One nice lens for D300 and a petite person?

[shoppix]

<p>Appears the lens issue have been pretty much 'wprked over' here!<br>

As for getting critiques, post images to this site - photo.net and ask for your photos to be critiqued. You'll get honest critiques and help to get better. Also, another site is dgrin.com, with beneficial critiques and contests, and monthly 'mission possibles' to go photograph.<br>

On flickr and eyefetch you will not get honest, helpful critiques.</p>

[anirban_halder]

<p>Since you are looking at carrying less weight and you are using a DX camera, the choice in my opinion, is undoubtedly Nikon 18-200mm VR.</p>

<ul type="disc">

<li >It's not true that image quality of 18-200mm isn't good. 90% of image quality on any lens depends on the photographer. If you look at the book "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Artistry-Exposure-Digital-Photographers/dp/0596529880/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256577923&sr=8-2">Practical Artistry: Light & Exposure for Digital Photographers</a> by Harold Davis", 70% of the snaps are taken in Nikon 18-200 and they are just WOW!!</li>

<li >If want to carry less weight and stay hassle free, why change lenses every other moment when there's one single lens that will give you same image quality.</li>

<li >Next question ~ what kind of subject will you use it for? I usually shoot at 90-120mm range. For me a 16-85mm Nikkor lens will fall short most of the time. At the same time, I do click wide angle shots too. Nikon 18-200mm provides you sufficient wide angle. You can just add a Canon 500D to this lens and shoot amazing macros.</li>

<li >You will miss many candid opportunities sometime while you change the lenses if you are carrying too many lenses . This can be avoided greatly by a lens with range 18-200mm. Also, you can carry this lens and camera every time you leave home. How handly!</li>

<li >Less lens change means less dust in your camera mirror and sensor, particularly if you are working in little bit adverse weather condition. If you visit (or if you have visited) one of the metro cities in India, you will know what dust and pollution can do to your camera and lens.</li>

<li >Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 is a great lens but too heavy and bulky for day to day use. You can’t do a silent casual photography with this lens.</li>

</ul>

<p>My 2 cents. Finally it's your call. Will be curious to know what you decide finally.</p>

<p >~ Anirban Halder </p>

 

[mt4x4]

<p>Ok...so you don't want a heavy set up...but you have a D300. So, honestly, unless you were to trade the D300 off on a D90, your setup is going to be kind of heavy anyways.<br /> <br /> If you want the best quality in a wide-mid, your best bet is going to be the 17-55 f/2.8 which is pretty heavy. The Tamron 17-50 is also a great lens, and probably a little bit lighter. If you really want to shave some weight off the lens (altough I am maintaining the opinion of why bother if your camera is already heavy) the Nikon 18-70 or 18-105 are both capable performers that don't weigh a whole lot. Of course you loose the fast 2.8 aperture.<br /> <br /> If it were up to me, I would go with the lens you want (regardless of weight) and then take a look at how to best manage the weight of your setup. If it is carrying the lens+camera that is a problem, get a better camera strap than the webbing one that was supplied with your camera.<br /> <br /> If it is holding the lens that is difficult, consider a monopod. Monopods are easy to pack around and take all of the muscle out of holding the camera up for long periods of time. Not to mention, a monopod will also stabilize your camera/lens.<br /> <br /> One other option, that might sound a little contradictory, is to add a battery grip to the camera. Although it will increase the overall weight of the camera, it will help balance it out with a heavy lens, which might also alleviate some of the arm strain.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Also, how do you know if you're good enough to charge people? I have friends asking me if I'm for hire but I don't feel confident.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You could always do the shoot for free, and use it to bulk up your portfolio and build confidence.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>For me, the 16-85VR. Very nice, and clearly better than the 18-70 it replaced in my bag (which wasn't a bad lens by any means!). It is not much heavier nor bigger.</p>

<p>But it is a bit too slow at the long end. So maybe a light weight fast nice combo:<br>

- 35 f/1.8 for most work.<br>

- 85 f/1.8 for portraits<br>

And a dedicated wide angle lens to fill the gap below. You'd have fast lenses, not too much weight, and none of these are terribly expensive</p>

[dan_south]

<p>I would recommend starting out with the 16-85, use that for a while while you're learning, and evaluate your needs later. Maybe a 50 or 85mm prime lens for portrait work would round out your kit, but you don't need to make that decision now.</p>

