I'm buying a D300

[golfnut]

What lenses should I get? I want a wide angle and telephoto. 12-24 and 70-300? 12-24 and 70-200? 14-24 and 70-200? I mainly want to shoot everyday still life and sports. I love sticking a wide angle close to the subject and drawing people into the scene. I just sold my D40 with both kit lenses. the 18-55 and 55-200. I'm ready to move up.

 

[Trenton Romulox]

I use the 70-200 on my D300 and love it.

That's my video review of the lens (language warning).

I also use the 14-24, and will be posting a video review of it shortly. But, to give you some input before then, it's an awesome lens.

 

[golfnut]

I use the 70-200 on my D300 and love it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsLEVBRpoCo

That's my video review of the lens (language warning).

I also use the 14-24, and will be posting a video review of it shortly. But, to give you some input before then, it's an awesome lens.

Thanks, I'll have to check that out when I get home. Youtube is blocked here at work. Anyone else have some suggestions?

 

[Antithesis]

I'm going this route soon enough for the sake of shooting weddings, and I'll probably get a 17-55 f2.8 and a 70-200 f2.8 VR to start with as I already have a decent wide-angle. I'd love to get the "trinity" or whatever, I just think it would be out of my price range for the time being. Plus, I don't won't to think about the 14-24 + 24-70 combo until I have a full frame camera.

 

[Fate]

i have the 70-200 2.8 atm, lovely lens. hopefully getting a tokina 12-24 soon.. so that would be recommended combo

Gona look at a second hand D200 as well

 

[Antithesis]

i have the 70-200 2.8 atm, lovely lens. hopefully getting a tokina 12-24 soon.. so that would be recommended combo

Gona look at a second hand D200 as well

Yeah, I'll be using a Tokina 12-24, 17-55 f2.8 and the 70-200 and a couple primes with my d80 as a backup.

 

[bikemech23]

I have a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 that stays on my d300 90% of the time. I cannot recommend a lens in the 17-50mm range enough. I had the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8, but at 3x the price and 3x the weight of the Tamron, I sent it back. It's not any better, just looks more pro. I've owned this lens for over a year now. It was on my d200 all the time too. I beat the crap out of this lens and it just keeps coming back for more. Tamron customer service is top notch, as they warrantied a loose front element (did not affect image quality or function, just a rattle) very quickly. In a holster bag such as the f.64 HCX large holster case, I can put my d300 w/ Tamron 17-50 in with lens hood on and no lens cap, and it's really quick and easy access, ready to shoot in seconds.

I just bought the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 and it's really nice, but too heavy for anything but formal shoots. Excellent zoom range, as well as watertight which is nice here in the northwest. Quality of construction is ridiculously nice, with super-smooth zoom and lightning fast focusing. For truly professional results, you'll need this lens. I am looking forward to trying the new Tamron version as it will be much lighter. VR is a nice feature, and it really works amazingly well, but I have found that it limits me to a certain style of shooting, whereas without it you are forced to be more creative with light (which is a good thing at times). It also drains your camera battery significantly.

Sigma 10-20mm is sharp and has nice contrast, but the distortion is really bad for human photos. Landscape and nature works well. I may be interested in selling this one b/c I never use it.

Nikon 10.5 fisheye is AWESOME for close up shots. Clarity and contrast are top notch. This is the sharpest lens I own, and is quickly becoming my favorite lens. Super lightweight and tiny, allows really unique perspective. Only downside is you have to be REALLY close and only experience will allow you to know where the distortion will appear.

I had a Sigma 105 f/2.8 macro, but did not find it very useful due to slow focus and I don't shoot alot of macro anyways. Nice and sharp though.

When I had a d70s, I used the Nikon 18-200vr lens alot. Although it's quite dark most of where I shoot and I opted for f/2.8 instead, I constantly think of the 18-200. Great all around lens. Now that I carry remote flashes most of the time, I am thinking of getting another one of these.

I have been adding photos to a photo-a-day collection that you can view here. You can read the metadata from the images to see which lenses were used. All of these photos are with D300.

You could not have chosen a better camera. I am constantly amazed by the capabilities of the D300. Good luck with lens choices, it's a never ending struggle.

 

[golfnut]

I have a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 that stays on my d300 90% of the time. I cannot recommend a lens in the 17-50mm range enough. I had the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8, but at 3x the price and 3x the weight of the Tamron, I sent it back. It's not any better, just looks more pro. I've owned this lens for over a year now. It was on my d200 all the time too. I beat the crap out of this lens and it just keeps coming back for more. Tamron customer service is top notch, as they warrantied a loose front element (did not affect image quality or function, just a rattle) very quickly. In a holster bag such as the f.64 HCX large holster case, I can put my d300 w/ Tamron 17-50 in with lens hood on and no lens cap, and it's really quick and easy access, ready to shoot in seconds.

