What lens for my new Nikon D300?

M

matho

Suspended / Banned
Messages
26
Name
Anthony
Edit My Images
No
Hi all Nikon users.

I recently bought a Nikon D300 body (I use to have a Canon). I now need to buy a lens.

I would like to buy one really good all purpose lens. Later on, I might purchase a wider lens, but right now just need an all purpose one.

I was thinking 18-200mm, which seems a common lens. But are there better options?

Can you please help me out.

Thanks
 
As an general, all purpose lens the Nikon 18-200 VR would do the job, personally I'd rather have a couple of decent lenses than a single average one, but :shrug:
 
matho said:
what are your couple of decent ones?
Click to expand...

Depends on your budget. I know when I was looking at the 18-200 VR, I ended up with (all new) a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 and a Nikon 70-300 VR - the whole lot cost me just £30 more than just the 18-200....
 
Have a look at 16-85VR + 70-300Vr. I'm sure you'll get lots of other suggestions though. As scottthehat says, all depends on budget.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Depends on your budget. I know when I was looking at the 18-200 VR, I ended up with (all new) a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 and a Nikon 70-300 VR - the whole lot cost me just £30 more than just the 18-200....
Click to expand...
thats a great deal as the 70-300mm vr is near £500
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Depends on your budget. I know when I was looking at the 18-200 VR, I ended up with (all new) a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 and a Nikon 70-300 VR - the whole lot cost me just £30 more than just the 18-200....
Click to expand...

That is loads better than the 18-200.

If budget is say £300, you could go for a Tamron 17-50 or 28-75 both f2.8 second hand for £200 then a 50mm 1.8. Good lenses.

Or you could go for second hand 70-300VR and a 18-70 lens which would be pretty good for £400 SH too.

While the 18-200 is a convenient lens, the IQ of all the others mentioned would be far superior.
 
Thanks guys.

cambsno - don't often shoot at 300mm range, so your first option with the Tamron and the 50mm might be a good one. thanks.

Is there anyone who would advise avoiding the 18-200mm. Just want to hear if anyone doesn't like the lens or if anyone has had problems with it. Might help to rule it out :)
 
hi anthony
iv'e also got the d300 and use the nikon 18-200mm vr best lens ever apart from the f2.8 70-200mm vr.
this produces 1st class pro pics if you dont like it, it will sell with little loss of what you paid for it .
if you buy third party lens then you loose out on quality of pics and 2nd hand price are buttons so you loose out again
you cannot buy better than the nikon lens :clap:
dont buy cheap inferior 3rd party lens as you will regret it {imho}
its the lens that gives the quality of the pictures
 
Hey grahame, thanks for the reply.

Yep, have been thinking hard about this. I think I would prefer to stay with Nikon lenses.

I looked at the 70-200mm vr, looks like a great lens. I was just a bit worried about the restriction of the 70mm. I used to own a Canon 70-300mm and hardly used it. Was using my canon 17-55 more. This has me thinking the 18-200mm might be the way to go.

All great suggestions by everyone - this is helping thanks!
 
Go used and get a 18-70mm... should be able to find one about the £125 mark. Small(ish), light, well built, great AF. Amazing lens and probably as good optically as my 17-50 Tamron but without the constant f/2.8 aperture (thinks it's an f/3.5-4.5)
 
holty said:
hi anthony
iv'e also got the d300 and use the nikon 18-200mm vr best lens ever apart from the f2.8 70-200mm vr.
this produces 1st class pro pics if you dont like it, it will sell with little loss of what you paid for it .
if you buy third party lens then you loose out on quality of pics and 2nd hand price are buttons so you loose out again
you cannot buy better than the nikon lens :clap:
dont buy cheap inferior 3rd party lens as you will regret it {imho}
its the lens that gives the quality of the pictures
Click to expand...

With all due respect, that is garbage!

IQ from the 28-75 Tamron or even the 70-200 is very close to that of the Nikon versions. Yes, build quality and in the case of the 70-200 AF speed are not as good, but the Tamron 28-75 is around £200 SH and the Nikon 24-70 is around £900 SH. In terms of value, the Tamron is great. When I bought the Tamron I had a Nikon 17-55 f2.8 and did some test shots, which were virtually identical (Nikon is £600 SH). In fact IIRC the Tamron shaded it at f8 while the Nikon was marginally better wide open but this was pixel peeping and in normal shots they were both pretty much identical.

