I know we have a few experienced members who shoot Nikon on this board. I think it's time to get another lens. I'm pretty sure I'll be replacing my tripod with the one that Tim uses and I think the wife is giving me the go ahead on a new lens. When talking with Tim he suggested that I not add another specialty lens to my bag that is only good at the theme parks (I was looking at fast wide angle lenses for inside rides). Currently, I own the 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens and a Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3. I wasn't to enthused with the results of the Tamron, but it was a last minute purchase before my 2007 Disneyland trip to replace the lens I dropped and broke. Anyone have any suggestions of what direction I should go next? I'm not sure where my pricepoint falls, but I think over $1500 will make me have to stop and really really justify it to the "finance committee"
I still love the 18-200VR. And now it is in stock all the time, and the price has really dropped too. You could probably get that and the 50 1.4 for around $1000. Tim needs to put his BH link back up!
Craig, So you still stand by the 18-200VR as one of your favorite? I already have the 50mm f/1.8 so I have that one covered
yep, my favorite is still the 18-200. there are, of course, better, faster, etc, lenses out there, but the 18-200 is so light and works for 90% of everything. ESPECIALLY at Disney. It makes for a very lightweight bag or no bag at all! I'm jonesing for other lenses, but they are all specialty lenses, and lens lust is a "thirst that can never be quenched" to quote Barbosa
Back in my Canon days, I actually shot more at home than I thought with my 35/1.4 - there is something about a fast prime and available light indoors on a regular basis. Anyway, Ray, what exactly are you looking for? I mean: a) one lens solution, b) a telephoto? c) More wide angle? a) Go ahead and sell both and get the 18-200. I use it and it stays on all the time. Except for right now, because it's in my carryon, and my camera has the 80-400 on it. b) How far do you want to go? 70-300 VRII is well received and not that expensive. If you want farther, the new Sigmas for Nikon will be out soon. Or for around your max budget the 80-400 is out there, but still uses a screw drive motor. c) The Tokina 12-24 or maybe even the 11-16. Much cheaper than the Nikkor. But for your budget you can also go full frame ready and get the 14-24/2.8 that screams, well just screams.
I'm another big fan of the 18-200VR. I never took it off on my last trip to WDW as it is good enough to cover Animal Kingdom with the crop factor or cropping after the fact. I only carried extra batteries and CF cards in a small belt pack along with the SB-600. But as Roger points out, what are you looking for in this lens? I like his idea of selling the two you got and replacing it with the 18-200VR. Now, if you want to wait until Magic Meets, you can borrow mine to try it out.
I like Rogers A and C solution! Go for the 18-200 nikon and the 11-16 tokina! sell all your old stuff. That 11-16 is making me rethink the whole full frame option. I could get a d300 and the 11-16 and a couple of nights in Disney, and still have money for food VS a D3
I like how you think! With the Tokina you go from 11mm to 400mm (that's 16.5 to 600 35mm equivalent) with just three lenses. Also, I think I would have a hard time giving up the crop factor. I don't have the money to get a 600mm VR lens.
And like Scott said, the 18-200 is good for AK. Anything bigger is a luxury. A heavy, expensive luxury.
I just added up some rough numbers for fun D300 $1799 18-200 $679 11-16 $500+/- 80-400 $1589 ---------------- Total $4567 ------------------------- D3 Total $4999 Even a prosumer full frame wont be this kind of "deal" anytime soon. Hmmm, I need a couple of lottery tickets!
I'm wanting a few lenses that cover me well with one being a good, covers all. Especially, now that I'm doing alot of competative bodybuilding comps and my wife is being forced to be the person behind the lens. She's been using my 50mm f/1.8, but it's crop factor limits ones shot choices. But, you need that speed due to the lighting or else you get to much blur because you cannot hold the camera steady enough with my 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 lens. The 18-135mm kit lens is good, but not great. I'm now wishing I had bought the 18-200VR when I was on the fence between it and the Tamron 28-300mm. I made the bad choice of deciding based on price.
Ray, I dont know if the nikon 18-200vr will actually help you in the case you just described. the vr only stops camera shake. It would allow your wife to handhold the camera with a longer shutter speed, but if you are moving on stage, you would still be blurry because of your movement. Double check your exif data and see if you were shooting the 1.8 AT 1.8. If you were, I'm not sure what lens would fix this situation for you. The pro zoom lenses start at f2.8. Maybe the wider sigma 30 1.4 would help out your situation. But f1.4 introduces other problems, such as a very small focus plane. You may not be happy with those results either. This is the one shortcoming of the 18-200VR that I love so much...it is f3.5 and cannot stop subject movement in lowlight. If you look at the grilling gif I linked to in another post, you can see Dina's arm is blurry, because she was moving faster than the camera could stop her. but the grill, is pretty sharp.
The pictures were taken at: Exposure: 0.003 sec (1/320) Aperture: f/1.8 Focal Length: 50 mm ISO Speed: 1000 Exposure Bias: -1/3 EV These settings were derived through careful guidance by Tim over the phone while I was backstage But, in all honestly, we can stick with the 50mm for those kind of things. I want a good range for when I'm on vacation, shooting the nieces and nephews sporting events and just all around photography around the house, yard or where ever (ie zoo) I'm starting to like the Tokina 11-16 combined with the Nikkor 18-200mm. If I could afford it I'd get the 70-300 or 80-400
I agree with Craig. Now, that we know what you are looking for. I found this lens on Amazon.com: Tokina 16mm - 50mm F/2.8 Pro DX Autofocus Zoom for around $650. I don't know anything about this lens so you should do some research. They also had a Tokina 50-135 2.8 for around the same price. I only found that in a Canon mount. I'll look around to see if they have it in Nikon. IF these lenses are of the same quality as their ultra wide angles, I would not hesitate to try them out.
This question came at a good time for me, too. I'm looking for a new lens for my D80 as well, and am torn between two lenses. I currently have the kit 18-55 mm 3.5-5.6, as well as the Nikkor 50mm 1.8. I am looking at both the Nikon 70-300mm 3.5-5.6 ED-IF AF-S VR and the Nikon 24-1203.5-5.6 AF-S IF-ED VR. I like the idea of upgrading my "everyday" lens to a longer, VR lens, but the idea of being able to reach out and touch something at 300mm VR really appeals, too. Suggestions? Kevin
