at the group you are asking about, I can say that my favourite "lighter" is the AFD 24/2.8 as an all-round lens. If you want only primes I would add a 50/1.4 or 1.8 for portraits.

 

There isn`t a f2.8 "light" long lens. All f2.8 long lenses are indeed big&heavy. If weight is really important, the 55-200 zoom is ridiculously sized, weights almost nothing, and I have read here that is a reasonable performer.

 

Three primes could have the same weight than a good zoom, and you don`t have to be switching between them. The versatility of a zoom is really confortable during a trip, specially on a safari, I think.

[Peter_in_PA]

Low light on stage wants fast primes. 50 f1.4 35 f2, 85mm f1.4 is a good (expensive on

the last one) set to switch between for that. In addition 85 is a good length for portraits.

You can get 1.8 versions of the 50 and 85 and save a lot of money and weight.

 

How light do you want to go on this safari? f5.6 lenses are annoying (nearly useless imho)

for shooting wildlife. I'd suggest a 70-200 f2.8 and a monopod.

 

Then maybe an 16-85 or 18-200 for an all-around lens on camera.

 

I suggested higher priced stuff since you can afford a D3 (if you had wanted one).

[kevin_swan1]

You said weight was your most important factor. So with that in mind, I'd recommend the 50mm 1.4, which can handle the low-light stage work, as well as produce lovely portraits with perfect bokeh rendered in the background. It'll be equivalent to a 75mm on the D300's sensor, which is just about an ideal portrait length.

 

For safari duty, the 70-300 VR sounds like a natural. The VR should help overcome the lack of a fast aperture, while keeping the weight light, and 300mm should be a pretty decent length for safari work.

 

Finally, for sports, I'm afraid there's no such thing as a long, fast, light lens. The factors are simply mutually exclusive. If you want a fast lens, you simply have to sacrifice weight (and cost). Personally, I could live with a little extra weight, and would highly recommend the 70-200 f/2.8 VR lens. It's fantastic. And if you combine it with a teleconvertor, you get the safari-sized focal length with very little added weight.

 

If weight truly is your top priority, I'd recommend the 50mm f/1.4 and the 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 VR. Very lightweight combination, very capable optically, covers a broad range of focal lengths while retaining the low-light performance that is important to you.

[rarmstrong]

I have a D300 and use the 18-200 VR lens as my standard "walk around lens" The lens is not particularly heavy or obtrusive and gives very good quality images. Look at Matt Laur's opinions and examples of shots with this lens to help you decide. For wildlife, I'm sure you will want something longer. The 70-300 VR may be a reasonable choice and you'll be able to overcome it's "slowness" a bit because the D300 will give you excellent images at higher iso settings. You should be able to get good quality up to iso 2000 and then you'll start to pick up some noise, but you can clean this up with post processing. You may want to look at the Sigma 30/1.4 as a very fast prime...just another option. Check out Matt's portfolio...you'll get some good ideas. Good luck...you'll be happy with the D300!

[carl_becker2]

I think a 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.8 will work well for you. I use both on a D200. I also have the 180mm f2.8 and think it focus's fairly fast with the D200. It might be better with the D300 but a 80-200mm f2.8 zoom will probably be better for sports. I use a older 70-210 AF-D f5.6 for outside event/action shots. I picked up an older 400mm f5.6 ED-IF for wildlife use. Its light and cheap but manual focus and slower than what I would really like to have, a 500mm f4 P which is still manual focus but much heavier and larger. A new 300mm f4 AF-S with a TC might be a consideration but I am not sure weight vs quality is much of an improvement. From my little experience shooting wildlife at Yellowstone NP last year I think heavy fast long lenses are far superior and will deliver better results. A good tripod will be very handy.

[bruce_margolis]

For your wildlife/safari/sports stuff, you want a really long lens but this is about trade offs. The 180mm is comparatively lighter but the range is quite short. The 80-400VR is a bit heavier but will give you better reach. Because it is a little beefy to use hand held, a monopod would be real helpful.

[eric_arnold]

for stage and low light work with light weight, the tamron 17-50/2.8 and 28-75/2.8 are excellent, with prime-like sharpness. you can add a 30/1.4 or a 50/1.4 for extreme low-light situations, but i like the convenience of a zoom for concerts, plus the d300's high ISO capabilities lessen the need for a low max aperture somewhat. the sigma 50-150/2.8 gives you much of the functionality of a 70-200 (no VR, though), but is possibly even better for portraits due to the wider wide end, besides being handholdable and lighter. it has great bokeh and fast AF as well. it's good for sports and action, but probably too short for a safari, where 300mm seems to be the minimum, but you can always add a 2x TC, which makes it a 100-300/5.6. haven't used the 16-85, but that's apparently better than the 18-200 in terms of IQ, although it's still somewhat slow, and therefore not great for concerts or sports except in good lighting.