I finally got my camera! Lens Questions..

[RKW3]

It is a Nikon D80, so I'm really excited. I only got the 18-135 standard lens with it, but my parents say I can get a seperate lens.

So here's my general question: What lenses should I be looking at? I'm looking for these features in a camera:

-300mm zoom or more (hopefully I can find this, I want it for NFL games, etc)
-Maybe macro mode? (not necessary)
-Sub-200 dollars (can't be expensive)


Something along those guidelines, I know it's very general. Right now I'm looking at this lens that sabbath pointed out to me. I know I'd probably be happy with that, but I want to know what my other options are.

Thanks.

 

[Jbs]

sub $200?

seriously?

 

[RKW3]

srsly.

I guess it can be a little more, but I don't want to ask TOO much. (even though I already am)

 

[RKW3]

Wow I just found this link in a google search that seems to ask my same question:

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007N3E

That seems to help me.

 

[RKW3]

I'm confused, will this lens work on my camera?: (d80)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/396830-REG/Sigma_508306_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_APO_DG.html

If so, is it a better option than this tamron?:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/423727-REG/Tamron_AF017N700_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_Di_LD.html


Thanks.

 

[sabbath999]

I have one of these. For the money, it is EXCELLENT.

Tamron 70-300

It is sharp, the macro mode (1:2) is decent, the lens is lightweight and it works well with your D80.

Yes, there are better lenses out there, faster ones, more durable, but for under $200 this lens is the bomb.

I have posted these here before but here are a few shots I have taken with this lens.

Macro

 

[RKW3]

I have one of these. For the money, it is EXCELLENT.

Tamron 70-300

It is sharp, the macro mode (1:2) is decent, the lens is lightweight and it works well with your D80.

Yes, there are better lenses out there, faster ones, more durable, but for under $200 this lens is the bomb.

You've told me this info before (in a thread I made a long time ago, when I suspected I would have a D80) That's why I'm still looking at it now. :thumbup:

Hmm when I see this post of yours it reassures me that I'm not crazy looking at a sub-200$ 300mm lens lol. I think I'll end up with this, just because you say it's so good and the price is unbeatable!

 

[Keith Gebhardt]

thats not a bad lense at all. only drawback is, you need light. f/4 isnt that quick.

its a good lense to get, but if you really want a lense to shoot NFL, your gonna need somthing fast for low light. Most sport games are into the evening hours. Even when there not, and its cloudy out. the f/4 might give you some trouble with your subjects being to dark.

I have a 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 and, i would never think of using it for any sport, simply cause i know il have an underexposed subject.

for sports i use 70-200 f/2.8. you could get the 80-200 f/2.8 for several hundred cheaper. youll need a tripod, no VR. but a $50 tripod is worth it.
i spent the extra money cause im out backcountry shooting boarders shreddin or skiiers tearin it up, with my hands shakin from numbness of the cold weather, i live for VR lenses.

i do have the 50mm f/1.4. thats only $280 and its probably my most used lense when im not shooting sports.

great, absolutely great for low light indoors, live performances where you can get close. indoors just for family. its ideal.

another good one is the 35mm f/2.0, probably will be in my budget soon.

what im trying to say here is, if i was looking at the 70-300 macro, f/4. and then looked at the 80-200 f/2.8. i would totally wait a month for the extra cash and buy that. its a bigger price tag.. but. you get what you pay for.

you dont need another lense? you just want one. so id wait and get a good glass.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/124669-USA/Nikon_1986_80_200mm_f_2_8_ED_AF_D.html