I am planing to buy a Nikon D80 as my first dSLR but have problems deciding which combination of lenses to buy. I care primarily about image quality and wouldn't mind changing lenses. Could anyone suggest the combo you would use to cover wide angle, everyday use, low light, macro, and zoom? I don't want to buy too many lenses that have overlapping functions. Price is not too much a concern. Light weight will be good. Third party lenses are ok. Please help me. Deeply appreciate it.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Please help me to select lenses for Nikon D80- a newbie
- Thread starter ChunI Li
- Start date
David Nall
Forum Pro
If you can find one, the 18-200 VR would be an excellent starter as it covers a large area, and is very good. That is the lens I started off with on my D200 and it is still my favorite. It almost eliminates changing lenses and it is on my camera 90% of the time. Dave
--
please visit my gallery at http://www.poperotzy.smugmug.com
Save 5.00 on your own Smugmug web page. Link for coupon on my website.
--
please visit my gallery at http://www.poperotzy.smugmug.com
Save 5.00 on your own Smugmug web page. Link for coupon on my website.
You could look at the following combos:
Option 1
Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8
60mm f/2.8
70/80-200mm f/2.8
Option 2
17-55mm f/2.8
60mm f/2.8
70/80-200mm f/2.8
Option 3 (Best values)
Tokina 12-24mm f/4
Nikon 35-70mm f/2.8
80-200mm f/2.8
For available light, go with either the 35mm f/2 or 50mm f/1.4. You should be happy with any of the above options (a bit pricy though).
Good luck.
ith
Option 1
Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8
60mm f/2.8
70/80-200mm f/2.8
Option 2
17-55mm f/2.8
60mm f/2.8
70/80-200mm f/2.8
Option 3 (Best values)
Tokina 12-24mm f/4
Nikon 35-70mm f/2.8
80-200mm f/2.8
For available light, go with either the 35mm f/2 or 50mm f/1.4. You should be happy with any of the above options (a bit pricy though).
Good luck.
ith
hc4n4
Leading Member
sounds like a good option and later add some primes for low light and portrait.
--
my latest photos at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rafysugiri/sets/
Alex McLeod
Forum Enthusiast
I'd recommend against the 18-200mm VR, personally.
The original poster has expressed a desire for image quality and a willingness to change lenses throughout the day - and that's exactly the opposite of what the 18-200 has to offer. It's not sharp, and it's not fast. It's certainly versatile, but that versatility (okay it is fantastically versatile) comes at the cost of image quality. That's just my minus-two-cents on the 18-200. It's nice, but... not nice enough.
Primes, on the other hand, give you uncompromised image quality, but you have to be willing to change lenses all the time, and that means cleaning your sensor more often, and missing a few photo opportunities. Like the FA-18 that finished its aerobatic demonstration outside my living-room window last week while I was changing lenses. Gaah!
Anyway - the current 35mm f2 D is much loved and deservedly so. Sharp, fast, essentially flawless, and with a "normal" field of view that captures what you see, the way you see it, but with more contrast and sexier bokeh. A perfect starting point. Get a circular polarising filter for sky control, too. Haggle for it to be thrown in for free.
Personally, if I had to start again with little or no knowledge of the Nikkor lineup (like... after a serious head injury), I hope someone would recommend that neat little 35mm for starters. Then, after using that for a while I'd have some idea of what else I was missing, and then I'd probably go for a 60mm f2.8 micro (plus extension tubes!) for bugs & spiders (or a vintage 55mm if I was on a budget), and a 300mm f2.8 or f4.0 for birds & lizards. Or if the head-injury made me more of a "people person", an 85mm f1.8 or f1.4 for por... por... portrait photography.
With a D80 there's no real need to go for brand new lenses all the time; most Nikkor lenses since the '60s will work as advertised on a D50, D70, D80, D100, D200, D2H or D2X - but not a D40. Shopping around for used/classic/specialty lenses is actually a lot of fun.
Oh - I'd hope someone would recommend the SB-600 speedlight, too. That's a nice bright flash unit that you can trigger remotely, using the D80's built-in flash solely as a remote control. You can leave it on the camera, or hold it by hand, or tie it to a tree and walk away - and it'll still flash exactly when & where you want it to, as long as you have "line of sight" and have bothered to read the manual. It's supremely handy indoors, and after dusk, and for macro, and it wouldn't weigh you down. See also: gorilla-pod - your prehensile pal.