<p>The boke effect is fun, but in order to achieve it you need a very narrow depth of field. That means the part of the person's face will also be out of focus. There's nothing wrong with shooting portraits at f/5.6, f/8, or even higher. Just set up a neutral drop.</p>

 

[savitri_wilder]

<p>I think as someone mentioned once you've tried a fast lens it's hard to go back, especially since most of the time (unless we travel) I love taking photos of our kiddos. I also have a love affair with bokeh:</p>

<p><img src="http://photos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs224.snc1/7121_166911001083_732986083_4064402_6590635_n.jpg" alt="" width="604" height="400" /></p>

<p>I have a hard time not using it.</p>

<p>Right now I'm leaning towards the 17-50 but what Keith Aldrich wrote is in the back of my mind... my D300 is already heavy and so what's another 2lbs, right? BUT, since I'm a hobbyist (is that how you spell it? Seems odd.) and right now I'm just the kids' paparazzi buying a $1300 seems like a splurge. I don't think I deserve it. Then I still want a wider lens.</p>

<p>I do, later down the road, want to add some more primes. I just love them, a 35 and 85mm.</p>

<p>I am looking at the lenses and looking at old posts on the different lenses for references. Lots of reading!!</p>

<p>Oh, I'll post a pic. to critique and I should do some freebies. But wouldn't people just say they love it cause it's free?</p>

[dbcooper]

<blockquote>

<p>"I did some reading and even though the 18-200mm has a nice range and not that heavy, the image quality isn't very good..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't believe everything you read about the IQ of that lens. It's a <em>little</em> soft at the very long end, but otherwise it's terrific. Somehow that morphed into 'poor IQ' online, and that gets parroted around the web. I've maybe seen posts from one or two people that actually owned the lens and didn't like it. In three years plus, that's not many complaints.</p>

<p>In practice, the 18-200 is a hard lens to beat without spending a LOT more. Before I got my D700, I happily shot 99% of what I do with the 18-200 and a Nikon 12-24 with a D200. The high-ISO IQ of a D300 ought to be icing on the cake. What the 18-200 won't do is give you pleasing bokeh, but I don't know of a variable-aperture lens that will. Your 50 ought to do that for you.</p>

<p>I'd go for the 18-200 VRII. The zoom lock is a nice feature...the earlier model's zoom creeps out while carrying it. You'll probably want something wider than 18mm to shoot architectural with a DX camera as well. It and a Tamron 10-24 would be within your budget.</p>

<p> </p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>i love your sample image. great shot. it just shows the eyes and talent in you. you will go a long way in your hobby! the D300 is just the right camera for you, and so is the tamron 17-50mm. later you can get the 17-55mm. i agree with you ---- not now, not yet.</p>

<p>after the tamron, since you keep on saying you love to go wide, i still say get the 10-24mm. i'm sure now that you will need a portrait lens so get the 85mm. you are skilled with the 50mm now i suppose, so the 35mm you can get even after the portrait lens.</p>

<p>btw, as i've mentioned before (i think i did), the 50mm f/1.8 is great for portrait (not the best bokeh, though). the 50mm end of the tamron is also good for portrait (better bokeh than the 50mm).</p>

[ofey_kalakar]

<p>24-120 AFS VR G</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>I thought I was interested in the f/2.8 pro zooms; they look really great in reviews and brochures. But then I held one in my hands. Oops, too big... too heavy! You said you wanted small and petite. A D90 would be great, smaller, and lighter, but you already have the D300 body so we'll start from there. </p>

<p>I have been having a lot of fun shooting available light with 35mm f/2 and 50mm f/1.4 on a D200. The new 35 f/1.8 DX lens looks pretty interesting. If you like shooting images like the one you posted, then I'd add a 35mm f/2 or 1.8... or a 28 f/2.8; they are light weight, small, and very good. One of the intro essays here at photo.net says, roughly, "Get a normal prime lens (35mm for your camera) and learn everything about photography by using it." At f/2 and ISO 800, I can shoot with my D200 in dim restaurants, at home, even funky images at night. With a D300, you'll do even better.</p>

<p>My favorite all around tourist lens for my DX camera is the 18-70 f/3.5-4.5 with its nice range, reasonable wide angle and enough tele for head and shoulders portraits. The 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 kit lens would be smaller and not quite as much range. </p>

<p>A long lens is another story. I find it's just really different. Borrow a zoom that goes to 200 or 300 and see what you think.</p>

[sandy_shepherd]

