Which upgraded lens for d300

[heytherek_kas]

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I am a bit stuck - I have been shooting on a D300 for four years or so and love the camera and what I can get out of it. Since I am starting to get into the more serious end of actually doing photography part-time I need to update and get some better glass for my money. I am not thinking of moving to full frame for some time but I need a good all rounder lens that can be used for event photography and things like interiors and maybe landscape and portrait. I am still unsure whether to get a Tokina 11-16 to cover the wider side and a 85mm 1.8 or 1.4 for portraits/street photography or get a Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 which seems a great lens but expensive. I am not looking at getting a longer zoom for a while as I have access to one at the moment.</p>

<p>Any advice appreciated.</p>

<p>Karen</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Karen, without knowing which lens you have today (and in which way it is holding you back), and without knowing what kind of photography is the most important to you, it is near impossible to say which lens would work best. All lenses you mentioned make sense - 11-16 for interiors and partially for landscapes, 17-55 for events and partially for landscapes, a 85mm for portraits and partially events. But they're too far apart to say which one is the most useful. Another thing that can be useful to understand is how much money you're willing to spend. The lenses you listed aren't the cheapest in their class, so depending on budget it may be worth to consider (for example) instead of the 11-16, a Tokina 12-24 or Sigma 10-20; instead of the Nikon 17-55 the Tamron or Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 - a lot cheaper, and maybe that way you could get two lenses instead of one only.<br>

So sorry to not give a more direct answer but if you would fill in the blanks a bit more it becomes a lot easier to give a more useful answer.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>All rounder lenses use to start with the "standard" range zooms.<br>

So the first I`d get for event, interiors, landscape and portrait is a "17-55/2.8" type lens, no doubt.<br>

A wide angle zoom could be interesting, too, but in my experience, far behind the standard zoom.<br>

Same for tele zooms, they are useful but unless you were specialized in something, the standard range use to be more useful to my taste.<br>

Primes look to be fancy, but they are quite limited in its use... if you don`t want to carry with a tele zoom, sometimes a 85/105mm prime could be a good substitute.</p>

[heytherek_kas]

<p>Hi, to fill in the missing gaps - I mainly use a nikon 50mm 1.8 lens and just a 18-70 1:3.5-6 kit lens from another camera. I have mainly used the 50 prime for portraits and things like that, which has been great but now that I want to do more with my photography i want to get some better lens that will get me started in event/corporate/interiors type photography. I am looking to spend up to $2k on a new lens and some extra equipment that I need - I guess I just want to get the best lens that I can afford that is going to be versatile enough for me. I have access to a 200 and 300 lens so am not worried about going longer.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>The 11-16 is fantastic for interiors... but... I'd get the Sigma 8 - 16. Last year when I was shooting home interiors for my realtor to use (to sell my house... I had better gear than she did) I was wanting wider than 11mm in most of my rooms. It went well, but could have been better.</p>

<p>That said, I recently sold my 11-16, because it's SO wide I found I was never using it for any serious imaging.</p>

<p>Only you know which of those will work, but the 85 for street photography? I have a friend who is a MASTER of street photography, and a pro working for the Smithsonian (for decades now). He uses a P&S for his very best street stuff. The more unobtrusive the better.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Around $<strong>1</strong>k should be enough to get 2 out of 3 lenses you listed. My first purchase would be a 17-50 f/2.8 in your case, as the main event lens - but I'd look at the Tamron or Sigma. The Nikon sure is nice, but large and very (=too) expensive, these competetitors are optically at least as good for half the money.<br>

Wide angles - it really depends. Some love the ultra-ultra wide as Peter. That Sigma 8-16 I would never buy as it's too extreme and I wouldn't find use for it. I had and liked a Tokina 12-24 f/4. If you have no experience with ultra-wides, do not go overboard with them. "Taking everything in" with a 8mm focal length seems nice, but quickly gets boring. I found myself using the 12-24 quite often at its long end as well (18-24), making it just a more versatile tool.<br>