To say the 18-200 is the best alongside the 70-200VR is crazy! The newer 24-120 or 28-300 are far better from shots I have seen, you have the great Nikon trinity of 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200, then you have the 85mm 1.4, or 50mm 1.4, not to mention the 105/135 DC lenses.

To also say it will produce pro pics is also an incorrect statement. Ask all the posters in the Business section what lenses they use and I bet the majority will be the 24-70, 70-200VR, the odd Tamron and primes. In fact, I doubt any pro uses the 18-200 for paid work.
 
matho said:
Hey grahame, thanks for the reply.

Yep, have been thinking hard about this. I think I would prefer to stay with Nikon lenses.

I looked at the 70-200mm vr, looks like a great lens. I was just a bit worried about the restriction of the 70mm. I used to own a Canon 70-300mm and hardly used it. Was using my canon 17-55 more. This has me thinking the 18-200mm might be the way to go.

All great suggestions by everyone - this is helping thanks!
Click to expand...

The 70-200 is a great lens, BUT you will be paying £950 or so SH, so well over budget. By all accounts (not used myself) the Tamron version is half the price, and has great IQ but is slow to AF.
 
cambsno said:
With all due respect, that is garbage!

IQ from the 28-75 Tamron or even the 70-200 is very close to that of the Nikon versions. Yes, build quality and in the case of the 70-200 AF speed are not as good, but the Tamron 28-75 is around £200 SH and the Nikon 24-70 is around £900 SH. In terms of value, the Tamron is great. When I bought the Tamron I had a Nikon 17-55 f2.8 and did some test shots, which were virtually identical (Nikon is £600 SH). In fact IIRC the Tamron shaded it at f8 while the Nikon was marginally better wide open but this was pixel peeping and in normal shots they were both pretty much identical.

To say the 18-200 is the best alongside the 70-200VR is crazy! The newer 24-120 or 28-300 are far better from shots I have seen, you have the great Nikon trinity of 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200, then you have the 85mm 1.4, or 50mm 1.4, not to mention the 105/135 DC lenses.

To also say it will produce pro pics is also an incorrect statement. Ask all the posters in the Business section what lenses they use and I bet the majority will be the 24-70, 70-200VR, the odd Tamron and primes. In fact, I doubt any pro uses the 18-200 for paid work.
Click to expand...
i have my own buisness and my main lens i use in the studio is an 18-200mm.
 
scottthehat said:
i have my own buisness and my main lens i use in the studio is an 18-200mm.
Click to expand...

Ummm... what!?

So in a situation when the one aspect of an uberzoom that could sell it to someone (versatility) is useless (you control the distance entirely and I doubt you have a studio large enough to be shooting at telephoto length), you decide to go with an uberzooom... Why on Earth would you do that? Why would you want to pay the prices of distortion, CA, softness etc. to use a more expensive lens which doesn't help you out with the lack of need to swap lenses, it's not like they're action shots you'll be missing by not having the reach?
 
Ksanti said:
Ummm... what!?

So in a situation when the one aspect of an uberzoom that could sell it to someone (versatility) is useless (you control the distance entirely and I doubt you have a studio large enough to be shooting at telephoto length), you decide to go with an uberzooom... Why on Earth would you do that? Why would you want to pay the prices of distortion, CA, softness etc. to use a more expensive lens which doesn't help you out with the lack of need to swap lenses, it's not like they're action shots you'll be missing by not having the reach?
Click to expand...
first its my money, 2nd it take cracking pics also i can use it for days out to, as for soft its as sharp as my siggy 17-70mm os i sold.
and it makes me money so thats all that matters(lenses dont need to be ultra sharp for portrait work)
 
If your budget is limited then the 18-200vr will give you great pictures and verstility. Its a brilliant lens, if you can, keep it forever!
Use it for a while and then look to see what range you use most and maybe look for a good lens of that range.
I had a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 that wasnt brilliant, and it went for repair and recalibration twice. I didnt think much of it!
I also had a Tamron 17-50, which was really nice and gave my Nikon 17-55 f2.8 a run for its money, but didnt have the smileability that the Nikon gave me.
After listening to comments about getting quality ( = expensive) glass over everything and spending a lot of money on f2.8 lenses, I finally saw sense and ended up with 2 lenses that suited me. I dont do studio work or much low light so didnt bother with f2.8. I bought two Nikons, a 16-85 vr and 70- 300vr.
I still missed my 18-200 vr but was happy with my final choice.
A nice macro lens is good too, I had a Tamron f2.8 90mm. It was superb.

Allan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top