ken_i

<p>Okay so I had a plan to get the 18-140 and a flash as my next two camera purchases, and then life threw me an unexpected curve ball. <br> Am not sure if any of you have been in this position before, but on Ebay was a vintage Nikon 80-200 f/4.5-5.6 for only $50 in mint condition. Unfortunately, I didn't have time to consult with any of you that were kind enough to respond to my blog post a couple months ago, but after discovering this 80-200 was/is supposedly the lightest zoom ever made for that range - and also a favorite of Galen Rowell's because of it's sharpness/weight - I pulled the trigger just because ... and I gotta say that $50 was the best purchase I've ever made for the pictures taken with it this past weekend. It was so worth it!<br> Now my camera bag is filled with three old, lightweight lenses that work perfectly fine on my D300 - 18-55 ED, 80-200 and 50 1.8. It's not flashy and I know there are still a few holes in my range that need covering. Am looking forward to trying out this new "VR" technology someday. :-) However, the three lenses I have now will do as a short term fix but I really needed that fix the 80-200 has since provided. <br> Now I think my next purchase will be the SB-400 flash, the 18-140, or even the 55-300 - ahead of everything else - because now I LOVE long zooms and the way they seem to "flatten" perspective without so much distortion. Of course that Sigma 30 1.4 HSM is still in the mix too. Unfortunately, I don't have the budget for the Sigma 18-35 and apparently have no discipline when it comes to saving for it anyway. :-) <br> Just wanted to update everyone and to also thank Kent - or whoever it was - that told me months ago zooms are the way to go when it comes to capturing toddlers in action. Fortunately, my wife is also starting to appreciate how wonderful it is to share these images of our children with the grandparents and how these photos will be appreciated for many more years or generations to come! <br> Thanks so much to all of you for being such a valuable resource and cannot wait to see how much difference a proper flash will have on indoor photography, even if it is just a bounce. Can't wait, but will try. </p>

<p>Wow this is all very helpful. I've got a lot of homework to do regarding flashes now it seems, as well as learning how to post-process with RAW files. Photography seems like a hobby that one always needs to keep current with technology and that it could take me a lifetime to master. However, I'm feeling a bit more comfortable now about my next investment or two. Thanks everyone!<br> As far as flashes go, is a YongNuo YN565/568 EX going to be a better bang for my buck than something made by Nikon a generation ago? Am not sure entirely of all the bells & whistles I may need with a flash but it takes my on-camera flash forever to recycle sometimes when I want to shoot 4/5fps (i.e. my daughter blowing out the candles of her birthday cake in low light).<br> The SB400 should be fine if all I want to do is bounce but there was one time last Christmas when I could see the value of an off camera flash when trying to expose for both the lit up Christmas tree and my family posing in front of it. Since I've got a fancy D300 maybe I should take advantage of its ability to trigger an off camera flash? I saw a used SB600 for less than $200, which isn't that much more than a SB400. <br> This year it's probably not going to happen, but someday I hope Santa will leave that Sigma 18-35 1.8 under the tree for me. :-) Until then I have a lot more learning to do that's for sure....</p>

<p>Kent said: "I would not want a single focal lens (e.g. 35mm) to photo young kids" and then recommended a Sigma 18-50 f2.8 lens. Yet if I already have the 18-55 kit lens, wouldn't that be slightly redundant? Sure a 2.8 lens is a lot faster but will that be passable indoors for a D300 sensor? Then what about a used Tamron 28-75 f2.8 or Sigma 17-70 instead? <br> Am looking for something longer outdoors than 55 plus something a little brighter/wider than my 50 indoors, and for about the same money as the Tamron or Sigmas mentioned above, I could also get either a) 18-140 & SB400 flash or b) 55-200 & 35 1.8 as a compliment to the two other lenses in my kit. <br> Love all of the feedback I've been getting from this forum and it is greatly appreciated as I am not in a rush to make a bad decision. Thanks everyone!</p>

<p>Thanks for the wonderful feedback about lenses/flashes. This is terrific stuff!<br /><br />Even though it’s an old camera, I absolutely love my D300 and its ergonomics and am planning to stick with the DX system now after hearing about the D500. Will for sure need a good flash anyway since there isn’t one on the D500 camera of my dreams, but am still not sure yet if what I need next is a flash or a lens? <br /><br />For now I usually try to keep my ISO at 200, but never more than at 1600 in low light conditions. Mostly I take pictures in JPEG format and rarely do any printing. I love how Nikon lenses automatically correct for distortion inside the camera since I’m not really a Lightroom/Photoshop kinda guy, however, have improved my photogtaphy a lot over the past year by almost always shooting in manual mode. Can the Sigma/Tamron lenses be set up to automatically correct for distortion in a similar way inside the camera? Otherwise I would LOVE a Sigma 30 1.4 or even the 18-35 1.8, which would certainly extend the life of my D300. <br /><br />Love shooting primes and found the 50mm focal range ideal for taking pictures of one child, but now that we have two little ones, I need something a little wider to get them both into the photo. If Nikon ever decided to make an inexpensive 24mm 1.8 for a DX sensor, that would probably be my ticket. A Nikon 35 1.8 DX can be picked up used for pretty cheap ($160) but a Sigma 30 1.4 is $280 for the older version, or $400 for the new “Art” one. Think a 30 1.4 Art lens is worth it? Or might I be better off just saving up for a Nikon 24mm 1.8 FX lens, since it might be a better compliment to my existing 50mm? The Nikon 24mm is a little wider/lighter, unfortunately it’s also double my budget and I probably couldn’t afford it until next year … which is perhaps why I’m leaning towards getting the 18-140 for now and postponing my decision on another prime for later, or until the 24mm for DX is released. :-) <br /><br /></p>

<p>So unfortunately I don't have a big camera budget but I'm a dad of two little ones under the age of 2. Last year I picked up a mint D300 and two vintage lenses, a 50 1.8D and a 18-55mm lens WITHOUT VR. Neither of these lenses are bad but indoors, my 18-55 isn't bright enough and the 50 is a little too long. Outdoors, I actually love both lenses but sometimes wish that my 18-55 had a bit more reach. For the longest time I had thought my next lens would be a zoom (55-200, 55-300 or 70-300) but because both of my kids really aren't old enough to be that far out of my reach for any extended time, I've recently changed my mind about getting a long zoom as my next purchase. Now it's between a 35 1.8, which may or may not be too similar indoors to the 50mm, or a refurbished 18-140 that I recently saw for under $225. Am also tempted by the 18-140 because it might be too limiting to have all three of my lenses within the same focal range if I were to have a 35,50 and 18-55. Is the 18-140 on a D300 bright enough to be used indoors? I suppose buying a flash down the road might be a wise investment but have sort of fallen in love with shooting primes without flash which is why I am considering the 35 1.8. Thanks!</p>