The original poster has expressed a desire for image quality and a willingness to change lenses throughout the day - and that's exactly the opposite of what the 18-200 has to offer. It's not sharp, and it's not fast. It's certainly versatile, but that versatility (okay it is fantastically versatile) comes at the cost of image quality. That's just my minus-two-cents on the 18-200. It's nice, but... not nice enough.
Primes, on the other hand, give you uncompromised image quality, but you have to be willing to change lenses all the time, and that means cleaning your sensor more often, and missing a few photo opportunities. Like the FA-18 that finished its aerobatic demonstration outside my living-room window last week while I was changing lenses. Gaah!
Anyway - the current 35mm f2 D is much loved and deservedly so. Sharp, fast, essentially flawless, and with a "normal" field of view that captures what you see, the way you see it, but with more contrast and sexier bokeh. A perfect starting point. Get a circular polarising filter for sky control, too. Haggle for it to be thrown in for free.
Personally, if I had to start again with little or no knowledge of the Nikkor lineup (like... after a serious head injury), I hope someone would recommend that neat little 35mm for starters. Then, after using that for a while I'd have some idea of what else I was missing, and then I'd probably go for a 60mm f2.8 micro (plus extension tubes!) for bugs & spiders (or a vintage 55mm if I was on a budget), and a 300mm f2.8 or f4.0 for birds & lizards. Or if the head-injury made me more of a "people person", an 85mm f1.8 or f1.4 for por... por... portrait photography.
With a D80 there's no real need to go for brand new lenses all the time; most Nikkor lenses since the '60s will work as advertised on a D50, D70, D80, D100, D200, D2H or D2X - but not a D40. Shopping around for used/classic/specialty lenses is actually a lot of fun.
Oh - I'd hope someone would recommend the SB-600 speedlight, too. That's a nice bright flash unit that you can trigger remotely, using the D80's built-in flash solely as a remote control. You can leave it on the camera, or hold it by hand, or tie it to a tree and walk away - and it'll still flash exactly when & where you want it to, as long as you have "line of sight" and have bothered to read the manual. It's supremely handy indoors, and after dusk, and for macro, and it wouldn't weigh you down. See also: gorilla-pod - your prehensile pal.
My 2C...
Get the D80 with the 18-200VR and an SB600.
& Memory Cards, Spare batteries and a nice bag
(slingshot or toploading I guess)
Then save your money.....Don't spend it now.
Wait some months, maybe a year.
It's a versatile kit. Maybe not exactly what you've asked for.
But this way you learn to shoot with the gear you have bought.
And it's a very good combination. You will not regret the versatility of this lens.
During time you will learn what lenses you want to buy and why.
And the choice will be different depending on your own taste and skills.
If you want some cheaper combo. The 18-70 DX is still a good lens to start with.
Get the D80 with the 18-200VR and an SB600.
& Memory Cards, Spare batteries and a nice bag
(slingshot or toploading I guess)
Then save your money.....Don't spend it now.
Wait some months, maybe a year.
It's a versatile kit. Maybe not exactly what you've asked for.
But this way you learn to shoot with the gear you have bought.
And it's a very good combination. You will not regret the versatility of this lens.
During time you will learn what lenses you want to buy and why.
And the choice will be different depending on your own taste and skills.
If you want some cheaper combo. The 18-70 DX is still a good lens to start with.
jcschultze
Member
I can't tell you what to get, but I can tell you what I have and why. I'm an advanced amateur hobbyist with a D70, and I tried to balance quality, size/weight and cost when I decided which lenses to buy.
I prefer to carry only two lenses, but which two depends on the situation. You said cost is not an issue, but what about size? For me, the 70-200 is far too huge to be manageable (and would have been way too expensive for my wallet).
I use the following two sets of lenses:
Tokina 12-24 + Nikon 24-120 (older, non-VR version)
(combined 35mm equivalent of 18-180mm)
Nikon 18-70 + Nikon 70-300VR
(combined 35mm equivalent of 27-450mm)
I plan to take the first set on my Southwest (Grand Canyon/Bryce/Zion) trip this summer, with its wide-open vistas. The second set would be better suited to my Wyoming (Tetons and Yellowstone) trip last summer, for the coyotes, antelope, buffalo, deer, climbers, etc. The 24-120 is a lens I bought for my 8008s 10 years ago. In direct comparison tests against my 18-70 it pretty much equalled or beat my 18-70 over the 24-70 range for sharpness and contrast. Plus it has a fairly useful walk-around range (36-180mm).
