Nikon lens help

**Shepherd Wong** · 02-10-2007, 10:43 PM

I would like to start photographing skiing and mountain biking stuff. My question is should I go for a 18-200 lens(I've been on the waiting list for a bit now) or the 70-300 zoom lens and a 30 mm prime lens? How long do most people go shooting skiing and biking? I have my 18-55 kit lens which seems to be working well for me but could use some more umph.
Thanks!

**RShea** · 02-10-2007, 10:52 PM

If you have a wide angle zoom, then I would go for a good zoom for distance something in a 80 to 300 or so. The 18 to 300 would be offering only 1 advantage- a single to carry/mount but most times there are compromises with going from wide angle all the way to the higher close up zoom modes. The expense will probably be much higher than the 2 separate lenses too.

**Shepherd Wong** · 02-10-2007, 10:59 PM

Sorry, price is relatively close between the 18-200 and 70-300 + 30 prime lens. Also Nikon so a 1.5X crop factor.

**Schralper** · 02-10-2007, 11:36 PM

Why do you want just 1 lens? $$?
Why not get a couple primes and a zoom.
The quality will be better w/ prime lenses.

**Shepherd Wong** · 02-10-2007, 11:45 PM

Yeah money. But I have the ok kit lens, and am kinda leaning toward the 70-300 and 30 mm prime which is slightly more money than the 18-200 lens. Just wondering if a lot of people shoot on the long end for skiing and biking.

**ccwaskier** · 02-11-2007, 11:05 AM

I think the nikon 18-200 is a very good lens. Unless you are a really commited photographer you probably won't want to carry around multiple lens and change them in the snow when its cold. I have been very happy with the 18-200 and feel it does a lot very well.

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php...productNr=2159

**gamma** · 02-11-2007, 11:25 AM

I agree with schralper. ur better off with a few fixed lenses, the sharpness is that much better..

**bklyn** · 02-11-2007, 11:34 AM

I've covered action (people) well in the 70-200 range. Animals on safari required an extension in to the 200-400 range. You can get closer to people, so get close and take better pictures.

I think you should split your lenses into a zoom to cover wide angles (teens to 70 or 80) and another one for longer lengths. You'll be able to get faster lenses when you don't have to cover a huge range. More light makes a huge difference in quality. Some of the high coverage zooms are absolute shit at the extreme ends of their focal length. Some people make a career out of testing these lenses so search for those results.

You will be thinking very different thoughts shooting at 18 vs 300. It's not as big a compromise to have two as you might expect.

Another compromise is the 24-120 VR. In lower light conditions the VR works well, but it eats power, so watch out for that if it's you choice.

Avoid DX lenses. If you ever decide to get a film body they are useless. I know most people are not going to put out the cash for 2.8 or lower glass, but anything zoom starting at 4.5 is only worthy of a paperweight if you plan to shoot action. I see a bunch of dark, blurry photos in that future.

**MeatPuppet** · 02-11-2007, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by bklyn

Avoid DX lenses.

Shepherd-

If you want the ability to use your lenses on a film body then avoid DX. But if you are like me you will probably never shoot film again, unless it is as a nostalgic hobby in your old age. Also, if you want to shoot true wide angle on your digital body, DX is your only option.

A word of warning about primes; if you get a prime, your zooms are going to become a disappointment in terms of picture quality, unless you have high end 2.8 super fine zooms. Even then you are likely to notice a difference.

Edit: to ad, bklyn knows her photography, listen to her.

**cj001f** · 02-12-2007, 10:07 AM

Listen to the no longer tryc

For about the price of the 18-200 you can get a:
used 80-200f2.8 ($450 from KEH) - awesome for action.
50f1.8 ($100 new)
and an 18-70 ($200)
much more versatile, the same or better image quality throught the range. They are much bulkier and heavier (the 80-200 is ~3lbs or something)

add in a 12-24 (the Nikon if you are flush, or the Sigma (or is it Tokina?) which is quite good if you don't have the cash) and you've got quite a versatile selection of lenses.

re the 70-300 zoom. I've had 2 of the 70-300s. They are light, that's the only positive I can think of. Compared to the 80-200, 50 or even the 18-70 they are noticeably less sharp. The G (cheapest) has embarassingly bad build quality. Avoid them.

**PNW Skier** · 02-13-2007, 02:17 AM

i shoot a D70 with two tokina pro zooms the 28-80 f2.8 pro and the 12-24 F4.0 pro. They're awesome lenses especially for the money as the Nikkor equivalents are like 3 times the cost.

That being said I don't use my nikkor 70-300 f4-5.6 ED much because it's never taken very sharp pictures (as cj001f also noted) but after seeing what can be done with the nikkor 80-200F2.8 I am very seriously thinking about saving my pennies. I want the long lens but it does no good without the sharpness.

If I were you I'd get one sweet lens and learn how to make it work for you until you can afford another lens and start rounding out the quiver. If you cheap out on lenses all you have is a giant version of a digi cam you can fit in your pocket.