Reading mode: Light Dark

What would be your first lens for D300?

Go to last post
This lens will give you a nice range and will be a high-performing lens that you'll use for years.

The fact that it doesn't have a large zoom range is an advantage, because there are fewer compromises in the optical design. With the constant aperture you can know that the lens will behave the same at lower light levels at all focal lengths.

Is it too "short"? If you have specific requirements for a long lens, then you may need to meet them with another lens. But while long lenses bring the subject closer, thay also keep you farther away from the subject.

I've had a 70-200 for over 5 years now...Though I doubt if I would ever take my Nikon DSLRs on vacation (I prefer my Leica M8 or Oly 4:3 cameras for travel), if I did, I certainly wouldn't take that lens along. The longest lens I would consider is my Tokina 50-135.

--

If you don't talk to your cat about catnip, who will?
 
This is one of my cheapest, yet one of my most used pieces of glass. You owe it to yourself to put one of these on your shiny new D300.

--
-- Martin

'Every portrait painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter. The sitter is merely the accident, the occasion. It is not he who is revealed by the painter; it is rather the painter who, on the coloured canvas, reveals himself.'
  • From 'The picture of Dorian Gray' by Oscar Wilde
 
... if you want to have fun and reasonably good image quality, the 18-200 DX VR.

... if you are a landscape photographer, the 12-24/4 DX or 14-24/2.8.

... if you are into portraits, social events and indoor shooting, the 17-55/2.8 DX or the 24-70/2.8 DX.

... if you love close-ups, and some portraiture, the 105/2.8 VR Micro.

... if you want a high-quality, lightweight and versatile lens, the 16-85/3.5-5.6 DX VR.

My point: There's no single lens that's right for everybody.

BG
 
The f2.8 70-200 as recommended above would not be a great first lens (in my opinion). Yes, I have it and use it - and love it. But it comes with a learning curve! I have probably seen more poor shots from the 70-200 than any single lens. Why, you ask? It is a very heavy and long lens. When using VR it takes a 1/2 second or longer for VR to "lock on" and many folks get terrible photos if they are impatient. With VR off it is a great action lens (if your hand holding technique is excellent). Great for family, dogs, sports, etc. Because of it's large size and weight, it can be a bear if used as a "carry around" lens. Is it a great lens? You bet!

The older version of the Tamron f2.8 28-75 gives stunning resolution, is light weight, and makes a great one lens solution. I bought, and returned the newer version (with the built-in motor) as it was defective and also proved inferior to my old version in terms of resolution (The verdict is still out).

The Nikon f2.8 24-70 is also a great choice. Heavier and bulkier than the Tamron, but a great lens.

Lastly (but not in order of quality), consider the 17-55. These last two lenses differ mostly in the range you expect to use most - a little wider, or a little longer. Your choice. All four of these lenses are designed for full frame.
--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
http://www.ghost-town-photography.com
 
This lens caters for an upgrade to FX format in the future whereas the 17 - 55 will not. The 70 - 200 2.8 VR is likely to be upgraded in the next year or two so I would not be too hasty with that one. My only other contender is if you like to shoot lots of wide angle then the 14 - 24 2.8 Lens.
Claude
 
If your looking for the absolute best quality in a good usable range....the 24-70 is pretty hard to beat.....wide to mild zoom and the quality and sharpness of a prime. On of the best investments I have made in a while.

Roman
--

'Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, who are we to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous.

Actually, who are we not to be?'

--Marianne Williamson

http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/
 
Yeah, it's a DX format lens but it's also the best combination of bang for buck and versatility available right now.

Pluses are. Excellent image quality when used at f5.6 or smaller. Vibration Reduction, which can permit useing the camera at some stupid slow shutter speeds without needing a tripod. A focal length range that is equivalent to 24-127mm on the 35mm format, which means it's a great range for general shooting. It's compact enough, and light enough, that it won't be a sacrifice to carry around all day.

