I am trying to decide what lens i should get to accompany my AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm 1:3.5-5.6 G and my AF Nikkor 50mm 1:1.8 D the camera is my Nikon D200. what do you think i should get that would be the best
Printable View
I am trying to decide what lens i should get to accompany my AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm 1:3.5-5.6 G and my AF Nikkor 50mm 1:1.8 D the camera is my Nikon D200. what do you think i should get that would be the best
what kind of shooting do you do and what is your budget?
paging astropax
I shot pretty much every thing i do a lot of skiing shots like action as well as landscapes and some close ups
I don't really want to go over $1400 US.
I have been looking at some of the wide angle lenses as well as the fish eye but i don't know? what do you guys think?
Keep the 50.Quote:
Originally Posted by suG
Sell the 24-120 on eBay.
Buy an 18-200:
http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/541530721.htm
Another option:
Sell the 24-120 as suggested...
Buy:
Tokina 16-50mm f/2.8 or Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
and
Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 or Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8
This will give you much faster glass quiver.
I say sell the 24-120 too.
BTW you can't go wrong with buying "BGN" rated lenses from KEH.com. Their "BGN" lenses will give "Mint" lenses off ebay a run for their money. I have always been impressed by every BGN lense I've bought from KEH.
With that in mind, put the proceeds from the 24-120 + $1400 + a couple hundred more and you'll be able to spring for these two really nice lenses:
2nd generation (two touch) Nikon 80-200 2.8 ED for ~$800
Nikon 17-35 2.8 D ED IF for ~$1000 (quite possibly one of the finest Nikon lenses ever made).
Those two lenses plus the 50mm will be quite the quiver... I doubt you'll ever regret purchasing them.
What ever you do, buy the best glass you can... don't settle.
what the fuck is up with all these stupid ass tech talk threads going up every 0.5secs in the ski/snowboard forum????
The forum is fucked?Quote:
Originally Posted by TahoePowShredder
:mad:I've owned one for less than 2 months. I've used it maybe 3 times. The front filter ring is now seriously loose :mad: Odd because on the whole the lens feels more solid and performs better than the lowend Nikon offerings. Optically not bad and its fast. At $400 new its cheaper than anything else you'll find wide and f2.8 for a Nikon (except the Sigma)Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
Verdict: Mixed
^^ i absolutely love mine. my only complaint is that the autofocus is fairly loud, but i don't shoot weddings or funerals, so that's not a big deal for me.
oh, and i broke the hood in half this morning. that sucked. anyone have an extra?
I have the 70-200 in a Canon mount which I use for a lot of sports, including skiing. I've owned it for about a year and a half now with no problems. To me it was definitely worth the $700+ savings over the Canon L equivalent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit