Lens recommendations for a D200

[RoffleWoffle]

I'm buying a new D200 and need some lens recommendations. I will probably get one lens now and another one or two later. I'd prefer a zoom wide, a long telephoto, and maybe a macro or 30 or 50mm prime. If possible, I'd like to keep each lens under $500, but I may be able to go a bit over. For the wide angle, I was thinking http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/360350-REG/Tokina_ATX124AFPRON_12_24mm_f_4_AT_X_124AF.html or this one for wide/fisheye: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/468738-REG/Tokina_ATX107PRODXN_10_17mm_f_3_5_4_5_AT_X_107.html

Thanks!

 

[panocho]

Why not start with a cheap and nice 50mm 1:1.8? You mention that as a possible prime. It's a great lens for the price, and it will hardly touch your budget, so that you still can consider a second one without it being neccesarily later.

I really like the 50mm. And in the D200 it somehow becomes a lens portrait (75mm)

 

[forzaF1]

You'll love the D200, as I do mine, but just remember that glass is more important that the body. If you have to keep it under $500, I would go with the 50mm f/1.4

 

[Mike_E]

What do you want to shoot? And when do you want to shoot it?

I'm guessing landscapes, architecture and very few people shots.

If mostly landscapes/cityscapes then look towards the 10-17mm. If architecture or people then a f2.8 17/18-50/55mm (I don't know what kind of distortion those have but there has to be some- very bad for buildings and people alike). Tokina makes a tough lens and from what I gather the Sigma is a great lens too. The extra stop works wonders too!

mike

 

[JIP]

A Tokina lens on a D200?!?!!?. Now rigt off the bat I have to say i have no problem with off brand lenses they are fine to use. But I really have to say why in the world would you spend all that money on a fine piece of equipment like a D200 and put cheap glass on it. You know the body is only 1/2 the equation the glass is equally as important and to boot the glass holds it's value better. If you don't want to start off real expensive I'd say go for the 50mm 1.8 and go from there. Honestly though Iknow this is not the best analogy but if you bought a Ferrari would you go to Sears and buy the cheapest tires they had obviously not but I guess if you can afford the Ferraryou can afford the best tires for it too so you need to ask yourself is the D200 too much camera for you. Another lens to staty under $500 would be the 85 1.8 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/84151-USA/Nikon_1931_Telephoto_AF_Nikkor_85mm.html this is an excellent portrait lens but you really need to bite the bullet some day and put some fine glass on that camera. I think you made an excellent choice in bodies by the way. If you were able to save up for the D200 cant you do the same for the glass. I hope this is not too offensive to you it was not meant to be but I guess it was a big rant.

 

[RoffleWoffle]

A Tokina lens on a D200?!?!!?. Now rigt off the bat I have to say i have no problem with off brand lenses they are fine to use. But I really have to say why in the world would you spend all that money on a fine piece of equipment like a D200 and put cheap glass on it. You know the body is only 1/2 the equation the glass is equally as important and to boot the glass holds it's value better. If you don't want to start off real expensive I'd say go for the 50mm 1.8 and go from there. Honestly though Iknow this is not the best analogy but if you bought a Ferrari would you go to Sears and buy the cheapest tires they had obviously not but I guess if you can afford the Ferraryou can afford the best tires for it too so you need to ask yourself is the D200 too much camera for you. Another lens to staty under $500 would be the 85 1.8 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/84151-USA/Nikon_1931_Telephoto_AF_Nikkor_85mm.html this is an excellent portrait lens but you really need to bite the bullet some day and put some fine glass on that camera. I think you made an excellent choice in bodies by the way. If you were able to save up for the D200 cant you do the same for the glass. I hope this is not too offensive to you it was not meant to be but I guess it was a big rant.

I respect and thank you for your opinion, but honestly I am getting really sick and tired of people shooting down off brand lenses. All reviews I have read (and personal experience with other Tokimas) have said that the Tokima WA that I linked is as good IF NOT BETTER than the equivelent Nikon lens, which is almost twice the price of the Tokima. I understand that back in the day this was not the case, but off brand lenses are really kicking it up a notch, so to speak.

 

[panocho]

I respect and thank you for your opinion, but honestly I am getting really sick and tired of people shooting down off brand lenses. All reviews I have read (and personal experience with other Tokimas) have said that the Tokima WA that I linked is as good IF NOT BETTER than the equivelent Nikon lens, which is almost twice the price of the Tokima. I understand that back in the day this was not the case, but off brand lenses are really kicking it up a notch, so to speak.

I understand your point, and I would partially agree.

People tend to insist very much (specially here on TPF) on that the lens is far more important than the body, and so on. But then the thing is that I would be willing to bet that more often than many would imagine, most of the people who consider a sin puting something like a Tokina on a very good body (as the D200) wouldn't be able to tell the difference from using some Nikkor, for instance.