Minuses are. It's a DX format lens. It's limited maximum aperture means that you can't use narrow DOF effects unless your very close to your subject. It limited aperture will cause some issues with AF when the light is really low. However, the D300 does have an AF assist light built in and it's high ISO performance means that it's smallish maximum aperture isn't nearly as critical as it once was.

BTW, if cost really is no object and quality is most important, that means that you'll need to purchase 3 seperate lenses. However all are FX format. Those would be the 14-24mm f2.8 and 2.1 lbs, the 24-70mm f2.8 at 2 lbs. and the 70-200mm f2.8 at 3.2 lbs. Cost for all 3 will probably run about 1800 USD.

Pluses. The image quality is unmatched. The constant f2.8 aperture will speed AF in low light and permit shooting for a narrow DOF at longer focal lengths.

Minuses. No Vibration Reduction on the 14-24mm or the 24-70mm. However the 14-24mm is wide enough that VR really isn't essential. The 24-70 really should offer VR because there are times when it would be a distinct advantage in this focal length range. The 70-200mm f2.8 has some deficits on the FX format, that being vignetting at some focal lengths and corner softness, an obvious result of it being primarily designed for the DX format. Weight, these 3 lenses tip the scales at over 7 lbs total. Cost, they are NOT cheap.
 
For me, the choice would be easy (and I have made it): the 24-70, but that's based on my shooting style and years of shooting and analyzing focal lengths used with the 18-70, plus the fact that I personally don't mind big and heavy lenses. I also have, and love, the 70-200, but there is one factor that would say not yet/not now, if I didn't already own it. In my experience, based on using the 24-70 and 60 Micro, Nano Coating really does make a difference in IQ, especially in terms of contrast. After the not so stellar reviews of the present 70-200 in certain shooting conditions when mounted on an FF body, I'm convinced that there is a replacement in the making, and that it will have Nano Coating. It may take a year, or half a year, but it will come.

But if you need FL's from 70 mm and up from day one, I'd be prone to agree with those who recommend the 18-200, even if I haven't used it myself. But from all I have read and seen, it's a very decent and tremendously versatile lens that could serve as a travel light lens long after you enter 2.8 territory. I have kept my 18-70 for that very reason. If you enjoy the D300 as much as think/hope you will, chances are that you will keep it as a second body even if you decide to go FF, so DX lenses are not to be frowned at just yet. If you don't like the idea of the 18-200 and if your main interest is in wide angle, I'm not the person to give you advice. I went with the Sigma 10-20 for the price/performance ratio, but I would not choose it if I were allowed only one lens, and I'm pretty sure that it will be the last dx/slower than 2.8/non NC lens I'll buy, dx being the least important factor in the equation. Had I already gone for an FF body, and had money left to spend after getting it, the 14-24 would have been a no-brainer, but again, not as a single lens solution. Hope that helps to at least some extent.

Grelber
 
My single favorite, all-around versatile lens -- but that is coming from someone who does not ever shoot longer than 105mm. I can't personally understand getting a 70-200 type lens as a first lens unless you never wanted to take a picture of a person while standing in the same area code with them ^ ^

That said, if you like close-up work from a distance(as opposed to macro) or nature photography go long...

S.G.
 
From your post it seems that you want a versatile lens and are not afraid of the cost. You are also unsure about what range of focal lengths appeal to you. I would buy the 16-85 zoom. This is a good quality, moderately priced, optic that has a 24-128mm focal equivalent range. By using this lens for a short time, you can determine what focal lengths you like. This would be a wonderful walkaround lens that you can leave on your camera while traveling with family/friends. It is relatively small and light and will give you high quality images.

I would not bother with the 70-200/2.8VR for now. It's a great lens but heavy/large and somewhat specialized. You may decided to get this later.

Realize the 16-85 is not FF. If you absolutely need FF, the 24-70/2.8 is a winner in IQ but is heavy and large. Realize this lens will be a 35-105 equivalent on the D300 so if you know in advance that you like wide angle, I would stick with my first suggestion.