Or the other option: the 85 f/1.8G, which personally I'd get over the f/1.4G. Not because it's better but it is very very good and costs a lot less. Or hold it off, make some more money first and then see to get a 85 f/1.4 instead. A bit a matter of priorities - interiors, or portraits?</p>

<p>The other equipments - I hope/assume that includes lighting? Good lighting will make more of a difference than the "upgrade" in lenses. If the lens you currently have is the Nikon 18-70 f/3.5-4.5, that isn't a bad lens at all, and at f/5.6-f/8 will perform perfectly fine. Getting the lighting right will have a much bigger impact on the images.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I agree. Something in the 17-55/2.8 family, and (if you're doing events, especially), an SB-900 flash. And while you're at it, spend an extra few dollars on an SG-3IR - which helps block unwanted blinks and reflections when you're using the D300's pop-up flash as a master to control the SB-900 when it's off-camera as a slave. As Wouter points out, good control of your light is more important than any change you can make lens-wise.<br /><br />But speaking of lenses: Nikon's 17-55/2.8 is indeed more expensive, and heavier, and larger than the competition from Sigma and Tamron. But... it's a tank. It's a very solid, tough lens. Again, well suited to the knock-around world of event work. </p>

[heytherek_kas]

<p>Hi, thanks for all the suggestions - I have a lot to research still but will look at them all. Yes I need to look at getting a good basic lighting set up as well. Something mobile that can be easily transported to different locations.</p>

<p>My first idea was getting an 85 for portraits and also a wide angle to cover interior/landscape but my gap was going to be a good all purpose event lens.</p>

[heytherek_kas]

<p>Hi, thanks for the suggestions Matt, will look into those, yes at present I have an SB-600 and not sure whether to keep it or go to a SB-900 which seems to be the flash unit of choice.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

The 85mm f/1.8G AF-S Nikkor is a stellar lens for portrait and event work. Not too big, not too heavy, and very sharp. It's

a great choice for either the APS-C DX format of the D300 or for a full frame Nikon.

For a flash the SB-900 is hard to beat. Also get a camera to flash cable so you can get it out of your hotshoe even if using it as a master when using your existing SB-600 as a remote. Zebra as well as Nikon make these. If you haven't seen it I recommendJoe McNally's books "The Hot Shoe Diaries" and "Sketching Light" as imaginative guides to creating better lighting in a huge range of styles and circumstances.

 

As long as I am recommending books, also check out "The Passionate Photographer" by Steve Simon.

 

Finally, and this is a little techy, learn how to use the D300's autofocus micro-adjustment settings to tune your specific and unique camera body to your lenses. Tuning autofocus performance makes a huge difference in image quality. Once you got that handled we can then talk about the image sharpening process during your raw processing and at the output stage when you are preparing images to delivery to a lab for printing or directly to a client.

[eric_arnold]

<p>hi karen,<br>

i have a d300s w/ tokina 12-24/4, sigma 17-50/2.8 OS, nikon 35/1.8G, tokina 35/2.8 macro, and sigma 50-150/2.8. if you are using an 18-70 as your main lens, i would def. upgrade that to something faster as a first step.</p>

<p>you say: </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I need a good all rounder lens that can be used for event photography and things like interiors and maybe landscape and portrait.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i would go for the sigma 17-50 OS over the nikon 17-55. image quality is comparable, with perhaps a slight edge to the nikon wide open and in the corners (which wont matter unless you're shooting landscapes at large apertures), but i've shot PJ and events with the sigma for four years and it hasn't missed a beat. it has an advantage over the nikon in that it's stabilized, which helps in low-light photos of still subjects, and more compact. it's also about 1/3rd the price, although you can get a used 17-55 for around $800.</p>

<p>that said, if i was buying now, i would go for the sigma 18-35/1.8 zoom, which appears to be the sharpest DX zoom around and also gives you shallower DoF and helps mitigate the d300's high-ISO limitations.</p>

<p>while the 17-55 has an impressive build, it's not optically-superior enough to justify its higher price over the sigma 17-50, which is fast enough in focusing on a d300 with its HSM motor to handle the pace of event shooting. the 18-35 has better IQ than any lens in its class for nikon, reputedly, and can do things no other DX zoom lens can do with that 1.8 aperture. </p>

 

<p>the catch there is the limited zoom range on the long end, so this lens may not fit your definition of an all-rounder, although it's arguably more versatile than others in its class, depending on whether you value aperture over zoom range. But then, i find the 17-50 too short sometimes anyway for portraits, and you can get by shooting events with a wide-standard zoom and a tele. the 18-35 paired with an 85 would be an excellent combo IMO; the 85 would act like a 135mm, which is to say a moderate telephoto. if you already have a 50/1.8, the 85 makes a lot of sense.</p>

<p>regarding wide-angles: the tokina 11-16 would work for interiors and landscape, but it's a little too wide for "people shots" much of the time. when i shoot people with its 12-24 sister, i try not to go wider than 16mm as bodies and faces can get distorted and usually i'm at 18-20mm and thereabouts. if you're willing to live with its limitations as a specialty lens, the 11-16 has an excellent reputation. however, 12-24, 10-24 or 12-28 is a much more useful range for event shooting in particular, where you will be using the long end as much as the wide end. if you need to use an UWA as a primary lens for events, you want a wider zoom range. if you're using as a secondary or tertiary lens for those applications, the 11-16 is a good choice. it also goes to 2.8, which makes it good for interiors.</p>

<p>with a $2k budget, you should be able to get an 18-35/1.8 (or 17-50OS, if the 18-35's range is a dealbreaker) + 85/1.8G + 11-16/2.8 and still have some left over for other accessories. that's what i would get, if i were you.</p>

[djthomas]

<p>For the longest time I used the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 lens on my D300 as my primary lens. For shooting events it is hard to beat. There is no doubt that it is a heavy lens and like others have said, it is built like a tank--that sucker is solid. I use this lens a lot for travel photography too. (Not too long ago I purchased a 70-200mm lens, so that toy has been getting a lot of attention lately--but I still keep going back to the 17-55.) For tight spaces, crowds, shooting on the street--and not wanting a lot of distortion, this lens performs exceptionally well. Over at KEH, they have this lens in EX/EX+ condition for just over $800. That still leaves you with a decent amount to look at another lens--or as suggested, a good flash which is essential if you are planning on shooting a number of events--even at f/2.8--you're going to need some additional light from time to time, so a flash will help you there as well.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I use this lens a lot for travel photography too.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>yikes. how's your back?<br>

<br>

obviously the 17-55 is a good lens. it's also the only 'pro' DX lens nikon ever made and a design from 2003. if all you're shooting is events, it's the most rugged option out there, and can do double-duty as a truncheon. but in 2014, it's a bit archaic and oversized, not to mention overpriced compared to DX lenses with similar specs. i also dont see a reason to choose that over the 18-35/1.8 zoom, which is $800 new w/warranty, unless the 20mm on the long end is absolutely critical to one's shooting style.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>This is my lens group with two D300s bodies for events, and anything else I encounter; Sigma 17-50 f/2.8, was a Tamron until I dropped it a couple months ago, either is a good choice; Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 (probably the best lens I've ever touched), Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 with 1.4x teleconverter. </p>

[mike_halliwell]

<blockquote>

<p>Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM Nikon</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd expect Sigma to update this lens pretty soon to an A version that will allow the USB thingy to do much more complex fine tune than the d300 alone can do.</p>

<p>If you don't really need that extra stop (although with the d300 high ISO noise could be a problem) the newer Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4 C is great.</p>

[heytherek_kas]

<p>Thanks for all the great advice - it's all very informative. I really like what I have read with the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 and the nikon 85mm f1.8 and also like for the landscape/architecture the sound of the Tokinas 11-16mm and 12-24. I guess I need to make sure that i can cover the areas I want to have the most useful best quality equipment I can afford.<br>

