Looking for a fast, versatile lens for Nikon D50 (something like 18-100+mm)

[JIP]

Not by me. I have never even seen one, let alone tested one. I was providing some generic information related to lens design that the OP should consider. It was not lens specific but was accurate. After you have completed about 1/2 century of photography, you may use any attitude you like with me. In the meantime comment on what I say, not on what you think I say. It reflects poorly on you, not on me.

I think 1/4 century with 10 years of professional photography is enough but it really doesn't matter, more experience doesn't always mean more knowledge. I agree with your statement on the image quality of the 18-200 and was really wondering why you would suggest an inferior lens to someone. It is not really fast enough to get great concert images and not really all that sharp from the reviews I have read (I posted links to a couple in one of the many previous dicussions of this lens). I was merely trying to point out the criteria this person gave for a lens (fast long cheap small) was impossible to achieve. If you want a fast lens it will have to have big glass and mutiple elements and it will consequently be more expensive, long fast lenses will be large (obviously) to hold the large glass there's just no way around it. oh yeah and the thank you part of my comment you quoted was thanking fmw for an answer I agreed with. And still I wonder why it is so hard/inconvenient to change lenses if that is the case there are plenty of quality p/s cameras out there where you never have to worry about changing your lens. Why buy a DSLR if you don't want to change lenses.

 

[fmw]

I think 1/4 century with 10 years of professional photography is enough but it really doesn't matter, more experience doesn't always mean more knowledge. I agree with your statement on the image quality of the 18-200 and was really wondering why you would suggest an inferior lens to someone.

You're having a hard time reading what I write for some reason. The whole purpose of my post was to suggest to the OP that he not look for an inexpensive zoom lens with a wide range. I did not recommend the lens. In fact I did the opposite.

And, no 1/4 century of experience is not enough to try to nail me with an attitude. Sorry, son.

 

[JIP]

Actually re-reading your initial post it looks like you and I agree. No attitude was meant and I'm sorry if you thought it was. Actually actually looking back in more detail now I think you are understandably confused in my original quoting of your post I was actually thanking you for making the exact statement I wanted to make and I was saying that the 18-200 has been discussed ad-nauseum and should not have even been brought up here as a suggestion for this person but not that it was brought up by you.

 

[fmw]

Actually re-reading your initial post it looks like you and I agree. No attitude was meant and I'm sorry if you thought it was. Actually actually looking back in more detail now I think you are understandably confused in my original quoting of your post I was actually thanking you for making the exact statement I wanted to make and I was saying that the 18-200 has been discussed ad-nauseum and should not have even been brought up here as a suggestion for this person but not that it was brought up by you.

But you only said the lens had been discussed ad nauseum. It sounded confrontational and I didn't even discuss the lens in particular.

Let's start over at the beginning. No need for a couple of former pros to be beating each other up over an agreement.

I'll add one more comment for the OP. Lenses are significantly more important to the photographic outcome than is the camera. Yes, more current digital cameras have better CCD's than earlier ones and certainly have more resolution and better gradation. But none of that matters if you use a low contrast lens with soft corners. I generally recommend buying a great lens and then buying whatever camera fits it. Accept compromises in the camera body before you accept them in the lenses. Good shooting.

 

[Illah]

Thanks for all the input.

So yeah, I wasn't really interested in an 18-200, I don't need THAT much zoom, but something a little more than 55 was more what I was thinking. Maybe an ~18-80? Does something like that exist? Reason I ask is I can't always get right up on a subject that's on stage or whatever, but I don't need a telephoto to get a tight shot either.

I know Nikkor makes DX lenses in 18-70 and 18-135 (D80 kit lens). Anyone have any experience with those?

Also Ken Rockwell raves about the Nikon DX VR 18-200 mm F3.5-5.6G Zoom. Seems like a good choice (though I'd have to save up for it since it's $1000), but some critisize his reviews.

If I am stuck more in the 18-55 range, what lens would be a good, not super-expensive, upgrade from the D50 kit lens ([SIZE=-1]Nikkor DX AF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED). The kit lens only does 3.5 at it's widest, which isn't TOO far from a 2.8, but obviously if I could open it up some that alone would help.[/SIZE]

As for more light, I can only reasonable have one - a camera mounted speedlight. I already have an SB-600 and diffuser so I'm pretty good in this respect (at least as good as is reasonable for this shooting situation).

--Illah

 

[accorddude]

I can tell you now that the 18-200 is not going to give you the results that you want. You said that f3.5 is not wide enough in your last post. The 18-200mm ranges in f stop between 3.5 and 5.8. What I would do is buy a prime lens that opens up to like 1.4, 1.8, or 2.8 but thats me. Also why do you need to go as wide as 18mm? Dont be affraid when you are at the venue to move around on stage and get the picture you want by getting closer. They are paying you for the shots so get the shots that they will want.

 

[Illah]

A prime would never work... At clubs the distance to the subject is almost random. It varies from pics of people in the crowd, the DJ, the ambiance, different club layouts, etc. So far I've been OK with a 3.5-5.6, opening up just gives me more range more than anything. As long as I'm within 5-10' of the subject the SB-600 has enough punch for those apertures, though sometimes I lose a little background/ambiance where opening up and using less flash would be ideal.

--Illah

 

[dsp921]

Go and spend $100 on a 50mm f/1.8 and move around the club to get the shot you want. The 18-70 is better than the 18-55 but still slow so it won't really be worth the money in this case, at least that's my opinion. You're really kind of stuck, fast glass is expensive. I guess you can look at 3rd party lenses, but the Nikkor f/2.8 and faster zooms are going to cost you $1500 and up. Wish I had an answer for you, but you're looking for an ideal lens that really doesn't exist.

 

[Illah]

What do you all think about the Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 lens? I've heard good things about it based on my short research today. Little more reach, a bit faster on both the open end and full zoom, seems like it might fit my bill...

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_1770_2845/index.htm

Seems to have a bit of a weakness at 17mm 2.8 but nothing a little photoshopping can't fix. Also I do take pictures outside of clubs and this seems like a good all-arounder for my non-club shots as well.

--Illah