Enjoy your D300!
 
The OP wanted quality and is debating between FX and DX.

The DPR test of the 18-200 pretty much confirms other observations about the lens. (Recommended -- barely)

If someone gave me one, I'd only open the box to make sure all the pieces were there -- and maybe stick it on the camera to make sure it worked. Then I'd eBay it.
Greg said:
Obviously, I cannot
speak from experience, but decided on 18-200 because of its
versatility and relative high quality....I am convinced the 18-200
will be best first lens for me because of its wide range of focal
lengths.
Click to expand...
--

If you don't talk to your cat about catnip, who will?
 
It seems to be happening more frequently as my hair gets grayer. The actual total cost should have been 5100 dollars, which assumes an average cost of 1700 per lens.
 
Firstly, many thanks to the 31 reply posts to this challenging question. An interesting array of ideas, debate and insight. Definitely confirms the value of this forum for any budding photographer.

I’ve provided a summary below for those in a similar predicament and for those not wanting to see hundreds of duplicated posts on the topic.

But there can be only 1 winner from this little experiment. Let me firstly say that l have been researching for about 6 months and had formed a view on my first lens, however l wanted to test my thinking with the experts on this forum. Not wanting to blow my own trumpet, but the reality confirmed my theory:

Votes:

50 - 2
18-55 DX - 2
16-85 DX - 4
17-55 DX - 4
18-200 DX - 5
70-200 - 5
24-70 - 7
  • Note l kept the analysis of Nikkor lenses only because posts on other brands were limited and varied.
Conclusions:

Interestingly, but not surprising people recommended lenses they use and you can see that Nikon's kit lenses won through, supporting the fact that more of these lenses are in peoples hands.

Overwhelmingly most mentioned more than one lens (confirming that most can’t live on one lens alone) and the 24-70 was the most popular secondary recommendation.

You can see that the focal length range between 16 and 85mm dominated, attesting to the need of the first timer to learn the ropes on a shorter FL range and for one lens versatility this range is best suited.

Its clear that after you come up the curve the second lens is the 70-200 and if coupled with the winner it’s very complementary. Some suggested taking the 70-200 first, but my conclusion here is that a newer version of this lens is looming, so by the time l’ve learnt the ropes on the 24-70, the new 70-200 will be in the shops.

The DX lens debate could summarized by saying that DX will be around for a long while and as long as your d300 is, then forget the future and live in the moment, regardless the d300 is always a great back up to a FF camera.

So in conclusion we return to the duo of the “magic three”, 24-70 & 70-200 confirming the literature and reviews – The best IQ, satisfying my first criteria.

Second criteria, was versatility in your first lens. The 24-70 provides a good focal length for learning, yes it’s heavier when walking around, but you make sacrifices for IQ.

Third, the upgrade factor, solved with the open-ended flexibility of the 24-70. One post summed it up “the quality is so good, in 50 years time it will still be on your camera”.

Finally the sound advice from SUNTAN to visit dbase http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon revealed an important lesson about choosing lenses – make sure you like the results. I sat for some time reviewing the pictures and the 24-70mm emerged with consistently more impressive IQ that appealed to me personally.

At the last photodog25 chimed in with some outstanding advice – select a lens that allows you to find a focal length that you enjoy most. The recommendation here was the 16-85, which came a close second in my decision-making.
Thanks to all and special thanks to SUNTAN, photodog25 and Fauyeng.
Keep an eye out for some sample shots in the future, l’m off to the camera shop!
Rob
--
Panasonic TZ15
 
BTW, I just don't think 24mm is wide enough for anyone. Wide perspective is one of the great SLR features that p&s cameras do not provide. You want to experience both extremes...big wide and big zoom. Then eventually settle down and understand your own preference. That's why 18-200 is so popular. Have fun!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top