<p>Despite the weight and cost, I recommend the Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED. I find that the zoom range is great for most of what you describe. Doesn't sound like you need a long lens in most situations (landscape, architecture, and people) and wide angle is probably to specialized and can introduce more distortion. It fits your budget, and is as fast as zooms get at f/2.8. I've found it's no sharper than my 18-70 mm that I got with my D70, but I couldn't live without the subject isolation that f/2.8 can give. You could opt for a bag full of faster primes, but changing lenses too often can lead to trouble (as one poster advised) and you can't always "zoom with your feet" if you have a wall behind you and a fence in front of you! I do keep a 24mm f/2.8 (~35mm equiv. in 35 mm film terms) when I want to go light. I'd rather compromise zoom range vs. aperture.</p>

[savitri_wilder]

<p>Anirban, you sound like my photo instructor :) I have considered the dust that goes into my lens. I've also thought and looked at my photos and those I'm happy with were shots taken with the 50mm. I do have a zoom and just don't like using it (for the Canon). My husband though loves it. He likes taking airplane pictures with it (I think military planes are called airplanes :)). The 70-200... I think I'll need an assistant for that. I borrowed one from the photo lab here and I think it weight 5lbs. Just too heavy for me!!!</p>

<p>I did miss some opportunities when we were in Singapore. I wish I had a longer lens AND a 2.8. We were at a night zoo. The sun was about to set and my lens wasn't good enough. I had a longer lens but the f4-5.6 didn't cut it.</p>

<p>D.B., you're right, you can't always believe what you read. Esp. since everybody's idea/experience on something is different.</p>

<p>Ramon, thanks for your comment on my sample photo. That's what I mostly do. I'd love to keep practicing and be able to do other people's kids. It's what I'm comfortable with and kids are comfortable with me (maybe cause I'm small, ha!). I did hear that the 85mm has great bokeh. I did check on out and it is nice!<br>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2450/3886563584_052d3a2c31.jpg" alt="" width="332" height="500" /><br>

That's the picture I took with it. My model was hungry and refused to do anything but hey, all I needed was a sample photo with the lens and I got it :) The above was at f2.8. The photo was unaltered. Love the colors!</p>

<p>That's why I want the 85mm and as Richard mention a "normal" lens, the 35.</p>

<p>Just the more "fluid" one I'm having a hard time with and now I have 3-4 options to look at.</p>

[mizore]

<p>This is with my manual 24mm f/2.8. It will be like a 35mm on the D300 and a nice fairly wide angle on a full frame if you go that route. I found I could almost zone focus it after a few minutes of working with it. This is at f/8, and is a different effect that you might get with it wide open -- it's more of a landscape lens.</p>

<p>Do you find yourself looking for more reach? If not, you might be just as happy with the 50mm you have and a wide angle, both relatively small lenses.</p>

<p>I think with small children that the problem with the 18-200 zoom is that it's slightly awkward and long. The camera with one shorter lens on and one off can be swung in and out of bags easier, is less of a target for little hands, and the short old metal lenses would more likely survive being grabbed better.</p><div></div>

[anirban_halder]

<p>Savitri, I totally agree with you. Nikon 18-200mm isn’t meant for portrait. 50mm f/1.8 is far far better lens on that front. However, if you are taking a very close shot, sometime face or nose look too big with this 50mm lens due to DX camera’s crop factor. But still this 50mm is a real classy lens anyday.<br /> And, how could I miss mentioning Nikon 135mm f/2 DC? "<a href="http://nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/1935/AF-DC-NIKKOR-135mm-f%252F2D.html">AF DC-NIKKOR 135mm f/2D"</a> <br /> It's THE Nikon lens for portrait. DC - Defocus contro, Nikon term, it lets you control the bokeh in the background as well as in the foreground. I have not seen better and dreamier bokeh than this lens. The bokeh in this lens is like smooth washes of color. Subject stays super sharp. This lens also provides you very flexible working distance for different moods and f/2 for low light photography. There is a smaller version of this lens, 105mm f/2 DC.<br /> Ahh! One more lens to think about. Isn’t it?<br /> --Anirban<br>

P.S: I really like the first sample image you posted. Very nice shot and so perfect framing.</p>

[johnw63]

<p>Savitri,</p>

<p>As you may have noticed, getting a fast lens that is also light weight , outside the 35mm and 50mm prime lenses, is a real had thing to get. Any zoom that is f2.8 is just going to cost serious money. The further you get from 50mm the price of fast glass goes up, and often the weight goes with it.</p>