I just bought the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 and it's really nice, but too heavy for anything but formal shoots. Excellent zoom range, as well as watertight which is nice here in the northwest. Quality of construction is ridiculously nice, with super-smooth zoom and lightning fast focusing. For truly professional results, you'll need this lens. I am looking forward to trying the new Tamron version as it will be much lighter. VR is a nice feature, and it really works amazingly well, but I have found that it limits me to a certain style of shooting, whereas without it you are forced to be more creative with light (which is a good thing at times). It also drains your camera battery significantly.

Sigma 10-20mm is sharp and has nice contrast, but the distortion is really bad for human photos. Landscape and nature works well. I may be interested in selling this one b/c I never use it.

Nikon 10.5 fisheye is AWESOME for close up shots. Clarity and contrast are top notch. This is the sharpest lens I own, and is quickly becoming my favorite lens. Super lightweight and tiny, allows really unique perspective. Only downside is you have to be REALLY close and only experience will allow you to know where the distortion will appear.

I had a Sigma 105 f/2.8 macro, but did not find it very useful due to slow focus and I don't shoot alot of macro anyways. Nice and sharp though.

When I had a d70s, I used the Nikon 18-200vr lens alot. Although it's quite dark most of where I shoot and I opted for f/2.8 instead, I constantly think of the 18-200. Great all around lens. Now that I carry remote flashes most of the time, I am thinking of getting another one of these.

I have been adding photos to a photo-a-day collection that you can view here. You can read the metadata from the images to see which lenses were used. All of these photos are with D300.

You could not have chosen a better camera. I am constantly amazed by the capabilities of the D300. Good luck with lens choices, it's a never ending struggle.

Wow, a lot of info! Thanks! I own the 10.5 fisheye and I agree, it's a great lens. It lets you get really creative. I definitely have to sit and think about this purchase. With, a minimum of $3,000 or more being spent, I have to be happy with my choices.

 

[Trenton Romulox]

Golfnut, I hope you checked out my 70-200 review. And my 14-24 review is now up and that is a rather comprehensive review of the lens, so you might want to hit that link up. Hope I help.

 

[keith204]

Golfnut, I hope you checked out my 70-200 review. And my 14-24 review is now up http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTq3IMXxTpI and that is a rather comprehensive review of the lens, so you might want to hit that link up. Hope I help.

TR,

You should do a review comparing the D300's FPS & Buffer when shooting in 14-bit raw vs 12-bit raw. 12-bit apparently doesn't slow the camera down like 14-bit does.

I think the 40D finally has ONE advantage here! It can do fast 14-bit RAW shots better than the D300. HOWEVER, I'm not saying Canon is better, so don't stone me yet. Just saying... your D300 review shows that the camera is slow when shooting 14-bit RAW, but people might be happy to hear that they can knock it down to 12-bit RAW and would be more acceptable for sports shooters who prefer RAW.

 

[Trenton Romulox]

TR,

You should do a review comparing the D300's FPS & Buffer when shooting in 14-bit raw vs 12-bit raw. 12-bit apparently doesn't slow the camera down like 14-bit does.

I think the 40D finally has ONE advantage here! It can do fast 14-bit RAW shots better than the D300. HOWEVER, I'm not saying Canon is better, so don't stone me yet. Just saying... your D300 review shows that the camera is slow when shooting 14-bit RAW, but people might be happy to hear that they can knock it down to 12-bit RAW and would be more acceptable for sports shooters who prefer RAW.

Yeah, I agree, man. In fact, I was thinking about that just a few days ago, so it's funny you should bring it up. I think I'll do that when I get around to doing a video review of the D300 itself. Thanks for the input, Keith.

 

[skiboarder72]

I use the lenses in my sig on my D300, all highly recommended

 

[Trenton Romulox]

I use the lenses in my sig on my D300, all highly recommended

I personally use the 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor, but, it's tough to beat the value of the 50mm f/1.8. The overall optical quality isn't much different, just the f/1.4 gets sharper at a larger aperture, but only by one stop. So yeah, I'd say, 50mm f/1.8 is good stuff.

 

[golfnut]

Trenton, great reviews! So between the 12-24 and 14-24, is the 14-24 overkill on a D300 if I don't plan to get an FX body any time soon? It's more expensive, bigger, heavier, but the IQ and sharpness is pretty much flawless. Why is this so hard?!?!?!?