primarily a Canon shooter picking up a D200 for the CCD - inexpensive lens suggestions?

[ichiu]

Pardon my ignorance. I've done some searching. Long story short, I'm picking up a D200 because I went down the internet rabbit hole and saw that Nikon made a 10MP CCD sensor camera! Continued down that rabbit hole and seems like the D200 is very well regarded. Since selling my Canon 1D classic, I sort of miss that CCD look... so, here I am.

I have seen some good reviews for the 35mm f1.8 G DX lens. That one seems very inexpensive on the used market.

What inexpensive (under $300) prime lenses would you recommend for a walk around / casual snap shots? 18 to 85mm focal length

 

[PHXAZCRAIG]

I used to shoot a D200. Sitting in a closet now.

I really liked shooting the D200 outside where it tended to give rich, saturated colors. I also think it may underexpose a bit, compared to peer cameras of the day like D80 and D300.

I never liked shooting it above ISO 400.

For lenses, I liked the old 35F2. I know the 1.8dx has better corners, but the 35f2 focuses very close giving it a flexibility that the other lens can't match. And while the corners are soft on the 35F2, the center is very sharp.

I have the 24F2.8 AF-d. I recommend against it. A blah lens that has disappointed me since I bought it new at B&H back in the day.

The old 50F1.8 AF or G - cheap, and not bad once stopped down a bit. Nothing special.

The 85 F1.8 - any version from AF to G - is going to be a good portrait lens for the money.

The 300F4 was the long lens of choice (in primes) for many wildlife shooters, coupled with a Nikon or Kenko 1.4TC.

For zooms, the 18-70 maybe, the 16-80 for sure is good. 80-200F2.8 versions are all pretty good, but vary a lot in autofocus speed. The 12-24 or 10-24 wide zooms are ok, but flawed. The 18-200vr is an interesting lens, and it will show well on the 10mp D200.

--
Phoenix Arizona Craig
www.cjcphoto.net
"I miss the days when I was nostalgic."

 

[ichiu]

Thanks for the suggestions!

Interesting comment on the D200. Why not use it past iso 400? Is the noise really that bad? Even with the 1D, I could use iso800. Anything above that, banding was noticeable and the amount of noise was borderline unacceptable.

 

[PerL]

Thanks for the suggestions!

Interesting comment on the D200. Why not use it past iso 400? Is the noise really that bad? Even with the 1D, I could use iso800. Anything above that, banding was noticeable and the amount of noise was borderline unacceptable.

Here are a few examples at ISO 800 w D200.









As for inexpensive primes - the 35 1.8DX is pretty sharp. Another good for the price is the 50 1.8G.

 

[ichiu]

That looks very clean. Did you process it through any denoising software? I noticed that anything above ISO800, I can spot quite a lot of hot pixels.

 

[Michael Benveniste]

What inexpensive (under $300) prime lenses would you recommend for a walk around / casual snap shots? 18 to 85mm focal length

• 10.5mm f/2.8mm Fisheye
• 28mm f/1.8G
• 35mm f/1.8 DX
• Any 50mm f/1.8
• 60mm f/2.8D Micro
• 85mm f/1.8D

I’d recommend a 12-24mm f/4 or a Tokina 12-28mm f/4 over any of the Nikon f/2.8 wide primes.

--

Light travels at 2.13085531 × 10^14 smoots per fortnight. Catch some today!

 

[Stan Disbrow]

Hi,

This is actually a Sony sensor, and the base silicon is the same as in all three of the D1 series.

It was originally designed for use in a television camera as a 10 MP HD unit mainly for professional sports where there is a lot of light and really large and costly lenses.

As such, it didn't sport the necessary signal to noise ratio (SNR) for use in a stills camera. The answer was to quad up the pixels under the color filter array. That solved that problem at the expense of resolution. But the D1 still had double the pixels of the predecessor E-series and also dumped the lousy Reduction Optical System. So, that was a win.

The second generation of the chip improved the SNR such that they could now pair up the pixels. That led to the odd rectangular pixels of the D1X. It also made for a.much better performing D1H (v the D1).

The third generation of the sensor improved SNR again and now it could be used pixel for pixel in the D200 and the D80. And, I had all of these models as they came along. I was working for Sony in a different division but was kept informed by fellow R+D engineers as all of this happened. I really liked the sensor series, hence buying each one in turn as Nikon put them out.

It's a decent enough sensor, but still a CCD. So, the noise ramps up with ISO and it really ought to be used at base ISO and, in my experience, not run above ISO 800.