None of these lenses will do macro or low light well. All of these lenses are sharp, but they may not be the sharpest available - that's where my cost-balancing came in. However, all will allow me to take excellent pictures over total range of 18-450mm at a cost I could justify and afford (and at a comfortable weight and size to carry), which is really all that mattered.
Truthfully, I would prefer a single set of lenses, something like a 15-60 (I only bought the Tokina because I wanted something wider than the 27mm equivalent of the 18-70) and a 60-250VR f/4 (I would prefer a constant aperture). The cost, if this were even possible and these were very good quality lenses, would likely have been steeper than what I have already spent. However, the convenience of that pair might justify the expense.
I hope tht helps.
I prefer to carry only two lenses, but which two depends on the situation. You said cost is not an issue, but what about size? For me, the 70-200 is far too huge to be manageable (and would have been way too expensive for my wallet).
I use the following two sets of lenses:
Tokina 12-24 + Nikon 24-120 (older, non-VR version)
(combined 35mm equivalent of 18-180mm)
Nikon 18-70 + Nikon 70-300VR
(combined 35mm equivalent of 27-450mm)
I plan to take the first set on my Southwest (Grand Canyon/Bryce/Zion) trip this summer, with its wide-open vistas. The second set would be better suited to my Wyoming (Tetons and Yellowstone) trip last summer, for the coyotes, antelope, buffalo, deer, climbers, etc. The 24-120 is a lens I bought for my 8008s 10 years ago. In direct comparison tests against my 18-70 it pretty much equalled or beat my 18-70 over the 24-70 range for sharpness and contrast. Plus it has a fairly useful walk-around range (36-180mm).
None of these lenses will do macro or low light well. All of these lenses are sharp, but they may not be the sharpest available - that's where my cost-balancing came in. However, all will allow me to take excellent pictures over total range of 18-450mm at a cost I could justify and afford (and at a comfortable weight and size to carry), which is really all that mattered.
Truthfully, I would prefer a single set of lenses, something like a
I hope tht helps.
I had the 18-70 nikon replaced the kit lens and was replaced by the sigma 17-70 much nicer all around lens than the 18-70 and for reach the sigma 70-200 2.8 or 50-150 2.8 would make a nice pair I myself have the 50-150 but the 70-200 probably a better match for nature and sports
If cost really is no or only a minor issue then don't mess around. Get a 70-200VR as it really is the standard medium tele-zoom. If you shoot macro skip the 60 - it's real nice lens but the working distance is pretty short and with bugs you will scare them away before you get the shot. Even when shooting plants and flowers the longer working distance is helpful and the narrower field of view allows for better subject isolation. Go for either the 105VR, Sigma 150 or the Nikkor 200. As for a walk around lens, the 17-55 or the 28-70 are the kings. No third party stuff betters or even equals their all around performance (IQ, AF speed, ruggedness). On the wide end the Tokina 12-24 is the equal of the Nikkor in every way but one - AF speed. But since AF speed is seldom an issue when taking pictures of landscapes and trees, the Tokina makes a lot of sense unless you shoot a lot of wide-angle candids and then the Nikkor 12-24 comes into its own. A 50 f/1.8 or f/1.4 and/or an 85 f/1.8 or f/1.4 gives you a low-light/portrait setup that rocks. I think the 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8 is the best combo as you get the fast speed for moderate cost and the longer reach with the 85 as well. Throw in a TC 1.4 to add distance without losing IQ on the 70-200 as well as getting under 1.1 with the 105VR and you have a great working kit that will last for decades.
--
Peace,
Todd Warnke
--
Peace,
Todd Warnke
prodesma
Senior Member
I agree w/ all that have responded, many great ideas. Except the 18-200. I've reviewed many, many images and decided against it personally (for me).
Reasons are simple: sharpness, zoom speed, aperture, and most of all the hard bokeh. I love the butter soft look of high quality glass getting that dissolved background. No PP can replicate it.
Ultra-wide is indispensable on a 1.5x crop D80:
Tokina 12-24 f/4. I shoot landscape, interior architecture, and just used for a huge car show this weekend. Nothing replaces ultra wide when you need it.