Looks like I might also need to upgrade my SB 600 flash to the SB 900 too.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>just want to expand on my comments a bit. i used a d300 as my primary body for a few years, mainly shooting events. i loved that camera (and still refuse to part with my current d300s), but the one area where the body let me down was in high-ISO performance. shooting a lot of live performance in low-light conditions, i ran into this limitation frequently. 2.8 zooms werent fast enough, and so i bought a bunch of fast primes but eventually upgraded to a D3s.</p>

<p>had the 18-35/1.8 siggy been out back then, i would have swooped it up in a heartbeat. it would have saved me the trouble of buying a standard zoom AND fast primes -- and maybe even stopped me from going to full frame and buying all new FX lenses. had the company released it when the d300s was at the top of the prosumer DSLR heap, it probably would be much more celebrated than it is now. </p>

<p>the reason i strongly recommend the 18-35 over the 17-50 and 17-55 is because it can actually extend the life of an older DX body like the d300, by giving it a boost in the area where it is weakest. Looking at the review from photo.net, it also seems to have more pleasant bokeh than DX standard zooms, and subject isolating-qualities equal to or better than the full-frame nikon 24-70 AF-S, which is a $1700 lens. Sigma has really been on a roll lately with their recent lenses, and it's nice to see them continue to innovate in a market segment Nikon seems to have abandoned: the pro or advanced enthusiast DX shooter.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I used a D300 for years and do similar photography. Here's what you need:</p>

<p>Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 (it keeps straight lines straight, low distortion)<br>

Nikon or Sigma 17-55mm f2.8<br>

x2 flash. I have x2 Nikon SB-900. The SB-600/700 is not powerful enough<br>

x2 lightweight lightstands. I have Raven RS-8. You want 8 ft. stands, not 6 ft.<br>

x2 40 inch silver umbrellas, x2 umbrella swivel clamps</p>

<p>The stands will need to be weighted down. The above is a good but minimual set up. When I need it, I also have a big pile of powerful monolights & battery packs. A pair of Alien Bees B1600 plus one Vagabond battery would work for you. Here's what the extra power allows you to do. With the little SB-900 flash, you can use them the main light if shooting indoors, or as fill flash if shooting outdoors. Outdoors you will generally be limited to overcast days or taking shots in shade. With the big monolights YOU make the rules. With big power monolights you can actually overpower the sun. That is, you can take shots in the middle of the day that look like they were shot at dusk. This does two things for you. First, you aren't restricted on when you can work. Second, when you control the light, you control everything. </p>

<p>Street shooting. Doesn't pay anything of course, but is fun. If you are talking about candid shots of people, the smaller the camera and lens the better. No one likes to see a stranger point a big honking lens attached to a big camera at them. For this kind of stuff Nikon's best camera is the D5300. It's small and non-threatening. Not only that, you can fold the LCD out and turn it up, then you hold the camera at your waist. People don't even seem to realize you are taking photos because you are looking down instead of at them. I use that camera some, but really any more I love to use my Leica IIIc with Leica lenses 28/35/50/90mm. The 28mm gets used the most. I only shoot b&w film. Here's a YouTube video I did with the Leica, in Chicago in May. BTW, the camera was made in 1942. You don't need anything fancy to do good work with.<br>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

 

[heytherek_kas]

<p>Hi Kent, thanks for all that info (and everyone else) - it's very helpful - really liked the you tube video!</p>

<p>Have been doing a lot of research and thinking at this stage to get a 18-35 sigma, nikon 85mm 1.8 and possibly the tokina 11-16 as maybe the tokina 12-24 might be a bit of an overlap with the sigma - i think those lens will cover what i need initially - and a sb900.</p>

<p>Thanks for the details regarding the umbrellas - I will be setting up minimal to start with so will look at those.</p>

<p>Karen</p>

<p> </p>