I am trying to determine if I had
1)made a mistake by starting with a Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 as first lens for my D80
2)Did okay with this purchase but should consider augmenting my collection with something better for low light
3)Just have Ken Rockwell syndrome
Background - I scraped together a $1000 budget and tried to make the most of it.. After reading as much as I could over a month or so I went to Bergen Camera in NJ looking for a used D80 with low shutter count with the idea of putting most of the money in to the lens. I got a fair deal on a mint one at $350.. The salesman was very helpful, I honestly felt he spent a long time with me showing me differences between the D80 and D90 and helping me select the best D80 they had(they had at least a half dozen).
Now it comes time for lens... I was trying to stick to a used lens to get the best bang for the buck.. My father had a 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 and based on his recommendation I was looking for similar. They didnt have that but they did have aNikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 for $399 in what looked to be in untouched condition. It seemed like a good deal so I went for it. Over the next few weeks I try to get a feel for the camera by leaving the flash off and and taking pictures inside(too cold outside). I find at 24mm f/3.5 there is just not enough light in my house, the camera is pushing the ISO up to 1600 and still only getting 1/20 sec shutter times. So I start reading more about this lens and stumble upon the fact that my lens in Ken Rockwells 10 worst list.. Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 VR (2003-2010) Though my main concern was dealing with low light performance I cant stop second guessing myself on this lens based on issues he points out in his review. . Ken Rockwell is now in my head....
I dont know enough let to really understand most of the issues he is referring but wondering if I got a good bang for buck or got a lens I will quickly outgrow because it is not very good. My thought at first was to pick up a Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX for $200 to get something with better low light. But of course that duplicates a range already served by my current lens making me wondering if I should try to sell this lens and start over.. Maybe pick up a 35mm f/1.8 and a Nikon 55-200mm VR(no overlap) or the 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 VR (some overlap and a higher price tag)
Is adding a Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX a good next logical step? Is the 24-120mm really as bad as Ken makes it out to be? Should I be able to take some pictures indoors with a 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 without a flash or is the crappy CFL lighting in my house a big part of this? Mostly I want to take pictures of my son (1 year old) but I am also a landlord and want to be able to take decent shots of my rental properties. I assume though when the times come for 'landlord shots' it might be a borrow/rent/buy a 10-24mm as I found the 24mm is not even close to getting a wide enough shot.
Thanks for any opinions on next step. I do have the $200 for the 35mm f/1.8 but is that the next best use for the money? I kind feel I shouldnt be overlapping zooms as it doesnt make a lot of sense to have 2 lens that do the same thing but I think there is some merit to getting a fixed 35mm that is in the f/1.8 range.. And Ken has me thinking I have a $400 paperweight and if I could get $50 for it would be worth it...
1)made a mistake by starting with a Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 as first lens for my D80
2)Did okay with this purchase but should consider augmenting my collection with something better for low light
3)Just have Ken Rockwell syndrome
Background - I scraped together a $1000 budget and tried to make the most of it.. After reading as much as I could over a month or so I went to Bergen Camera in NJ looking for a used D80 with low shutter count with the idea of putting most of the money in to the lens. I got a fair deal on a mint one at $350.. The salesman was very helpful, I honestly felt he spent a long time with me showing me differences between the D80 and D90 and helping me select the best D80 they had(they had at least a half dozen).
Now it comes time for lens... I was trying to stick to a used lens to get the best bang for the buck.. My father had a 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 and based on his recommendation I was looking for similar. They didnt have that but they did have aNikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 for $399 in what looked to be in untouched condition. It seemed like a good deal so I went for it. Over the next few weeks I try to get a feel for the camera by leaving the flash off and and taking pictures inside(too cold outside). I find at 24mm f/3.5 there is just not enough light in my house, the camera is pushing the ISO up to 1600 and still only getting 1/20 sec shutter times. So I start reading more about this lens and stumble upon the fact that my lens in Ken Rockwells 10 worst list.. Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 VR (2003-2010) Though my main concern was dealing with low light performance I cant stop second guessing myself on this lens based on issues he points out in his review. . Ken Rockwell is now in my head....
I dont know enough let to really understand most of the issues he is referring but wondering if I got a good bang for buck or got a lens I will quickly outgrow because it is not very good. My thought at first was to pick up a Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX for $200 to get something with better low light. But of course that duplicates a range already served by my current lens making me wondering if I should try to sell this lens and start over.. Maybe pick up a 35mm f/1.8 and a Nikon 55-200mm VR(no overlap) or the 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 VR (some overlap and a higher price tag)
Is adding a Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX a good next logical step? Is the 24-120mm really as bad as Ken makes it out to be? Should I be able to take some pictures indoors with a 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 without a flash or is the crappy CFL lighting in my house a big part of this? Mostly I want to take pictures of my son (1 year old) but I am also a landlord and want to be able to take decent shots of my rental properties. I assume though when the times come for 'landlord shots' it might be a borrow/rent/buy a 10-24mm as I found the 24mm is not even close to getting a wide enough shot.
Thanks for any opinions on next step. I do have the $200 for the 35mm f/1.8 but is that the next best use for the money? I kind feel I shouldnt be overlapping zooms as it doesnt make a lot of sense to have 2 lens that do the same thing but I think there is some merit to getting a fixed 35mm that is in the f/1.8 range.. And Ken has me thinking I have a $400 paperweight and if I could get $50 for it would be worth it...