Walkaround, I love my copy it on my D80 75% of the time:
Sigma 24-70 constant f/2.8:
Macro, this Tokina is worth finding, even though MF and 20+ years old:
Tokina 90mm f/2.5 Macro
If you haven't seen, this link SELLS this lens:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=15320425
I'd opt to spend the majority of money on a serious zoom, like the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 or Nikon 200-400 f/4 VR. Nothing beats long, fast glass if you can afford it. I can't afford the 200-400 VR f/4, and is the LEAST likely lens to ever use for my work, so I've got a Sigma 135-400 f/4.5-5.6 from KEH for $325 is EX+ condition.
That's it.
And I've got the 24-120 and always want to change it off my D80 whenever I put it on, just not sharp enough, not fast enough, bokeh is 'contrasty' sometimes. It stays on my N80 as a great versatile range from true 24mm to 120mm as a film dSLR.
Maybe this helps? Others may disagree w/ my choices, but that's why forums exist, right? Cheers.
David
my flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/prodesma/
Reasons are simple: sharpness, zoom speed, aperture, and most of all the hard bokeh. I love the butter soft look of high quality glass getting that dissolved background. No PP can replicate it.
Ultra-wide is indispensable on a 1.5x crop D80:
Tokina 12-24 f/4. I shoot landscape, interior architecture, and just used for a huge car show this weekend. Nothing replaces ultra wide when you need it.
Walkaround, I love my copy it on my D80 75% of the time:
Sigma 24-70 constant f/2.8:
Macro, this Tokina is worth finding, even though MF and 20+ years old:
Tokina 90mm f/2.5 Macro
If you haven't seen, this link SELLS this lens:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=15320425
I'd opt to spend the majority of money on a serious zoom, like the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 or Nikon 200-400 f/4 VR. Nothing beats long, fast glass if you can afford it. I can't afford the 200-400 VR f/4, and is the LEAST likely lens to ever use for my work, so I've got a Sigma 135-400 f/4.5-5.6 from KEH for $325 is EX+ condition.
That's it.
- Tokina 12-24 f/4
- Sigma 24-70 f/2.8
- Tokina 90 f/2.5 macro
- Sigma 100-300 f/4 OR Nikon 200-400 f/4
And I've got the 24-120 and always want to change it off my D80 whenever I put it on, just not sharp enough, not fast enough, bokeh is 'contrasty' sometimes. It stays on my N80 as a great versatile range from true 24mm to 120mm as a film dSLR.
Maybe this helps? Others may disagree w/ my choices, but that's why forums exist, right? Cheers.
David
my flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/prodesma/
Geomaticsman
Senior Member
I like my 18-200VR, but every time I shoot something with my lowly 35mm F2, I think WOW!
--
Gary; Casual hobbyist - equipment listed in profile
--
Gary; Casual hobbyist - equipment listed in profile
Took the words right out of my mouth. Get yourself a single do it all lens now, then down the road, look back at your best photos and see what focal lengths you favor. Then you can buy some primes and high end zooms in those ranges. You could always split it into two zooms...18-70mm and a 70-300mm VR.
David Nall
Forum Pro
I don't find the 18-200 to be that lame when it comes to sharpness. It may not compare on par with a 1600.00 70 200 VR, but it does the job nicely for me. Here is an example at 200mm.
This one at 18mm
I think it does a darn good job for the range it covers. Dave
--
please visit my gallery at http://www.poperotzy.smugmug.com
Save 5.00 on your own Smugmug web page. Link for coupon on my website.
This one at 18mm
I think it does a darn good job for the range it covers. Dave
--
please visit my gallery at http://www.poperotzy.smugmug.com
Save 5.00 on your own Smugmug web page. Link for coupon on my website.
Tom_Bruno
Senior Member
I love my 18-200. It's a good lens, extremely versatile, takes very nice pictures, is there when you need a lens, is small enough to carry all day, and lets you get shots you wouldn't because of changing lenses and setting up and zooming with your feet, etc.
That said, I do recognize that the pro lenses give sharper images and better bokeh. For that reason I'm about to get a Nikon 35-70, which is unanimously regarded as a great lens. It's also a great bargain at this time because Nikon discontinued it, and you can get a new one for under $500 -- a steal -- but only till stocks run out. I'd suggest grabbing one of these fast. Look here and elsewhere for examples of the simply stunning photos this lens is capable of.
