david_m12

<p>Thanks for all the responses so far - it's greatly appreciated! And Eric's right - I do have that 50. Would it be redundant to pickup that 17-55 when I have the 50? Should I maybe go with 12-24 and keep the 50 I have and grab something larger like the 105 or 180 primes that Douglas first mentioned? I have no problem with moving myself for any photos I take rather than relying on the lens to be my feet. I mentioned weddings because I've done some, and may have the opportunity for more experience with them this summer but I'm hoping to do more portraits, and things like band promo photos. Would going with a zoom be simply for the convenience of not swapping lenses? Or would that be irrelevant since by and large I would have control of the situation when staging these photos and poses and therefore not trying to capture the moment so much as create it? Sean's photo on the 80-200 is making that lens seem appealing.</p>

<p>Hi all,<br>

I've been shooting for the past few years with a D80 and a 28-80 kits lens from an old N75 film camera. I've taken some great pics and have been generally happy with the results but the lens is suffering horrible creep and well, it's probably not an appropriate lens to be using anymore. Now the time (and funds) have finally come where I can buy a better lens. I'm looking to shoot more portraits / street shots / candids and need some help. I have the Nikon 50mm 1.4 which I love. I tried the Nikon 18-200 but took it back - wasn't sure it was what I was after. I also tried Sigma's version but it was decidedly clunky halfway through the zoom so back that went too. I've been trying to read up on the Nikon 70-200 2.8 but then noticed the 80-200 as well. I've seen people mention the 180mm products from both Nikon and Sigma. I've shot some weddings and I'd like to one day turn this passion into a career so I need to step up to a better lens.</p>