Going to buy a d300

Can't wait one of these upcoming weekends I am going to buy a d300. I can't wait.

So I have a question, I am a full time student so I will not be making money until the summer but I was able to sell a few things and I have some money saved up. The total comes out to about $2450 (+ maybe 750 if I can sell a few other things not counting on it though). So I have about 1000 dollars left after I buy the d300. This is something I am positive about, however I am the furthest from being decisive about a lens. I have read many posts and learned as much as I can about lenses and I just wanted to see what other people would do in my situation. I will have fairly well paying job when I get out for the summer and I plan to spend a good amount of that money on another lens. So here we go.

I love the price of the Nikon 50mm 1.8 however, everything i hear about the sigma 50 1.4 is making me really want the sigma. My thinking is if i buy the 1.8 I don't want that for a year and then get the 1.4 so idk.... I don't want both.

I will be taking pictures of my schools sports teams for the schools website and paper and I am well aware that shooting sports especially indoor sports is a very expensive endeavor. However the 50mm 1.4 or 1.8 will certainly be useful along with what I plan to buy over the summer a 70-200 2.8 hopefully the VRII version? who knows if not definitely the one that is out now.

Now this leads to more problems because over the summer I am luck enough to go on Vacation to a few of the National Parks out west. As much as I plan to do portrait photography, sports and animals I think I will want a wider lens for these beautiful parks? I dont know.

So anyways I guess here is my question

Im going to have to get a "cheaper lens" somewhere in my group I just need help picking which part.

50 1.8 or 1.4? (Not a huge savings)

70-200 2.8 Nikon or 3rd party

I really want the nikon because the faster focusing than the tamaron is important for sports and the VR will rock for low light portraits.

On the other side the wider zoom I was looking at the Nikon 17-55 is a great lens but I will have to choose a third party lens for one of my zooms. Also I hope to go full frame someday and if I don't spend $1600 on a DX lens I will probably be happier haha. This leads me to look at either a tamaron or a sigma wider zoom either the 17-50 tamaron or the sigma 18-50 i think? This way if i do choose full frame when i graduate maybe a d800 by then I wont be hurting myself over the 17-55 and i can buy a 24-70.

Finally what order would you buy these lenses in. I am thinking the sigma 50 1.4 and a 3rd party wider zoom. Then save for the 70-200. The last thought I had was would you suggest either the prime or the zoom above with a flash instead of both lenses. I know it is hard to suggest because only i know what will be more useful but maybe in the most general sense. Also take into account I can not bring a flash into the sporting events. But a sb800 or 900 would rock for fill flash in outdoor portraits. If i didn't make it clear the majority of photos I take will be portraits along with the sports a few times a week. Everyday will be portraits though.

Anyways thank you to anyone who reads this whole thing im sorry i went on for so long. You think you are ready to buy something and you start to have second thoughts but I am sure this is what I want i just need a little push

ps i apologize again for the maze of information i may have just given out. I hope someone can get inside my head and convince me which route i should go thanks again!!!!!

Jimmy S said:

Can't wait one of these upcoming weekends I am going to buy a d300. I
can't wait.

Click to expand...

Is that your first DSLR? Your first nikon?

Jimmy S said:

I love the price of the Nikon 50mm 1.8 however, everything i hear
about the sigma 50 1.4 is making me really want the sigma. My
thinking is if i buy the 1.8 I don't want that for a year and then
get the 1.4 so idk.... I don't want both.

Click to expand...

Let's start by getting realistic here. The 1.8 is a very capable lens already. The difference in light between 1.4 and 1.8 isn't that much and at 1.4 your DoF is already waferthin.

Jimmy S said:

I will be taking pictures of my schools sports teams for the schools
website and paper and I am well aware that shooting sports especially
indoor sports is a very expensive endeavor. However the 50mm 1.4 or
1.8 will certainly be useful along with what I plan to buy over the
summer a 70-200 2.8 hopefully the VRII version? who knows if not
definitely the one that is out now.

Click to expand...

If you're on a budget I wonder if you really should be wanting the 70-200 VR. Yes it is excellent but while the VR allows you to go low shutterspeeds it doesn't freeze any action.

Jimmy S said:

Now this leads to more problems because over the summer I am luck
enough to go on Vacation to a few of the National Parks out west. As
much as I plan to do portrait photography, sports and animals I think
I will want a wider lens for these beautiful parks? I dont know.

So anyways I guess here is my question

Im going to have to get a "cheaper lens" somewhere in my group I just
need help picking which part.

50 1.8 or 1.4? (Not a huge savings)

Click to expand...

