Good low-cost glass for D50? (prospective buyer)

My GF has shown interest in getting a DSLR, and since I would have gotten a D50 had the KM5D not been available, that's pretty much what I'll be getting her in a month or two. Now, we're both on pretty tight budgets so I'd obviously be looking for very inexpensive glass that could produce decent results; I've spent a total of $275 on 4 lenses for my KM, and all I would consider good lenses. I haven't really researched Nikon glass so what would be some good choices (anything over $150 is probably not going to work)? It would probably be with the 18-55 kit lens, and obviously a 50mm 1.8, but what about a decent telephoto or walkaround lens with more reach than the kit? Any advice/suggestions would be appreciated.

nikon 70-300 G
not very good but cheap
buy her a panasonic fz20 instead for 399
--
Thanks

Randy

http://randyr.smugmug.com/

I can honestly recommend the Sigma 70-300 DG (not the APO, it's more). Now, don't get me wrong, this lens goes for around $140 (atleast it used to) and it's nowhere close to the best lens in the book. But if you aren't looking to print your photos at large sizes, then this lens may do it for you.

I have the exact lens, and although it hasn't gotten too much use (I've not had time!), I was a little surprised for what I paid for it. I also will be willing to sell it if you're interested. A couple of pics taken with it follows. These pics were PP'ed to some extent, and aren't sharp at all when blown up full size.

--
Keith.

http://photobucket.com/albums/v345/keith1200rs/

I too am like you and on a really tight budget as far as my equipment goes. I recently bought a Nikkor 70-300mm f4-5.6 against many of the opinions on this forum. New they run less than 140, I got mine off ebay for 103. I am VERY happy with it. Unless I run into low light or need something really close up this is my primary lens now!
--
Stephanie

^Please visit my gallery^
http://stephaniewilliams.smugmug.com

and she will love you for a long time ...
well, at least, until lens lust creeps in
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin
.photoholic. - incurable -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
My frame action here:
http://www.rootminus1.com/freepics/albums/userpics/10032/Untitled-1.jpg

I was only planning on spending $200-$300 on lenses for my photography business until I saw what kind of quality you can get for more out of the wallet.

Now I'm looking at a $4,500 potential amount for 4-5 lenses.

But it depends what you do with the lenses, so good luck!

--
Thanks

Randy

http://randyr.smugmug.com/

I would second the D50 kit with the two lenses. While it is true that they are both light weight lenses, they have surprisingly good optics considering their price. I bought the single lens kit and was almost immediately sorry, because it was going to cost $100 more to buy the 55-200mm lens as a stand alone lens. Instead I opted to get the Nikon 70-300mm G, which many people consider an inferior lens, but which has worked for me. The 50mm f/1.8 is a very sharp lens and is good for low-light, so long as it’s focal length works, it is the equivalent of 75mm lens on a 35mm camera and some people find that a little long for their purposes, while others find it a little short for portraits; kind of a personal thing.

D50,70-300mmG



--
Brooks

http://www.bmiddleton.smugmug.com

I daresay one profits more by the mistakes one makes off one's own bat than by doing the right thing on somebody's else advice.
— W. Somerset Maugham

I would recommend the 28-105mm AF-D instead of the kit lens if that is wide enough for her. About $180 used. Has good macro capability too. Or the 28-200G.

If wide is important though, it won't work but you could re-sell it if you buy used for about the same price you paid if you buy direct from the owner!

If convenience is key, consider NOT getting the kit lens plus a telephoto, but instead only a 18-200 from Sigma or Tamron for about the same price. May not be the best quality compared to a two lens kit, but not much worse, I think and the range is good...

The 70-300G would be a cheap way to get into telephoto, but don't expect spectacular results... 70-210 AF (non D) is also good for the money and can be had for about your budget. $150 is very restrictive, unfortunately.

MrXpress said:

My GF has shown interest in getting a DSLR, and since I would have
gotten a D50 had the KM5D not been available, that's pretty much
what I'll be getting her in a month or two. Now, we're both on
pretty tight budgets so I'd obviously be looking for very
inexpensive glass that could produce decent results; I've spent a
total of $275 on 4 lenses for my KM, and all I would consider good
lenses. I haven't really researched Nikon glass so what would be
some good choices (anything over $150 is probably not going to
work)? It would probably be with the 18-55 kit lens, and obviously
a 50mm 1.8, but what about a decent telephoto or walkaround lens
with more reach than the kit? Any advice/suggestions would be
appreciated.

Click to expand...

MrXpress wrote:
[snip]

MrXpress said:

inexpensive glass that could produce decent results; I've spent a
total of $275 on 4 lenses for my KM, and all I would consider good
lenses. I haven't really researched Nikon glass so what would be
some good choices (anything over $150 is probably not going to
work)? It would probably be with the 18-55 kit lens, and obviously
a 50mm 1.8, but what about a decent telephoto or walkaround lens
with more reach than the kit? Any advice/suggestions would be
appreciated.

Click to expand...

The 18-55 reach is pretty good. I don' t know what you could buy for less than $150 that'll be better. The kit 18-70 is a good lens so see if your camera shop will allow you to pay an extra $100-150 to upgrade to that lens.

As for a tele zoom, I picked up a used Nikkor 70-210/4-5.6D for under USD$200. I'd guess it's on par with Minolta's venerable 70-210/4, although I haven't done head-to-head comparisons with them. Let's just say that I haven't run into any complaints. The Nikon lens is a bit more compact than the Minolta, though, and has a much nicer focussing ring. Downside (for me) is that it is a push/pull zoom vs. the two-ring layout of the Minolta.

What KM glass did you have?

larsbc

larsbc said:

What KM glass did you have?

larsbc

Click to expand...

Currently I have the 18-70 kit lens (came with kit.. I dunno, added $100 I guess?), 50mm f/1.7 prime ($60), 35-105 f/3.5-4.5 (old heavy metal version) ($45), and 75-300 4.5-5.6 D ($80). Nothing spectacular, but does the job, are built pretty well (save the kit lens) and most importantly, is cheap.

Thank you to all for your responses. I guess the path I would take right now would be the 18-55 kit, 50mm f/1.8 prime, and 70-300 sigma apo dg (which I seem to hear nothing but good things about), or maybe the Tamron XR Di 28-300 (the Nikon 18-200 is, obviously, out of my reach). The only thing that concerns me about the Sigma is that she (and I) is used to having IS, with the DMC-FZ5 and KM5D.

Stephanie,

Yes, for some reason the 70-300 seems to come in for a lot of criticism here, but I am happy with mine (ED version).







Keith.

http://photobucket.com/albums/v345/keith1200rs/

You might want to check around at some smaller camera shops for used lens. I got an "old" Tamron 28-200 f/3.8-5.6 AF LD used for about $100. Not great in low light, but makes a nice carry-around. I also got a real nice Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 for about $300 used.