As for a lens, my favorite from back then is the 28-105mm f3.5-4.5D. And that also has a half life size macro mode.

Stan

 

[Alnitak]

I won't duplicate the already good suggestions you have for a prime. I still shoot my D200, even though I have D500 now. Love the CCD and skin tones. Been shooting DSLRs since D100 came out, along with D200 and D300s, mainly for wildlife and sports. So, I'll just throw in a couple of comments on other lenses I liked on those cameras.

Don't forget about the AF-D lenses. Nowadays you can find the 85mm f/1.4 AF-D for $300-$400, and less for the 1.8. There is also the 180mm, which pairs nicely. Though not asked, there were some zooms I really enjoyed, including the 35-70, 24-120 f/4, Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 and especially the 70-200 VR1 (on an ASP-C camera the softer corners are not seen). Just be aware, the D200 doesn't support AF-P lenses, like the 16-80mm. However, the 18-140 (about $150) is supported and is a great walk-around, general purpose lens.

Have fun with a great. classic DSLR!

 

[PHXAZCRAIG]

Thanks for the suggestions!

Interesting comment on the D200. Why not use it past iso 400?

For me, the noise started getting pretty noticeable around 400.

I chased high-ISO capability (AKA, dynamic range) for years as it allowed me to shoot more and more scenes I was unable to do with film, and early digital cameras.

The D300 got me to ISO 800-1000. (I should note that I consider these upper limits to ISO only upper in that I didn't have to worry about noise when at or below these values.)

The D700 got me almost to ISO 3200, but more like 1600 compared to previous camera acceptable limits.

The D8xx series got me to around 3200-3600, as long as I wasn't in very high dynamic range shooting, like a lot of my underwater photography.

D810 gave me ISO 64, which I've used an awful lot. When post-processing, I can do almost anything with ISO 64 images, but almost all of that processing leeway is gone by ISO 400.

Dynamic range is a funny thing. If you have low dynamic range subjects, you can shoot very high ISO with no noise as the limited dynamic range of the subject can match the limited dynamic range of some high ISO value. Once you have to start boosting shadows or dropping highlights, those subjects don't work so well at high ISO's.

Way back in the day, I did some initial comparison tests between my D200 and D300:

https://www.cjcphoto.net/dslrtest1/dslrtest1.html

https://www.cjcphoto.net/dslrtest2/dslrtest2.html

If you look in that first test, you should notice that the D200 shots are generally darker than D300 shots. A bit underexposed in D200 (richer colors, great for sunlight) and a bit overexposed in D300. My wife's D80 was even more overexposed and gave a lot of harsh results in sunlight.

 

[ichiu]

I just picked it up yesterday and I've been playing around with it. I've borrowed a 18-140mm and I realized I have to shoot in raw to get rid of the hot pixels and I am def getting the look I've been missing. It does remind me a lot of the Canon 1D classic images, esp. the "grain".

Here are two quick pics at 140mm from the backyard that I did a quick edit in NX studio, bumped up the sharpness +1 and moved the dark levels up a tad. The picture of the shuttlecock saturation was bumped up a tad as well. I got to say, I'm generally very pleased. Can't wait to see how primes will perform.

140mm

ISO 400

F5.6

1/1600 sec



140mm

ISO 400

F5.6

1/640 sec

 

[PerL]

That looks very clean. Did you process it through any denoising software? I noticed that anything above ISO800, I can spot quite a lot of hot pixels.

No noise reduction. Just som minor PP. I think I used to do some large radius USM to bring out some more punch, but carefully to avoid halos. When I used auto ISO I used to set the roof at ISO 800.

 

[ichiu]

OK, picked up a 40mm f2.8 macro, 180mm F2.8 ED AIS. Both sharp! I think the 180mm is a tad sharper. Also, have a couple more lenses on the way from ebay.... LOL I am def getting the look I want.



some more random shots around the yard.

from the 40mm









From the 180mm - it's sharp and the bokeh is smoooooth

 

[Alnitak]

NIce! Two good lens choices. If you don't mind manual focus lenses, look at the Vivitar Series 1 lenses...can be had for $30 or so on ebay. Here are a couple shots with the 70-210mm f/2.8-4...

 

[lightandaprayer]

I am a retired freelance & contract editorial/photojournalist. I've kept a D200 around because of the CCD sensor and the DX format. When using a good quality noise reduction program ISO1000 is very acceptable. But frankly, a D200 really shines at base ISO and is best up to ISO 400. No one should expect great high-ISO performance from a camera of its generation.

When I was on assignments a UWA 2.8 zoom was always in my camera bag. For a DX Nikon the f4 12-24 zooms are really nice and third-party lenses are affordable especially used. The Tokina zooms are probably within your budget used. The latest version is actually 12-28 and has some improvements over previous versions plus an extra 2mm is a nice little bonus.

My basic DX travel kit has 12-24 and 35-70 zooms. (FYI I assumed that your stated focal lengths are for FX format. . .) On both DX and FX Nikons an 18-35mm FX-equivalent is my "walk-around" lens. I can make 90% of my usual subjects with just that range. The 35-70 AF-D is about the FX-equivalent of 50-105mm.

I would not give up having at least 24mm on the long-end to obtain more on the wide-end of the 12-24. 35mm is arguably the real "normal" focal-length in FX and 18mm is plenty wide in my experience. I want a versatile zoom capable of capturing environmental portraits in relatively tight-spaces as well as more typical subjects (with some room for cropping, which is something I always avoid).

I think that you will wind-up really enjoying your D200. It's comfortable with a dedicated AF/ON button which I use 100% of the time. Plus the camera is rugged and relatively small.

Take advantage of the D200's strengths (skin-tones rule) and with proper exposure its images can resemble K64 underexposed 1/3 stop. Avoid its weaknesses (convert RAW high-ISO images to monochrome in post and with some creativity you can obtain the look of the low-light B&W film stocks of the later film era).

 

[Tord S Eriksson]

Thanks for the suggestions!

Interesting comment on the D200. Why not use it past iso 400? Is the noise really that bad? Even with the 1D, I could use iso800. Anything above that, banding was noticeable and the amount of noise was borderline unacceptable.

Here are a few examples at ISO 800 w D200.





As for inexpensive primes - the 35 1.8DX is pretty sharp. Another good for the price is the 50 1.8G.

Fina bilder, Per! Nice shots!

--
tordseriksson (at) gmail.....
Owner of a handful of Nikon cameras. And a few lenses. DxO PhotoLab user.
WSSA #456

 

[PerL]

Thanks for the suggestions!

Interesting comment on the D200. Why not use it past iso 400? Is the noise really that bad? Even with the 1D, I could use iso800. Anything above that, banding was noticeable and the amount of noise was borderline unacceptable.

Here are a few examples at ISO 800 w D200.





As for inexpensive primes - the 35 1.8DX is pretty sharp. Another good for the price is the 50 1.8G.

Fina bilder, Per! Nice shots!

Tack Tord!

 

[ichiu]

OK...... well yeah and this happened.







Just from taking pictures around the house and yard, I think my least favorite is the 40mm. it's sharp, but the colors aren't as rich and slightly lacking in contrast compared to the others. All are sharp!!!! I might need to take a momentary pause on the acquisition of more lenses and just play around with these. Thanks everyone for the good suggestions. I don't think any of these lenses were on the lists, but I don't think I'm done yet. I think it's also time to get a Nikon F to Sony E and Nikon F to Canon RF adapter as well!

 

[Alnitak]

The Tamron 90mm and Nikon 180mm are excellent lenses! The Tamron 90 (earlier model) was my first macro...here is first pic I took!



All the Tamron 90 macros are amazingly sharp!

The 55mm is highly respected, especially for products like stamps, watches, etc. Keep an eye out for the companion adapter/TC that gets it to 1:1, IIRC.

 

[Buanadha]

...

What inexpensive (under $300) prime lenses would you recommend for a walk around / casual snap shots? 18 to 85mm focal length

I keep a D200 at my office and at home and really enjoy pulling it out as it's just a different experience

If you aren't opposed to Manual Focus, the AI/AI-S, these lenses are longer, but produce great results:

105 f/2.5, 135 f/2.8, 180 f/2.8, 200 f/4

I happen to like the 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.8's that Nikkor did back then as AF and AF-D lenses and can be had for almost nothing. I know some don't like the 50mm on a crop sensor, but I like it (but I tend to like longer shots)

If you aren't opposed to Zooms, there are a ton of AF/AF-D lenses from that era that work well on the D200: 25-70mm f/2.8, 80-200 f/2.8, 70-210 f/4 -- and while not everyone's favorites, I like the 35-105/35-135 Nikkor zooms. In particular, the 1st gen models

 

[ichiu]

I did get a few prime lenses, hoping to get a good copy of the 35-70mm f2.8d or sigma 18-35mm f1.8 lens to finish it off.