Go for a used 1.8 for starters, keep your eyes open for a 1.4. A 1.8 is easily resold.

Jimmy S said:

70-200 2.8 Nikon or 3rd party
I really want the nikon because the faster focusing than the tamaron
is important for sports and the VR will rock for low light portraits.

Click to expand...

That it will but your D300 has an acceptable iso3200 and a very nice 1600.

Jimmy S said:

On the other side the wider zoom I was looking at the Nikon 17-55 is
a great lens but I will have to choose a third party lens for one of
my zooms. Also I hope to go full frame someday and if I don't spend
$1600 on a DX lens I will probably be happier haha. This leads me to
look at either a tamaron or a sigma wider zoom either the 17-50
tamaron or the sigma 18-50 i think? This way if i do choose full
frame when i graduate maybe a d800 by then I wont be hurting
myself over the 17-55 and i can buy a 24-70.

Click to expand...

Jimmy S said:

Finally what order would you buy these lenses in. I am thinking the
sigma 50 1.4 and a 3rd party wider zoom. Then save for the 70-200.
The last thought I had was would you suggest either the prime or the
zoom above with a flash instead of both lenses. I know it is hard to
suggest because only i know what will be more useful but maybe in the
most general sense. Also take into account I can not bring a flash
into the sporting events. But a sb800 or 900 would rock for fill
flash in outdoor portraits. If i didn't make it clear the majority of
photos I take will be portraits along with the sports a few times a
week. Everyday will be portraits though.

Anyways thank you to anyone who reads this whole thing im sorry i
went on for so long. You think you are ready to buy something and you
start to have second thoughts but I am sure this is what I want i
just need a little push

ps i apologize again for the maze of information i may have just
given out. I hope someone can get inside my head and convince me
which route i should go thanks again!!!!!

Click to expand...

OK, you're on a budget and yet you want a pro quality kit. That's just not going to happen on $1000. What I would do is this:

Get that D300

Start looking for a used 18-70. The 17-50 is a very nice lens for it's price but I find 17-50 not a very good range for portraits. It's great for covering social gatherings when you're working in a tight space. The 18-70 is a very decent and versatile zoom.

Get a sb-600, it's a nice flash to start with and when you get a SB-800 or 900 later it can be a secondary flash.

Look for a Ai prime, a 50mm, 85mm or even a 100mm e-series. Manual focus won't matter much for portraits and these meter with a D300.

Save the rest of your money for a telezoom. The sigma 70-200 might be an option. See if you can't borrow a 80-200 2.8 and a monopod and try that out at a sports event.

As to buying, hunt for refurbished or used gear.

--
Don't wait for the Nikon D-whatever, have fun now!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/j_wijnands/

Thank you so much for you reply, I really appreciate your insight. I have a question for you though. I am certainly not planning on buying all these lenses in the next month maybe not even in the next 6 months. I have never had multiple lenses in my photography career. I have always used film before this and i only had a 35mm prime so i am not use to multiple lenses. Now I know i will have the money to buy all "pro" lenses by the end of the summer this including the 24-70 and the 70-200 if i wanted to. However I am more asking if i should settle for the 3rd party lenses or less expensive lenses and get it now rather then sitting on a 50 1.4 until the time i can afford them.

For example - I could buy a the 50 1.4 and a 3rd party 2.8 wider zoom and save for the 70-200
or

I could get the 50 1.8 and a 3rd party telephoto and save for the 24-70 or the 17-55.

other combinations are possible with my budget and even more are possible if i can get the extra $750 from some old music gear.

If i got that i would almost buy just a 70-200 maybe? this is what i am asking. What would you do if you would not settle for anything less then a constant aperture zoom and a fast prime? Thanks again for the help!!

If money is an issue third party lenses are fine. The difference in image quality isn't that much. In your position you might want to consider a different approach, maybe something like this, 35mm F2D (or 35mm F1.8G once it is available), 50mm 1.4 (D or G), and then get a 70-200mm F2.8 down the road. Keep in mind that a 50mm lens is equal to a 75mm perspective on a DX camera, while 35mm is closer to 52mm. Any of the 50mm lenses available today will do a good job, but for indoor use, it is somewhat too long.

--
Rob - A picture is worth a thousand words, but which ones?

Reading this forum could give you somewhat exaggerated ideas. There is nothing wrong with 3rd party lenses and quite often they fill a niche that nikon doesn't adres, i.e. mid range zoom.