My point is that I do agree with the importance of the lens, but much too often cheaper ones are nearly as good as the "good glass" many consider a must on good bodies. But then with the "less important" body one will easily tell the difference from a cheaper one to the more expensive. For example: it is very easy to notice (and to many, very important) the metal wheather sealled body of the D200 over the D80's plastic, so the price difference may be well worth paying for. And then that price difference on lenses may easily be very difficult to notice -and not at all that worth paying for.

To sum up: just a thought against the advice "put your money on the lens, not on the body". And it's not neccesarily any sin at all to use Tokina's Sigma's or whatever on semi-pro's bodies. Sometimes those brands are much better than certain fancy Nikkor's

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I think the Tokina is a screwdriver lens and I know the Nikkor 12-24 is AF-S. That could be a big thing. Loud AF makes people nervous.

 

[JIP]

I respect and thank you for your opinion, but honestly I am getting really sick and tired of people shooting down off brand lenses. All reviews I have read (and personal experience with other Tokimas) have said that the Tokima WA that I linked is as good IF NOT BETTER than the equivelent Nikon lens, which is almost twice the price of the Tokima. I understand that back in the day this was not the case, but off brand lenses are really kicking it up a notch, so to speak.

and I quote "Now right off the bat I have to say i have no problem with off brand lenses they are fine to use."

Did you read that part of my post?!!?!!?!!???!! I don't understand if you read my post I made ot VERY clear I was not shooting down off-brand lenses simply questioning the logic behind putting one on such a fine body as a D200. I have no problem with an off brand lens per-se but if you are smart enough (or advanced enough) to buy a D200 body you should also buy a good lens. From your reply it does not seem like you even read my original post. Go over my post and tell me exactly where I shot down off-brand lenses. I shot with a Sigma lens for quite a few years even used it to shoot for 2 different weekly newspapers professionally. But I did this for one reason and one reason alone I COULD NOT AFFORD A BETTER LENS!!! also this Sigma lens was on an N70 so I also could not afford a better body. So now rather than go over it again read this.

" But I really have to say why in the world would you spend all that money on a fine piece of equipment like a D200 and put cheap glass on it. You know the body is only 1/2 the equation the glass is equally as important and to boot the glass holds it's value better. "

Oh yeah Panocho, do you have any high quality lenses?? I have to say I can absolutely tell the difference between images shot with my kit lens and with my 70-200VR 2.8.. And if you look at my sig you will see I did exactly what you said "put your money on the lens, not on the body". With the possibility of buying the D200 later and using my D70 as a backup.

 

[sabbath999]

A Tokina lens on a D200?!?!!?. Now rigt off the bat I have to say i have no problem with off brand lenses they are fine to use. But I really have to say why in the world would you spend all that money on a fine piece of equipment like a D200 and put cheap glass on it.

My thoughts exactly. If you are going to get cheap glass, why bother having a nice body? Much better to do it the other way around, get a cheap (even used) body and spend your money on good glass. The glass is going to last a lot longer than the body.

 

[Stretch Armstrong]

I have to say I can absolutely tell the difference between images shot with my kit lens and with my 70-200VR 2.8.. And if you look at my sig you will see I did exactly what you said "put your money on the lens, not on the body". With the possibility of buying the D200 later and using my D70 as a backup.

I have Canon equipment, but I completely agree with you here. I can definitely tell the difference, not only in the function but also in the shots I take.

 

[JIP]

My thoughts exactly. If you are going to get cheap glass, why bother having a nice body? Much better to do it the other way around, get a cheap (even used) body and spend your money on good glass. The glass is going to last a lot longer than the body.

Hey Sabbath you and I agree on something?? this has to be a first!! LOL

 

[XJBaylor]

JIP - I understand where you are coming from, and also shoot expensive Nikon glass that I bought with my F100 (I understand quality), but the Tokina 12-24 does not fit into the "cheap lens" category. It is every bit the match for the D200. If you NEEDED a marginally better performance for double the money you would probably have a D2x instead of a D200. The Tokina/Nikon 12-24 comparison is much the same.

“ Less expensive by far than Nikon’s or Sigma’s 12–24mm, Tokina’s optical quality is unsurpassed.”
Popular Photography lens test article published April 2005

 

[JIP]

The lenses the op listed are cheap lenses and do not belong on a D200 one is an F4 the other is a F3.5-4.5. Another thing that was said was he wanted lenses under $500 I suggested a few lower priced Nikon 2.8 lenses before he got all upset over someone suggesting that he might be making the wrong decision. Honestly though my point has been made by several other people and I just say to roffle if you are snesitive about the answers that might be given don't ask a question.

 

[RoffleWoffle]

The lenses the op listed are cheap lenses and do not belong on a D200 one is an F4 the other is a F3.5-4.5. Another thing that was said was he wanted lenses under $500 I suggested a few lower priced Nikon 2.8 lenses before he got all upset over someone suggesting that he might be making the wrong decision. Honestly though my point has been made by several other people and I just say to roffle if you are snesitive about the answers that might be given don't ask a question.

I would just like to say first of all, that I didn't mean this to turn into a big argument and I apologize, I must not have seen the first part of your original reply. I appreciate your replies, but let's not take this any further.

Thanks everyone for your suggestions.