Looking for a fast, versatile lens for Nikon D50 (something like 18-100+mm)

[Illah]

Hi All,

I'm looking for a fast, versatile lens. I do mostly club/concert/low-light photography. I also do photography for artistic/creative purposes at times but the club stuff is where most people see my work.

I just got a D50 a few months ago with the 18-55 kit lens and a 70-300 telephoto. I find the 18-55 doesn't always give the zoom range I need and switching back and forth is not practical in a club. I need a 'do it all lens'.

Here's what I'm thinking:

- 18-100+mm
- Good in low light (i.e. fast lens even at the 55mm range)
- Something that's not too big, i.e. easily transportable in a small camera bag.
- Something that's noticably better than the kit lens.
- The cheaper the better

Thanks!

--Illah

[TPF Sponsor]

[dsp921]

Fast and cheap are mutually exclusive. And that huge zoom range isn't going to help. Small is another issue. There is the 18-200mm, not real cheap, but not hugely expensive either. It isn't fast, but it does have VR which will buy you a couple of stops, more depending on technique. Just be aware that by getting such a big range you will give up image quality, there are compromises that have to be made to make an 11x zoom that is small and light.
What's your budget, that may narrow down the choices. The 50mm f/1.8 is fast, small, cheap and sharp, but too short if the 18-55 doesn't cut it. There are 85mm and 105mm primes that are fast, more expensive, but no zoom.
This was absolutley no help, was it....

[JIP]

I'm curious, why exactly is switching lenses "not practical" in a club. I hear this so much how hard it is to switch lenses and I really want to know why it is so hard.

[midget patrol]

I'm curious, why exactly is switching lenses "not practical" in a club. I hear this so much how hard it is to switch lenses and I really want to know why it is so hard.

Well, i can tell you that i was scared to switch lenses while in the Grand Canyon for fear of silt, sand or dust in mass quantities...

The 18-200 should serve your purposes. Fast, high zoom ratio, and cheap do not go together, though..

[JIP]

Well, i can tell you that i was scared to switch lenses while in the Grand Canyon for fear of silt, sand or dust in mass quantities...

The 18-200 should serve your purposes. Fast, high zoom ratio, and cheap do not go together, though..

then why don't you keep your camera in a hermetically sealed box where you can jus look at it then you will never get dust in it. You know, there is a reason you can clean the lenses and sensor of your camera.

[bitteraspects]

anything with that much of a range is not going to give you the proformance you want. it wil have a sweet spot between 70 and 100, and the rest will be soft at best

[ravikiran]

I think 50mm f/1.8 is a good combination with D50. As it is cheap, fast and compact (to fit into small camera bag as you required). Once you go for a larger zoom range you have to sacrifice both compactness and your budget also.

[fmw]

Let me give you more to think about. The wider the zoom range on lens, the greater the compromises in the design. Lenses with wide zoom ranges have less contrast, more softness in the corners and smaller maximum apertures. One of the sharpest fast zooms I own is the 80-200 f2.8 ED. The range is only 2.5X. That's one reason that it performs so well.

While the wide range zooms have a lot of appeal in terms of flexibility, the compromises in all other aspects of performance are on the negative side.

A way to help the situation would be to use a lens designed for a 35mm camera. The smaller image size of the DSLR will use the central sweet spot of the lens and obviate these problems except for the smaller maximum aperture.

I've gone to using three zooms with my Nikon DSLR. I use the 12-24 f4, the 17-55 f2.8 and the aforementioned 80-200 f2.8. These three lenses handle almost every photographic need for the camera and all perform quite well. They are all in the 2-3X zoom range area. It isn't a coincidence.

[JIP]

Let me give you more to think about. The wider the zoom range on lens, the greater the compromises in the design. Lenses with wide zoom ranges have less contrast, more softness in the corners and smaller maximum apertures. One of the sharpest fast zooms I own is the 80-200 f2.8 ED. The range is only 2.5X. That's one reason that it performs so well.

While the wide range zooms have a lot of appeal in terms of flexibility, the compromises in all other aspects of performance are on the negative side.

A way to help the situation would be to use a lens designed for a 35mm camera. The smaller image size of the DSLR will use the central sweet spot of the lens and obviate these problems except for the smaller maximum aperture.

I've gone to using three zooms with my Nikon DSLR. I use the 12-24 f4, the 17-55 f2.8 and the aforementioned 80-200 f2.8. These three lenses handle almost every photographic need for the camera and all perform quite well. They are all in the 2-3X zoom range area. It isn't a coincidence.

Thank you I think the 18-200 has been discussed about a hundred times already

[JIP]

Hi All,

I

Here's what I'm thinking:

- 18-100+mm
- Good in low light (i.e. fast lens even at the 55mm range)
- Something that's not too big, i.e. easily transportable in a small camera bag.
- Something that's noticably better than the kit lens.
- The cheaper the better

Thanks!

--Illah

keep dreaming!!!!

[newrmdmike]

for real, if i were you i would suggest a WIDE FAST LENS, if the light is that low, then a short lens will also allow for more subject/camera movement without as much noticable motion in the image. (think about people on stage moving a bunch). i own an 85mm f/1.8 and love it. also, the 50mm is cheaper and just as fast.

if you want to work in low light like this why don't you just buy a few speedlights? if you aren't up for dropping big bucks on fast glass. then buy lights.

JIP IS CORRECT, KEEP DREAMING

[midget patrol]

then why don't you keep your camera in a hermetically sealed box where you can jus look at it then you will never get dust in it. You know, there is a reason you can clean the lenses and sensor of your camera.

Because I was rafting the grand canyon for two weeks with a very limited amount of physical storage (i.e. drybag). You don't seem to understand how fine the silt is: it is still in my clothes and it's still on my camera, over six weeks later. Cleaning anything is hopeless while in the canyon. I stopped using a lens-cap because all it did was hold silt and sand between it and the lens.

Not to mention the fact that we were on the Colorado River which was flowing at over 15,000 cubic feet per second.

I'm also a high school student on a very limited budget and can't afford to wreck anything camera-wise.



FMW didnt' say anything about the 18-200. In one post, he's been more helpful and less confrontational in this thread. The next time you spend two weeks in the Grand Canyon, come talk to me about sand and water management before you jump to conclusions, OK?

[JIP]

FMW didnt' say anything about the 18-200. In one post, he's been more helpful and less confrontational in this thread. The next time you spend two weeks in the Grand Canyon, come talk to me about sand and water management before you jump to conclusions, OK?

I don't think he said anything about rafting the Colorado river either just that changing lenses at a concert is not practical.

[fmw]

Thank you I think the 18-200 has been discussed about a hundred times already

Not by me. I have never even seen one, let alone tested one. I was providing some generic information related to lens design that the OP should consider. It was not lens specific but was accurate. After you have completed about 1/2 century of photography, you may use any attitude you like with me. In the meantime comment on what I say, not on what you think I say. It reflects poorly on you, not on me.

[midget patrol]

I hear this so much how hard it is to switch lenses and I really want to know why it is so hard.

The grand canyon comments were in response to that.


Regardless, fast, cheap and high zoom ratio will not come together, generally. Unless you're looking for professional results, the 18-200 and the 28-300 will yield good results.