You could start out with a 50mm 1.4 and a 3rd party zoom. I wouldn't. I get the impression that you still have a lot to learn and that you want to be of to a running start on your photo assignments. A zoom is so much more convenient.

And, last of all, you're really lusting after the pro glass. Yes, that is good gear but it's only a bit better than decent medium range gear and it takes skill to get the most out of it.
--
Don't wait for the Nikon D-whatever, have fun now!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/j_wijnands/

If your primary focus is portraiture, I would consider the 85 f/1.4 or f/1.8 instead of a 50. Both lenses are fairly legendary for portraits. They're a bit short for sports, but again, better than the 50.

I'd also consider the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. I used this lens for around a year until I was able to afford to upgrade to the Nikon, and it is superb. Certainly not up to the Nikon standards in build quality or AF speed, but the IQ is excellent and for about 1/4 the price, it's hard to turn down.

It's not as wide as the 17-50 you were thinking of, but it's a lot cheaper and the a better lens than the 3rd party equivalents of the 17-50 range. Unless you shoot a lot of very wide landscapes, I wouldn't worry about the loss of the wide end.

Those two lenses should suffice until summer, when I would seriously consider the Nikon 70-200 if you can afford it. It is an absolutely amazing lens, certainly the nicest I've ever used (although the 24-70 is very nice also)

--
Nikon D300
Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D
Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8G
Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8G
Nikon SB-800

http://www.flickr.com/photos/morgoththebetrayer/

thanks for the replies everyone. I agree that i have a lot to learn but I was never one to accept walking before I run. So I might fall and get a few scratches here and there but before long i will be running with the big boys. I am looking forward to using all you advice.

Thanks again

This is a slightly unusual situation here. You know that you'll have a lot of money to spend some time in the future (rather soon), but are limited right now. If your budget was limited ("forever" - the standard case), I'd say go for the cheaper variants - 50/1.8, Sigma telephoto zoom, Tamron midrange zoom.

However, what YOU want to avoid is buying twice, as this is a waste of money (been there, done that). Therefore, you may want to invest your $1000 into "final solutions" right now, instead of getting the 50/1.8 or a 3rd party zoom lens you'd soon replace. So, what you want is something that remains useful even if you get one of the f/2.8 zooms, which you will need to shoot sports, but don't fall within the $1000 price range. I'd suggest a good prime lens (if you were able to obtain those $750, things would change though). Maybe the 50/1.4 AF-S G. If you want longer, the 85/1.8 AF-D, if you want shorter, the 35/1.8 AF-S G DX.

A wholly different take would be to buy a do-it-all zoom lens (18-200 AF-S DX VR or 18-105 AF-S DX VR), which would still retain some "usefulness" (is that a word?) for casual use or vacations even after you get your big & heavy pro kit.

Just some thoughts...

BG

PS: Another idea is to buy used. That way, you can just dump those items for a small price difference (consider it a rental fee ) when you get a replacement. Assuming you don't brake them...

Jimmy S said:

Thank you so much for you reply, I really appreciate your insight. I
have a question for you though. I am certainly not planning on buying
all these lenses in the next month maybe not even in the next 6
months. I have never had multiple lenses in my photography career. I
have always used film before this and i only had a 35mm prime so i am
not use to multiple lenses. Now I know i will have the money to buy
all "pro" lenses by the end of the summer this including the 24-70
and the 70-200 if i wanted to. However I am more asking if i should
settle for the 3rd party lenses or less expensive lenses and get it
now rather then sitting on a 50 1.4 until the time i can afford them.

For example - I could buy a the 50 1.4 and a 3rd party 2.8 wider zoom
and save for the 70-200
or
I could get the 50 1.8 and a 3rd party telephoto and save for the
24-70 or the 17-55.

other combinations are possible with my budget and even more are
possible if i can get the extra $750 from some old music gear.
If i got that i would almost buy just a 70-200 maybe? this is what i
am asking. What would you do if you would not settle for anything
less then a constant aperture zoom and a fast prime? Thanks again for
the help!!

Click to expand...

PB PM said:

Any of the 50mm lenses available today will do a good job, but for
indoor use, it is somewhat too long.

Click to expand...

Depends on what indoor use is. If it's indoor sports, I'd rather say it's too short. If it's indoor group shots, well, yeah, definitely too long.

BG

As you say you plan to go FF (D800) ish why not get an older APSC like the D80 and use the extra money to get the good glass you want. You could even get a Tamron 18 to 270 Lens for your vacation etc and see what focal lentghs you use most and buy exactly want you need . When your ready just trade the D80 body and tamron lens against your FF cheers Paul
--
new to technology,always learning