<p>I think what you may find is you will end up with a few nice , fast , primes for work that needs the out of focus look, and then slower lenses that are not too heavy for the general stuff. </p>

<p>For the D300, take a long look at the 105mm manual focus lenses. The f2.5 version will not cost much, compared to new AF-S lenses. Like someone mentioned, $150 perhaps. Unless some one knows of issues with DX sensor cameras, it is a great portrait lens.</p>

<p> </p>

[donald_weed1]

<p>Savitri; i use a nikon auto focus 24mm2.8 and a 60mm2.8 lens on my camera for all my shooting and they work out very well for me. the 24 becomes a 36 on youre d300 which is a moderate wide angle. Its a very comfortable lens to use for people, arch., and is very small. It is also very sharp compared to most zoom lenses. Trying to focus a wide angle manual lens on youre D300 can prove to be very difficult for most people. You can zone focus but i have found it to slow down my use of the camera. You can also use a nikkor 20mm auto focus lens but is more expensive. Prime lenses will give you more optical quality but you will have to use you're legs a bit to frame you're image. In addition you can also get a nikon 12-24 zoom latter on when you find you need something wider than a 24mm. ( i use a tokina 12-24 lens which i prefer over the nikor and can be found used for about $350.00. Very well built and fine optically. ) I hope this helps you,Don.</p>

[tom_burke3]

<p>This is an interesting thread, because it touches areas in which i have a similar interest.</p>

<p>I have a D80 + 18-70, 35m f2, 55-200 VR, and Tokina 12-24. I too would like to 'upgrade' from the 18-70, but everything I read about the relative merits of the 17-55 compared with the 18-70 tells me that the benefits of the former are unlikely to include significantly greater sharpness - the 18-70 is a lens with good sharpness. The benefits of the 17-55 come from the f2.8 aperture, the better construction, and the reduction in distortion. To be honest the last of these has never bothered me with the 18-70, so I'd be buying the 17-55 pretty much for the faster aperture & better construction, and somehow I just can't bring myself to spend that much money just for that. (I'm a pure amateur, btw.)</p>

<p>To come back to the OP's questions, I'll say that I have always enjoyed using the Tokina 12-24, and there is a new version with a SW focusing: my version has the drive-shaft focusing method. Finally, there is an interesting comparative review (by Geoffrey Crawley) in this week's Amateur Photographer of the 18-105 Nikkor vs. the 18-125 Sigma. The conclusion is a clear result in favour of the Sigma, which was found to be very slightly better (overall) optically, and with better build quality. So that would be another contender for a 'walk-around' lens.</p>

[savitri_wilder]

<p>Anirban, thanks for the comment on my photo :) I am a scrapbooker and so I shoot with a scrapbook layout in mind. Weird, huh? Well, I guess the rule of 3rds been pounded in my head since graphics school back in my college days and so a lot of my images follows that rule. Thank you again!</p>

<p>To everybody's prime suggestions... yes, I'd love to get a few more. I'd like a wider one. The 24 seems wonderful to use... versatile, esp. when indoors (sometimes I can only back up so far). I would like to get a very nice prime portrait lens. The DC option is quite interesting. Never heard but wouldn't mind getting. Seems like the 135/105 are both great. Right now I am loving working with the 50. I enjoy walking around and back and forth trying to catch the perfect image. I know I can do a lot with it... more than now... I just need more practice. I will look into a manual 105 too. I don't mind it for practice but I think if my goal is to take pictures of children I might need something that's auto or I need to be really good at manual focusing. I do it now here and there but I'm far from fast.</p>

<p>SO, for right now... I think I'm going to go for the Tamron 17-50. Since I'm happy with just a 50 I think the range will be fine for me. The 2.8 will help me inside I believe. I just hope the auto focus (I read that it's quite a bit slower than the Nikon) will be fast enough to capture my kids or any kids. I also will try to find a Tokina 11-16. This will be very important for me when I go sight seeing. I want a wide view of the Normandy Beach. I'd love a few wide and hopefully dramatic pictures of Roman ruins. And more...</p>

<p>If I ever need more range, I might look into the 55-200 VR or if by then I get pass being an amateur and the child will be bigger (aka walking on her own) I will really consider the 80-200 f/2.8 or something similar. I should start lifting weights or cook more often using my Dutch oven. Without food it's as heavy as a 70-200 (which I think is the same weight as the 80-200) :)</p>

<p> </p>