Papa's got a brand new bag!

afireman · Feb 8, 2008

Finally making the transition from 35 to DSLR. Im in the 5K budget. I've been shooting on a D50 for about two years now to get an idea on which route to take when I drop bigger $. I'm fixed on the D300 at $1800. Peripherals will run about 1000. That leaves me with just over two for glass. I'm leaning towards a Nikon 24-70 f2.8 and a 80-200 f2.8. Thats about 2600 in lenses, a bit over what I have. My question is this; is there a more cost effective way to get both lenses in another brand that is good quality, or should I get one and save up for the other? I'm currently shooting on Nikon 28-80 3.3-5.6 and 70-300 4-5.6 with my D50. My current work is the local paper stringer jobs, HS sports, grand openings, things like that. My goal is adventure assignment for periodicals, mostly outdoor stuff, and a few weddings to fill gaps. No studio stuff. I've taken a lean towards abstract angles and photos that make the consumer ponder "impossible" photos with great multi focal depth and unique lighting. Hence the 2.8. Any input for the newbie would be great.

kundalini · Feb 8, 2008

Photozone.de review here on the 80-200mm. Look at the last line of the review. I can say the the D300 deserves the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR. It also pairs well with the 24-70mm lens.

Big Mike · Feb 8, 2008

Welcome to the forum.

You would know what you need/want better than me...but I would want something wider. 24mm just isn't wide enough for me. That' why I'd recommend something like the Nikon 17-55mm F2.8. Pair that with the 70-200 F2.8 VR and you have a fantastic kit.

You can save money (and maybe give up a little quality) by going with something from Sigma or Tamron...18-50mm F2.8 or 17-50 F2.8 respectively. They also make 24-70 F2.8 models that are less expensive than the Nikon alternative.

I use the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 because Canon's 17-55 F2.8 IS was out of my price range.

Sw1tchFX · Feb 8, 2008

I 2nd the 17-55. I used to own one (ran out of money and had to sell it) it's an incredible piece of kit. Razor sharp wide open and provides a much more useful (IMO) range than a 24-70 or 35-70.

I currently use a Nikkor 18-70 now, and it's way sharper than it has any right to be. Wide open at 18mm, it's not as contrasty, but almost as sharp as my 17-55 was. 70mm is sharper than the 17-55 at 55mm. The only downside is that the build quality is really sub-par and it's half a stop slower on the wide end and a stop and a half slower on the long end of the 17-55.

The great thing about the 18-70, is that they can be had for $150-$200 like new, off craigslist which is where I got mine from, and is a pretty ridiculous deal considering the USA one is about $350 new.

I would suggest the 17-55 for DX, and if you can't afford the 70-200, the 80-200 is just as sharp, just no VR and it's a screwdriver, not AF-S. I have the 80-200 and it's flat-out amazing.