$350

Hmmm, I will look at the 60mm...? Thanks
 
Forget the battery grip. I imagine half the reason you want it is so your camera looks big like a D3. Just buy an extra battery charge it and keep it in your bag. I do not find the D200 eats batterys, maybe if your doing a lot of long exposures but my batteries last for at least a couple hundred shots. Its not that hard to change a battery. I would spend you r money on lenses, lighting, or anything else that actually effects the final photo. In my opinion you would be better off getting a remote release for your d200 that would help with long exposures and be beneficial.
 
LOL I was getting on here to ask that same thing, should I dump the grip and if I do I could get an extra battery and the 50 f/1.4 if it is truely better than the f/1.8 version?
 
I would get an SB800. With the D200 having commander mode built in you can take your sb600 and 800 and get them off camera for some very interesting lighting. It will open a new world of photography for you. If you take the 350 and add 50 more dollars you could get a sb800 and a 50mm 1.8 which is the best lens value possible. The image quality between the 1.4 and 1.8 are not discernable to the untrained eye. A pro could probaly tell a small difference but there is really no difference in sharpness. Also the extra f-stop is not going to be that useful 1.8 is unbelievanly shallow, if Im opening up my 50mm Ill typicall shoot at 2.8. At 1.8 a shot of a face will leave you with an in focus eye and an out of focus nose or vice versa. Unless you really want the 1.4 for something you are better off getting the 1.8 and an sb800, like I said it will open a whole new side of photography for you. An extra battery is always a good thing to have as well.
 
So the f/1.8 is still the way to go. Sounds good.
 
I actually really like the battery grip. If it was mychoice id get it and the battery, save up a bit more and get a used 50mm 1.4. I dont know about your shooting, but when im shooting sometimes my lens get smacked, hit, banged up, and from what ive read and seen, the 1.8 is pretty fragile, and I cant worry about my lens breaking when im using it.
 
The f/1.4 is $170 more I think. Do you own a 50mm?? My big question is how is that range on a D200? Some say the 35mm is better and others say the 60 is better?
 
I dont currently own one XD. But my friend had the canon version, accidentaly dropped it (ouch) and it broke instantly. I have used the 50 on the d200 though, i really like the range on it. I havent compared it to the others, but for me for the price it will be a no brainer (as soon as i get the money, i am getting the 1.4 and 80-200 :) )
 
I dont currently own one XD. But my friend had the canon version, accidentaly dropped it (ouch) and it broke instantly. I have used the 50 on the d200 though, i really like the range on it. I havent compared it to the others, but for me for the price it will be a no brainer (as soon as i get the money, i am getting the 1.4 and 80-200 :) )

Well dropping lenses tends to have that effect. You can't really blame that on the manufacturers.
 
I know its not one of the options you were considering but I was able to get a used Sigma 24-70 f2.8 for 350... That may be a good option to complete your range from 24-200 at f2.8, considering you already have a Sigma 70-200...


...and now that your D40 has sold, are you going to change your forum name from D40 to D200? ;)
 
I know its not one of the options you were considering but I was able to get a used Sigma 24-70 f2.8 for 350... That may be a good option to complete your range from 24-200 at f2.8, considering you already have a Sigma 70-200...


...and now that your D40 has sold, are you going to change your forum name from D40 to D200? ;)

How about, "Steve."
 
LOL another person wants me to change the name:):) If anyone (mod) can then they most certainly may change it to D200:):)?? I don't know how so....?

Yes I have looked at the Sigma 24-70 as well as the Tamron 28-70. I think for my use that range would be the best. I know Tamron has the 17-50 f/2.8 but when I have my 18-50 I alway, found it lacking in range, so for me the 28-70 would be better. My only concern is quality of the lens. I am not sure about the Sigma's, Yes I know I have the 70-200 and it (as far as I can tell) works great, the build quality seems excellent, it does not have a plastic feal to it at all, but I just hear a lot about the Sigma lens haveing problems. If only I had the money for the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8:) I may go out today and try a few lens at the different focal lenths to see if that helps narrow it down.

Any more info on the Sigma and Tamron in that range would be great as I have been heavilly concidering them? Thanks
 
I imagine half the reason you want it is so your camera looks big like a D3.

That or the ease of use of doing. . .ahem. . .portrait work. Which seems to be the OP's main goal.

I would say the f/1.4 is, well not pointless, but not really neccessary for what you want to do. The f/1.8 is plenty sharp and cheaper to boot.

As for a "wide" to zoom lens, grab the Sigma 24-60 f/2.8. You can get it for around 200 bucks (or less - a couple of months ago it was going for around 180 at Cameta Cameras). This is one of those "diamond in the rough" lenses, that people don't know about, and because of that the price is ridiculously good. Check out the Sigma 24-60 Flickr pool to see the "range" you can get out of this lens. VERY good deal.
 
I have a Sigma 24-70 F2.8 and I like it, it is well built and works great.
The only downfall is the 82mm filter size.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top