D200 lens options...

[targetarcher911]

I am buying a Nikon D200, and would like to know what lenses would be good for me to start out with

-I have decided that I do not need to start with a VR lens.
-I would like to get maybe 2 lenses
-I need to keep the combined price around $400.00

how is the nikon 18-135 f/3.5-5.6g?

I know that that is some tight criteria, and it is not exact, i am only looking for a ballpark estimate.

Thank you for reading, and replying.

 

[JIP]

At the risk of offending soem people if you buy a D200 please do not buy junk lenses. The lens you named (if it was paired with a D200) would br included in this category. If you cannot afford a 2.8 lens to go with your D200 may I suggest a lesser body. If you insist then I would say buy whatever fast glass you can afford.

A couple of initial choices.....

If you want to go cheap
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/247091-USA/Nikon_2137_Normal_AF_Nikkor_50mm.html

A good starter lens
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/300490-USA/Nikon_2147_17_55mm_f_2_8G_ED_IF_AF_S.html

The "Big guns"
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/274780-USA/Nikon_2139_70_200mm_f_2_8D_VR_G_AFS.html

That is just a start if you need to go cheaper you can get any number of used lenses for this camera as it will be fully functional with any of Nikon's AF lenses.

 

[XJBaylor]

I agree with JIP, but we will disagree in some ways. First, I agree with him that if you are only spending $400 on the lenses, you should move some of the body budget to the lenses.

The D80 is a VERY capable camera, as is the older D70s. While the 18-135 lens is a great lens, spending a little more on the lens and a little less on the body would give you much more flexibility. I would recommend the Tamron 17-50 2.8 to start. This lens alone would be right at your $400 budget, but the flexibility that the faster lens give you is priceless.

Once you spent some time with it you could decide what you wanted for your next lens. The 70-300VR is not a fast lens, but if you are not shooting sports, or you only shoot outdoors in sunlight it would be great for you. If you do want to shoot in low light your could spend a little more and get an 80-200 2.8.

Regardless, buy a kit that fits your needs. Instead of the D200 I would recommend a D80 and Tamron 17-50 to start. Once you are comfortable with that look at adding glass from there.

Oh, and you don't need to stick to the "2.8 or bust" mentality. If you don't plan to shoot low light or need control over depth of field many of the cheaper Nikkor lenses have GREAT IQ. But having a standard zoom with a larger aperture gives you so much creative control.

 

[JIP]

Oh, and you don't need to stick to the "2.8 or bust" mentality. If you don't plan to shoot low light or need control over depth of field many of the cheaper Nikkor lenses have GREAT IQ. But having a standard zoom with a larger aperture gives you so much creative control.

I am less concerned about the low-light or depth-of-field capability of my lens I really just want the sharpest lens available. And honestly, if you go with the D200 it should be "2.8 or bust" look at your list.

 

[XJBaylor]

I am less concerned about the low-light or depth-of-field capability of my lens I really just want the sharpest lens available. And honestly, if you go with the D200 it should be "2.8 or bust" look at your list.

I agree that the D200 is a better camera than most need, but if someone has the money to buy one, they can still get great pictures with lenses like the 18-135 and 70-300VR. I would recommend against spending money in that order (body-lens) but you can still get incredible pictures.

Overall sharpness is a big deal online, but should not be the only criteria on which lenses are judged.

Finally, I realize what lenses I have, and if you gave me an 18-70 on a sunny day I would appreciate the weight and focal length benefits it has compared to my 28-70. I bought the lenses that I have because they work for me, not the bragging rights that go along with buying "professional" lenses.

Keith

 

[sabbath999]

I find that I just can't answer this question.

I cannot in good faith recommend any low price Nikkor zoom lenses for a D200, simply because I think it is a mistake to spend such a large sum on a camera body which (will be outdated by... umm... the end of this month) while buying cheap lenses. I don't believe that there ARE any good, low cost Nikkor zooms... the only low cost Nikkor lens I have seen recently (as in the digital era) that I would consider "good" is the 50mm 1.8 prime.

Buying as much camera as you can afford and then scrimping on the lenses is backwards thinking... it is far better to scrimp (if scrimping is what your budget requires) on the body and buy better glass.

I would rather see you in a D80 with a decent lens than a D200 with cheap glass... your images will be much, MUCH better.

I am not disrespecting a D200... but I AM disrespecting an 18-135 slow plastic lens on one.

Since that isn't what you ask, I guess I will just throw out a suggestion of the following lens.

The Sigma 24-60 is a lens that I own, which is available for $239 plus shipping, and that I can recommend. It is fast (f/2.8 constant), tack sharp and has excellent build quailty, a standard 77mm filter size and costs (in this deal) $250 with shipping from an excellent online retailer whom I have bought a ton of stuff from...

Sigma 24-60 f/2.8 EX DG (clicky)

Is the Sigma as good as a Nikkor of similar specs? No, absolutely not. However, it is $1200 cheaper.

Additionally, since the D200 can shoot just about any AI lens, you can also find a lot of excellent Nikkor manual focus glass very inexpensively... you can get good, fast primes for peanuts.

I would rather see you go that way than something like an 18-135 (a lens I particularly dislike, since it is expensive for what it is, has plenty of image quality issues, is made almost entirely of plastic, is very slow and has no VR...)

 

[JerryPH]

Look in my sig.

As far as which one to start with? I think that if I had the Sigma 18-50 F/2.8 from the start, I would have been VERY happy. It is a great lens that is right in your budget.

Since you are just getting the D200 and likely have no other lenses, I strongly suggest you get the 50mm F/1.8 as it is ery cheap and gives excellent pictures.

Stay away from kit lenses... they can never do your D200 justice. With the exception of my 18-200VR and 10-20mm ultra wide angle, I also would not put a lens with a slower aperture than F/2.8 if I was serious about getting good pics.

That 18-135 f/3.5-5.6g is not something you will be happy with for very long, IMHO... especially once you see what a fast lens can do for you. I'd not recommend it.

 

[targetarcher911]

Thanks for all of the help, I am buying this body, because i got a deal on a brand new d200 for just under $500.00. I am really only looking for a lens that will give me some good shots through the middle of january, when i will be able to afford more.
Your answers were very helpful.

 

[targetarcher911]

Also JIP, i have looked at the lens you referred to as the "BIG GUN", but offered by sigma.
I have seen it on ebay for about $545.00 used, and would like to know how good this lens is, when it is a sigma.
Thanks

 

[JIP]

Also JIP, i have looked at the lens you referred to as the "BIG GUN", but offered by sigma.
I have seen it on ebay for about $545.00 used, and would like to know how good this lens is, when it is a sigma.
Thanks

this is being discussed in another thread....

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=99867

 

[XJBaylor]

Also JIP, i have looked at the lens you referred to as the "BIG GUN", but offered by sigma.
I have seen it on ebay for about $545.00 used, and would like to know how good this lens is, when it is a sigma.
Thanks

Look at the Nikon 80-200 2.8 two ring version. You can get them around $600, and will be able to sell it for that if you decide to upgrade. Great build, great IQ and focuses fast on the D200.

As for your plan of a lens for a short time, go ahead and look at the Tamron 17-50. I doubt that you will need to upgrade that lens even when you can afford it. Its most obvious flaw is chromatic aberation, which can be cured VERY easily if you shoot in RAW.

Keith