Then I plan to get what others on this thread and on this forum have recommended, a wide angle. Nikon vs Tokina are hotly debated. They're probably both good.
Then, when your bank balance recovers, go for some long glass, if you'd find yourself using it.
But again, I do love my 18-200.
Regards,
Tom B
That said, I do recognize that the pro lenses give sharper images and better bokeh. For that reason I'm about to get a Nikon 35-70, which is unanimously regarded as a great lens. It's also a great bargain at this time because Nikon discontinued it, and you can get a new one for under $500 -- a steal -- but only till stocks run out. I'd suggest grabbing one of these fast. Look here and elsewhere for examples of the simply stunning photos this lens is capable of.
Then I plan to get what others on this thread and on this forum have recommended, a wide angle. Nikon vs Tokina are hotly debated. They're probably both good.
Then, when your bank balance recovers, go for some long glass, if you'd find yourself using it.
But again, I do love my 18-200.
Regards,
Tom B
Roger J. Buffington
Senior Member
For the zoom, the 70-200VR is the gold standard. I just love mine.
--
Roger (W6VZV)
Huntington Harbour, California
Surf City, USA
'I want to die peacefully, in my sleep, like my Grandfather...'
Not screaming, and in terror, like his passengers...'
Roger J. Buffington
Senior Member
I agree with those who like the 18-200. It is a great lens for what it is. Perfect for trips, portraits, and anything that does not require fast glass. It is sharp and contrasty, and the Bokeh is not bad.
--
Roger (W6VZV)
Huntington Harbour, California
Surf City, USA
'I want to die peacefully, in my sleep, like my Grandfather...'
Not screaming, and in terror, like his passengers...'
--
Roger (W6VZV)
Huntington Harbour, California
Surf City, USA
'I want to die peacefully, in my sleep, like my Grandfather...'
Not screaming, and in terror, like his passengers...'
If you don't mind expensive. ( The best )
Nikon 12-24
Nikon 17-55
Nikon 70-200 VR
Nikon 105 VR Marco
A more reasonable price point.
Tokina 12-24
Nikon 17-55
Nikon 80-200
Nikon 105 VR Marco
Even more reasonable.
Tokina 12-24
Tamron 17-50
Nikon 70-300 VR
Tamron 90 Macro
And yes the SB-600 or SB-800.
Nikon 12-24
Nikon 17-55
Nikon 70-200 VR
Nikon 105 VR Marco
A more reasonable price point.
Tokina 12-24
Nikon 17-55
Nikon 80-200
Nikon 105 VR Marco
Even more reasonable.
Tokina 12-24
Tamron 17-50
Nikon 70-300 VR
Tamron 90 Macro
And yes the SB-600 or SB-800.
VOLKeith
Well-known member
Sigma 10-20mm
Nikon 17-55mm
Nikon 50mm 1.4
Sigma 150mm Macro or Nikon 105mm VR
Nikon 70-300mm VR or 70-200mm VR and 1.4 tele (if weight is major concern get the 70-300mm) If you shot a lot of fast action and or want no compromises on image quality get the 70-200mm
Also must have sb600 or sb800
Nikon 17-55mm
Nikon 50mm 1.4
Sigma 150mm Macro or Nikon 105mm VR
Nikon 70-300mm VR or 70-200mm VR and 1.4 tele (if weight is major concern get the 70-300mm) If you shot a lot of fast action and or want no compromises on image quality get the 70-200mm
Also must have sb600 or sb800
kensington
Leading Member
I am content with my current combo 17-35 2.8 and 80-200 2.8. I also have a 50 1.4 to fill in the gap but rarely use that. If money is not an issue I'd go for the 70-200VR 2.8 instead of the 80-200. I don't think there are many out there that would have aproblem with the quality of any of those lens.
Arnold
http://spaces.msn.com/members/kensingt0n/
http://69.244.135.115/gallery/index.php
http://gallery.greatestjournal.com/index.php?cat=1587927
http://www.photos.ph/kensington
2002 WRB WRX Wagon
--
Arnold
http://spaces.msn.com/members/kensingt0n/
http://69.244.135.115/gallery/index.php
http://gallery.greatestjournal.com/index.php?cat=1587927
http://www.photos.ph/kensington
2002 WRB WRX Wagon
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum