which faster lens for a D200

[laurapond]

I just bought a D200 from a good friend of mine, and i was hoping to upgrade my lens before i went back to

school. I currently have an 18-70 nikkor lens on it which i adore. However, when i'm at school in boston i

shoot a few band gigs and do a lot of low light work. this leads me to a conundrum on which lens to get. so far

i have it narrowed down to the following:

Promaster 18-50 f/2.8

Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 (leaning towards this one)

Tamron 28-300 VC f/3.5-6.3

Nikon 18-200 VR f/3.5-5.4

 

i had an 18-200 on my canon rebel that i just upgraded from and i loved the focal length to death, so i'd like to

get the same, but i don't know if i have the money to get both a 2.8 and the 18-200. do you think i'll be able

to get sharp photos from the 18-200 (or 28-300 but i think i'm going to want that wide angle) in a club/low light

given how well the d200 performs in low light, or should i just get the 28-75 and wait on the 18-200?

 

thank you so much!

-laura

[rob_piontek]

I would get the 50 1.8, it's only $100 or so. But I don't know how useful 50mm is for you. The slow zooms

aren't so useful in low light. Tamron also makes a 18-50 2.8 zoom. I think it's better to have 18mm on the wide

end than 75 on the long end.

[photo_dark]

For real low light work like that, I'd actually put my money on a prime.... 50 1.4 or something similar. If you are looking to use natural light (no flash) in that kind of an environment, i'd almost say f2.8 isn't going to be a wide enough aperture for you.

 

Besides, a cheap prime is exactly that... cheap (ie good for the budget).

[Matt Laur]

The 18-200 (which I have, and use) is not going to help you in that situation (much). Yes, the VR will help with the low light, but it won't help with moving subjects.

<br><Br>

If I were you? The <a href="laurphoto.com/prdr/nikon_50_1-8d" target="_blank"><b>Nikon 50/1.8</b></a>, at just over $100, is the absolute no-brainer. The fact that its field of view is that of a short tele on your D200 makes it a pretty good fit for stage work. It's sharp, it will autofocus on your camera, and can also be used in a close-to-macro role that you'll really enjoy. Don't get a nother cheap, slow zoom, whatever you do. Tamron makes a 17-50/2.8 you might want to consider... but the 50/1.8 should be in every bag, and I think you'll be surprised. Try using your current 18-70 at 50mm, and imagine it being way, way faster. That wide-open aperture will also do something else important: it drags more light into the view finder, which will make the D200's AF more workable in poort light.

[Matt Laur]

Gee, the same answer from three people in the same sixty or so seconds. I think that means something!

[laurapond]

you know- when i shot with my dad's old film SLR, the lens i had on it 90% of the time was the 50mm 1.8, and i completely forgot that that was an option. duh. i think i might go for that. i work in a camera store and we have both the 50mm 1.8 and the 50mm 1.4 on hand, is the 1.4 worth the extra $170 or so dollars?

[carl_becker2]

I bought an older AIS 50mm f1.4 for $115 for my D200. Its manual focus but fast and cheap. If conditions are bad then the bit of extra f-stop could make a difference.

[dan_brown4]

35mm/f2.0D-AF Nikkor. Perfect standard lens for the D200.

[Matt Laur]

Just remember... that extra bit of speed (going from f/1.8, a hair wider to f/1.4) also means an even shallower depth of field. If you go with a manual focus lens, that can be kinda tricky.

 

The real issue here is focal length. Your shooting style is going to dictate things, here. Two other serious contenders: the Nikon 85/1.8 (more reach, and an excellent portrait lens), or - if you need wider take on things - the Sigma 30/1.4 HSM (which I really like).

[joe_a2]

Laura... As Matt said, the depth of field gets mighty shallow at f/1.4. I would imagine you'll find yourself at f/2 most of the time for depth of field purposes. Besides, the 1.8 lens is arguably sharper than the 1.4 when you use it for "regular" f/8-ish shooting. Save the money and get the f/1.8 version.

 

Regarding shooting wth your Dad's SLR with a 50mm: The 50mm on the D200 will be like a 75mm would have been on your Dad's camera. The 35mm f/2D that Dan mentioned will frame on your D200 the way the 50mm framed on your Dad's SLR. Great lens, by the way.

[aaron l]

For band shooting, my prime 2.8's (20mm, 24mm) are barely adequate, many times shot wide open at iso 1600+ 1/30 if I'm lucky.. My 35mm 2, 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.4 get a lot more use.

[iancoxleigh]

Matt noted that "Tamron makes a 17-50/2.8 you might want to consider".

 

I agree it is an excellent lens, it focuses fairly fast, is extremely sharp, is reasonably cheap ($480 or so), and is f/2.8 throughout its range. I certainly can't complain about the build quality either. Mine has survived two drops and a partial submersion in an Olympic peninsula waterfall and it still working (and looking) like new (after a minor CLA to remove some water spot).

 

You can get this plus the 50 f/1.8 for the same price as the 18-200mm and you'll be very happy. I bet you sell your 18-70 after getting the Tamron too (I sold my Nikkor 18-200mm after getting the Tamron 17-50mm).

 

In a while add the 35mm f/2. It's a very nice, light, fast-focusing, sharp prime too.

[frank_skomial]

" I would imagine you'll find yourself at f/2 most of the time " - perhaps yes, but all of them miss the main point...

 

You need to understand that your camera will do metering and auto focusing at lens aperture wide open. With 1.8

that will be f=1.8, with 1.4 lens that will be 1.4, regardless if you shoot with F = 2, 2.8. 4, 5.6 etc. This is big

focusing and metering difference in very low light cases, when 1.8 may just not be enough, while 1.4 could possibly

do it better. That is why there is significant price difference.

[ronald_moravec1]

50mm 1.4 Ais if you like manual focus. 50 1.8 auto focus if you like AF and 50mm

 

35 2.0 either Ais or AF . This would be considered a normal lens on a D200.

 

24 2.8 either Ais or AF version. I have all the above and can recommend them.

 

Long range zooms are not the best lenses made .

 

A tripod is a better investment than VR.

[georges_walker]

Consider a 50mm F1.4 for portraits and photos under very low lighting conditions. Besides that, this lens offers BETTER sharpness in yor pictures.

[aether]

Laura, for shooting band gigs, you definitely need some fast glass and as already recommended, f/2 or faster. Also agree you should consider manual focus lenses (cheaper when used and there are some real gems always for sale). Depending on your budget you can go all the way up to 200mm in focal length and stay at f/2. Realistically, you should probably look at 35/2, 50/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8. You might get away with 28/2.8, slower aperture but sharp and short focal length means you can get away with slow shutter speeds. Don't worry about shallow depth of field because that shouldn't matter for the shots you want. If you have a lot to spend, think about 35/1.4, 50/1.2, 85/1.4 etc.

 

One other thing which I haven't seen anyone mention – the D200 is not too good at high ISO, usually it's best to limit ISO to 800 max but you can get some good shots up to 1600, it's probably the only bad aspect of the D200. Depending on lighting conditions at the gigs, you may not need to go beyond ISO 800.

[eric_arnold]

ronald, a tripod is not really a viable option for shooting bands in a live environment.

 

laura, i shoot live concert stuff often and use both the 50/1.8 and 28-75 (along with the tamron 17-50, sigma 30/1.4

and 50-150/2.8). i'd seriously consider getting both the 50 and the 28-75, or either the nikkor 50/1.4 or the sigma

30/1.4 if you can swing it. i actually use the 30 more than the 50 in concert situations since it allows for more

background elements.

 

IMO, a zoom is better than a prime for shooting live bands, except when you have a clear line of sight to the stage

and/or are dealing with sparse stage lighting. reason is, bands move around -- a lot. having a zoom means you can

make quicker adjustments.

 

the 28-75 is just about the perfect FL for shooting bands and its very sharp and contrasty. if i'm shooting a band and

can only take one lens, that's the one i grab. it's better at f/4 than 2.8, but still quite usable wide-open, and its IQ

compares very well to the nikkor 50/1.8.

 

OTOH, the extra stop (1.4 vs 2.8) really helps in low-light situations, especially with a D200, which is somewhat high-

ISO-challenged. so it's always good to have a prime along just in case, but you have to think about composition

more. depending on the crowd, 'sneaker zoom' may or may not be an option.

 

it's really a trade off, and you have to be able to work around the limitations either way. ultimately, you want both the

50 (or the 30/1.4 or 35/2) and the 28-75, but if you're just starting out, the 50 isnt a bad choice at all.<div></div>

[graham_marsden]

Some v.good points made above. But 60yrs of photography have taught me one lesson though.

 

Dont buy cameras from friends, or sell them to friends. Many good friendships have ended there. Give is fine !

[hiro]

I just shot a gig with a D300, Sigma 30mm, Tokina 11-16, and an 85mm. The 30mm was marvelous. The 85mm too long. What really surprised me was my SB-600 bouncing off the top of a high, black ceiling. Wow. Never thought that would come close to working out as well as it did.

[eric_arnold]

if you can use a flash then 2.8, or even f/4-5.6 is no problem. but many venues, like the Independent in SF, don't allow flash, and this is usually the norm for photo pits at larger venues: 'first three songs, no flash.'

 

an ideal low-light kit would be 30/50/85 primes, an 11-16 or 10.5 fisheye (both 2.8) and a 70-200, 50-150, or 50-135. you can sub a 28-75, 17-50, or similar zoom for the primes, but you generally at least want one superfast (1.4 or 1.8) lens in case the lighting is super-dim.

 

hiro, how did the 11-16 do? any shots you can post?

[shuo_zhao]

Laura, it seems that there are two objective you want to achieve with the new lens: #1 good low light performance, which means a fast lens will be needed; and #2 super-zoom range/reach, which in your case is specified as the 18-200 range. I think you can't achieve the two objectives with one lens.

 

For low light, you'll need a large aparture lens. The 50 1.8 is a no brainer. If your budget is tight, one of the 2.8 zooms from 3rd party manufacturers such as Tamron/Sigma/Tokina would be good choices as they are fast yet cheaper than the Nikkors.

 

The for one-lens-does-it-all lens, you'll need to go for the 18-200 Nikkor (essentially spending a lot for its convenience). The 3rd party equivalents of the lens and others such as the 18-135, the new 18-105 VR, the new 16-85 VR, or even the 55-200 VR plus the 18-55 could be feasible alternatives. I must point out that the super zooms won't produce the best image quality for their prices. But whether or not you should purchase it is really up to you to decide.

[owen_omeara]

I recently bought the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 D for my d300 and it is the best money I have spent in a long time. It is a bit pricer

than the 1.8 but it is razor sharp. The focal length works out to be about 82mm in the DX format which is perfect for the

work I do. The contrast and color are fantastic. It is a killer prime and is just under $300.00.

 

-Owen

[rekfotos]

I cannot shoot enough with my 85mm 1.8. Maybe a bit long in the tooth for you, but truly a wonderful lens. Otherwise, I agree and also have the 35mm f2 and 24mm f2.8.

[eric_arnold]

"The for one-lens-does-it-all lens, you'll need to go for the 18-200 Nikkor "

 

not if you want to shoot low-light, no-flash stuff such as bands. much better to separate the focal range with a 28-75 and 70-200 or equivalents and get constant 2.8 aperture, or even get a collection of fast primes all the way up to 200/2. unfortunately, much more expensive too.

[owen_omeara]

The 85mm 1.8 is a favorite of mine as well.

 

-Owen