Lens recommendations for a D200

[XJBaylor]

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 guess cheap is relative. But for a lot of people having a good "walking around lens" means a zoom, and the Nikon version of the same lens ($1000) is also f/4. My current lenses are f2.8 x 2; f/1.8; and f/4 (and cost almost 10x what I paid for my body.) Simply being f/4 does not disqualify it from being a good lens to use on a D200.

Most importantly, he asks about two wide angle zooms, and you offer 2 normal primes. They are better lenses, but you need to take other peoples needs into account when you make (or bash) a lens recommendation. The 50 and 85 you mentioned produce better images, but do not fulfill the same need.

I am not trying to argue with you, I just want to say that while a D200 is deserving of a good lens, sometimes good lenses come in surprising packages. The Tokina 12-24 being one of those rare exceptions. For the most part, he should be looking at Nikon primes or other Nikon lenses over $500, I was just defending this one decision.

Keith

 

[Don Simon]

I have to admit I didn't realise $500 was "cheap". Cheaper than the equivalent Nikkor 12-24mm, which is not quite the same as cheap. The Tokina 12-24mm (designed with Pentax) has been very well received and not only by people with no experience of good glass. Even the build quality is not bad for a third-party lens. I'm sure the equivalent Nikkor is better. Whether it's better enough to justify paying double the price is another matter and one that neither I nor anyone else except the guy paying can decide.

Way I see it, if people are prepared to spend the money on only first-party lenses and are convinced that is the only option for really good glass, it's their money and their decision. If they want to advise other people to follow the same path, no problem - you don't have to follow their advice. Personally I try to consider lenses on an individual basis rather than just go by name, and I think there are reasons why some lenses are more expensive or cheaper than others that go beyond simply "quality"... like the fact that some companies can produce lenses in multiple mounts, and that some other companies can charge more for the name on the front. I'll give advice based on that... but again no-one has to follow it. No-one's forcing anyone to do or not do anything. Lenses retain their value fairly well, so if someone makes the "wrong" decision and has to exchange it, it's not the end of the world.

But never mind me... looks like the "Third party lens" thing is joining "Canon vs Nikon" and "Film vs Digital" in the list of discussion topics that refuse to stay dead despite never leading anywhere

 

[JIP]

I have no problem with anybody going the "cheap" route. As I earlier stated when it was necesarry for me I had a Sigma lens and an N70 body. Not everyone can afford or needs professional gear but if that is the case if you do not need pro gear why buy a D200?.

 

[Don Simon]

OK I have to say this... Nikon themselves say that the D200 is "ideal for those looking for a camera to bridge the gap between the professional and the entry level Digital SLRs"... not that it is the ultimate pro product. To extend your argument, if you need pro gear, why buy a D200 instead of a D2Xs? There are very good reasons for buying a D200 over a D80, D40 etc, it's not like you need to be a professional to want those advantages.

It's a question of how much you think a Nikkor is better than a Tokina etc. If you think the third-party lens is only average in comparison, then of course it doesn't make a lot of sense to put it on a well-above-average body. If on the other hand you think the third-party is very nearly as good as the first-party then it's still going to produce excellent results on a good body for a lot less. You presumably think the former. Some other people - yes some of whom have actually bothered to compare with first-party glass - think otherwise. Going back to my earlier point I would point out that the Sigma you used on an N70 was one Sigma, not every third-party lens. But hey, I have no problems with anybody going the twice-as-expensive route... but then if you need pro gear why buy a D200 and not a D2Xs? :mrgreen:

 

[JIP]

Well I gave enough of my opinion I will leave this to the op's questions.

 

[sabbath999]

But hey, I have no problems with anybody going the twice-as-expensive route... but then if you need pro gear why buy a D200 and not a D2Xs?

Because studies have shown that people who own D2Xs are much more likely to get abducted by aliens than D200 owners... and we all know that alien abductions are no fun at all (especially when they do their "you know where" probes).

 

[Don Simon]

Statistically, Pentax users are even less likely to get abducted and probed, so I'm happy :mrgreen:

 

[panocho]

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.

I was not talking about kit lenses. There's more than a low-quality kit lens (regardless of the brand) and top-quality professional lenses. Or don't you think there are something in between? What I mean is that many times those "in between" are precisely off-brand lenses, cheaper than their brand-equivalents.

Let's forget about the extremes (top and lowest quality) -then what we have left are just quality lenses: I'm sure many wouldn't say a word using brand-ones on quality bodies but then would consider a sin choosing the off-brand ones