If you had 500.00

robdavis305 · Sep 6, 2009

If you had 500.00 and you could only buy 1 Nikon lense for your Nikon what would it be.

iamacyborg · Sep 6, 2009

An old manual focus wide angle lens.

Dao · Sep 6, 2009

hum .... if you are looking for lens suggestion, what other people think may not be what you need.

i.e. Based on what I currently have, I would like to have a fast 35mm or 28mm prime lens. But that is because I already have fast ultra wide, standard and telephoto prime lenses including a macro lens and couple standard and telephone zoom lenses. So my choice maybe be what you are looking for.

DScience · Sep 6, 2009

I would first get the lens I have. Then I would save for either the 60mm AF-S micro NIKKOR, or I would get the 50mm f1.2 manual focus....

)

Overread · Sep 6, 2009

First thing I would do is sit down and write out a list of all the lenses I would really like to own and can see myself saving up for and actually getting (we can all dream of 1000mm lenses but very very few people ever have the drive, commitment and budget to afford them).
List complete I would then try to put some order of prefrence to it - taking into account what I am shooting at hte time, what I feel is lacking my setup and where I feel that I want to take my shooting.

Then I would see if anything at the top of the list is within budget - if yes then get - if not then either save or go for something lower down the list.

This approach has the major bonus that you know what and how your going to use the gear when you get it. Simply getting gear for gears sake or because its really good gear can be fun, but its also tricky. You can easily end up with gear for which you have no use or ideas for using - and that means it ends up collecting shelfdust.

kundalini · Sep 6, 2009

Depends on what is missing in the bag. You asked earlier about the 50mm f/1.4 vs f/1.8. If I were in your shoes, I'd likely go with the f/1.8 and buy a flash or put the money into an interest bearing account until you know for sure. If you have the kit lens, stick with it for a while to determine what you want to shoot but can't because the lens isn't getting you there.

$500 would be a good starting amount to save for my next lens. Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 at $5,300 or 400mm f/2.8, at $8,900. But I'm keeping my eyes open on the used market first.

Derrel · Sep 6, 2009

Overread has it about right. Planning and knowing your options is critical,as is knowing what you really need and knowing if something is just a want or a desire. My personal philosophy for over 25 years has been to buy most lenses on the used market,and to allow other people to take the depreciation hit.

As far as used lenses, $500 at one of the Big Five web sites will not go nearly as far as $500 on craigslist or eBay or in a camera shop located in a smaller,secondary market like Sarasota, or Minneapolis, or Seattle. The biggest web sellers have the absolute highest prices. Real people often let lenses go for things like rent and dental bills and car payments.

Over the years, I've bought a lot of stuff at walk-in retail from two or three one-outlet camera stores. Whenever there is a "new-next-greatest-thing", there is PLENTY of trade-in and consigment gear all over the world. When Nikon intro'd the D100, I bought some of the finest,mint shape manual focus Nikkor lenses I'd seen in 15 years. When Canon intro'd their first pro dlsr, the EOS 1D, the market was flooded with boatloads of good,clean used EF lenses. Lenses are sold off or consigned to finance new purchases, by real people who need cash fast. Small dealers sell this stuff off fast, to raise cash to pay employees and make lease payments. Big Web stores sit on this stuff until they find a sucker willing to pay 30 percent more than walk-in retail. Your $500 cash spent locally could easily be worth $800 nationally.

KmH · Sep 6, 2009

The nifty-fifty (AF 50mm f/1.8D, $130) is the only one that comes to mind for under $500.

There's the new AF-S 35mm f/1.8G ($200) but that's a more limited focal length. Having both would be pretty good ($330).

You could use the remaining $170 to get a top notch CPL filter for them. They use the same size filter, you'd just have to move it from lens to lens.

Two lenses instead of one, sweet.

$500 isn't a lot of money for buying good lenses. The reall good ones are well north of twice that.

AtlPikMan · Sep 6, 2009

I have a fair amount of lenses. I would have to get a Macro, I dont have one.

redtippmann · Sep 6, 2009

I would save a little more and get a tamron 70-200 f/2.8

Antithesis · Sep 6, 2009

KmH said:
The nifty-fifty (AF 50mm f/1.8D, $130) is the only one that comes to mind for under $500.

There's the new AF-S 35mm f/1.8G ($200) but that 's a more limited focal length. Having both would be pretty good ($330).

35mm is pretty close to 50mm on a full frame, making it one of the most useful focal lengths (if not *the* most as its considered the "standard" as compared to human vision). It is a DX lens, and I assume the poster likely has a DX sensor camera. The nifty fifty is an awesome lens, but it ends up being closer to a portrait lens (eq. 75mm) on a DX sensor, which limits its scope. But, at $100 it is well worth having in your bag.

All digression aside, I'd probably try to find a used 18-200VR if I could only buy one lens. The VR2 comes out in the next week or two, which should drive the price down a little, just as Derrel mentioned. It may not be the sharpest or the fastest, but if I could only have one...