derek_moreton1

<p>Thanks for asking this question. I was about to ask the same thing!</p>

<p>Thanks again, Ronnie. The $ saved will cover most of the cost of another lens!! I'll check out ebay.</p>

<p>Thanks, Ronni. Where is a good place to find used equipment? I have been looking at used 80-200s on a few sites but did not find any decent copies for under $800.</p>

<p>Thanks, Leslie. Even though it is inexpensive & has outstanding ratings, is it worth spending the $ on a 35 when I already have 2 lenses that cover that focal length? And is it too close to the 50? I love the 50 but sometimes have to scoot back to get everyone in focus & don't always have enough room. I can think of several occasions where a 35 in my pocket would have come in handy.</p>

<p>@ Peter- I use it all, BUT might use the 18-55 more if it were a 2.8. It depends what & where I am shooting. The 50 1.4 was on my camera for a while for portraits & low light shots but I could use something wider & sometimes I could use something with a little more reach. You see the predicament in which I find myself. Grabbing the Tammy would be cool but so would having the Tokina to kind of broaden my horizons and arsenal. I think the 35 is too inexpensive and too highly rated not to have but I am worried that it is too close to the 50. What do you think? Just get the Tammy & have both covered?</p>

<p>@Eric. Yeah- The sigma 10-24 gets AMAZING reviews but is f/4. I had not thought about selling the 35-70 b/c of the high quality & construction but if it would help me get 2 lenses w/o duplicating focal length, that could be a way to go. Trade in 1 & get 2 that are on my short list.<br>

Do you have the 50-150? Ive read mixed reviews. What do you think of it if you do have it?</p>

<p>I am seeking advice on selecting my next lens purchase.</p>

<p>I primarily shoot low light bar scenes and concert photography without flash, pictures of my kids and portraits of friends with a D90.<br>

I have the following Nikon Lenses:<br>

18-55 kit lens<br>

Generally happy with it though it does not perform well in low light<br>

55-200 VR 3.5<br>

Decent Optically but has mechanical problems. Performed better than expected in low light concert situations but still not really good enough for that IMO.<br>

35-70 2.8<br>

Great all purporse lens. Love it!<br>

50 1.4<br>

Love it. Great low light & portrait lens.</p>

<p>I am considering:<br>

Nikon 80-200 2.8<br>

Would replace the 55-200 as portrait & low light concert lens w. reach. Cheaper than the 70-200 2.8.<br>

Nikon 35 1.8<br>

Lower light. Inexpensive. Prime. Wider than the 50mm<br>

Tokina 11-16 2.8<br>

Would give me a Wide Angle lens in my arsenal. Low light capability. Plus I am interested in just playing around with it. Having fun. Try some portraits with depth.<br>

Sigma 18-50 2.8 or Tamron 17-50<br>

Would replace the kit lens. Would give me a little more flexibility in low light but may be kind of repetitive with my 50 & 37-70.<br>

Nikon 85 1.8<br>

Heard great thing about this lens for concert & portraits. Not too expensive. Could get this and another lens for under $1K.<br>

If you had $1K to spend which would you get... or would you recommend something else?<br>

<br />Thanks in advance!</p>