Nikon users/experts assssseemmmmblllllle.......!!

[Alok]

So, I am currently doing some research for a friend of a friend's friend.

Under 2000 euros, what are all the Nikon lenses that are to be sought after?

Thanks a bunch.

Alokkor

[jayhawk]

What comes to mind is the 18-200mm with VR. Why have anything else? You can shoot flowers from a distance of 12 inches, turn around and shoot action from 100 yards away, without adjusting a thing.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm

Also, I cannot shut up about this lens, the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8. Holy crap, it is so speedy and versatile.

[Alok]

Originally Posted by jayhawk

What comes to mind is the 18-200mm with VR. Why have anything else? You can shoot flowers from a distance of 12 inches, turn around and shoot action from 100 yards away, without adjusting a thing.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm

Also, I cannot shut up about this lens, the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8. Holy crap, it is so speedy and versatile.

Thanks, the 18-200mm VR is already at hand. About the 50mm F/1.8, is it practically better than the 1.4?

[jayhawk]

Originally Posted by Alok

Thanks, the 18-200mm VR is already at hand. About the 50mm F/1.8, is it practically better than the 1.4?

There are two schools of thought on that; one says that the smaller the f-stop, the better, and the other says that at 1.4, the lens may be...temperamental and hard to work with, as even that .4 difference can it hard to work with, and light falloff will be pretty dramatic.

The price is phenomenal for the 50mm f1.8; $109-129 USD. See my photo in the lens flair page: http://forums.finalgear.com/showthre...417#post576417

[Alok]

Originally Posted by jayhawk

There are two schools of thought on that; one says that the smaller the f-stop, the better, and the other says that at 1.4, the lens may be...temperamental and hard to work with, as even that .4 difference can it hard to work with, and light falloff will be pretty dramatic.

The price is phenomenal for the 50mm f1.8; $109-129 USD. See my photo in the lens flair page: http://forums.finalgear.com/showthre...417#post576417

I saw it. As we speak, I am doing back to back testing of the 1.4 and 1.8 on both a d80 and a d200. I personally find the 1.8 a bit more accurate and robust. Plus there is massive fringing at full aperture on the 1.4, which is not good, and I dont notice that big a light sensitivity difference. At a particular shot where I got 1/20s on the 1.4, I got 1/13s on the 1.8. So the leap isnt that massive to justify the price difference. Plus you cannot really shoot pics of people up close with the 1.4 as much as the 1.8 because at 1.4, the nose is sharp but the face isnt

[whoster]

i have no idea what the Nikkor 1.4 is like...(i know the Canon 1.4 is WAAAAY better than its 1.8 counterpart)

i thought you have a 24-120mm VR and not the 18-200mm VR?

i think for the 1.5x crop body though, the 35mm 1:2D will be better suited than the 50mm (it's just too long). and I don't know what 2000 euros is like in terms of what you can get...

[Alok]

Originally Posted by whoster

i have no idea what the Nikkor 1.4 is like...(i know the Canon 1.4 is WAAAAY better than its 1.8 counterpart)

i thought you have a 24-120mm VR and not the 18-200mm VR?

i think for the 1.5x crop body though, the 35mm 1:2D will be better suited than the 50mm (it's just too long). and I don't know what 2000 euros is like in terms of what you can get...

I know, I own only a 24-120mm VR and recently a 50mm 1.8, but due to some abrupt connections and stuff, I am now holding a d200, a 70-300mm VR Nikkor, a 50mm 1.4 Nikkor, a 17-70mm f/2.8-45 Sigma 1:1 Macro. And on monday I will get yet another d200 with an 18-200mm VR and later, in January, a D300 and some kit to go with it, and even more eventually, hopefully a D3

[jayhawk]

Originally Posted by whoster

i think for the 1.5x crop body though, the 35mm 1:2D will be better suited than the 50mm (it's just too long). and I don't know what 2000 euros is like in terms of what you can get...

See, that is what I thought too, but the 50mm is in actuality 76mm using a 35mm format, and that will come in very handy in a couple of years for me.

[Shadowness]

I would recommend my 12-24mm f/4 wideangle lens be added to the list

And possibly the 60mm f/2.8 macro

[Alok]

Originally Posted by jayhawk

See, that is what I thought too, but the 50mm is in actuality 76mm using a 35mm format, and that will come in very handy in a couple of years for me.

Enlighten me about this format business? I am interested primarily in the d80 and the d200

[jayhawk]

Here, I will let Ken Rockwell explain...this is where I get my info from, I won't pretend I am an expert.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/dx.htm

[Alok]

ah bloody hell, i wanna give jay some good rep but I am not able to. Seems like you help me too much and I cannot make it show.

If you are thankfully one of those people who dont really care for the rep system, thanks a lot.

[jayhawk]

Originally Posted by Alok

ah bloody hell, i wanna give jay some good rep but I am not able to. Seems like you help me too much and I cannot make it show.

If you are thankfully one of those people who don't really care for the rep system, thanks a lot.

I only want to help you in finding a lens that you will be happy with; I have read virtually every write up Ken Rockwell has done, so rather than copy and paste,and claim like I am the one who thought of it, I would give him the credit.

But from my personal experience, I still say stick with the F/1.8.

And by the way, I am always happy to help and assist you or anyone here, or try my damnedest to get to your objective.

[47]

I want that 18-200 VR but it's pretty expensive, more than what I paid for the d50 kit)

[Shadowness]

lol, the 18-200VR seems very popular here! But I can see why as I love mine!

[BerserkerCatSplat]

The 18-200VR is nice, but for the same price you could have a used 80-200 AF-D/Sigma 70-200 EX HSM and something else. It's a very versatile lens, but there are just some situations where it doesn't cut it.

For 2,000 Euros, I'd personally be looking for a used 28mm f/1.4 Nikkor, though that might be a bit more expensive than that. I got to use one a few weeks ago and it's drop-dead amazing. I think it's quite possibly the best lens ever made by Nikon.

Also in that price range is the 85mm f/1.4, another of the best lenses Nikon ever made and absolutely fantastic when using it for portraits.

If you really want/need a sports lens, the 70-200 f/2.8 VR is fantastic and has amazing glass.

If he wants a macro, the 105mm f/2.8 VR Micro-Nikkor is great, I wasn't sold on VR until I used this lens. Hand-held macro shots from long distances in terrible lighting suddenly become possible!

For a ultra-wideangle, I found the Nikon 12-24 overpriced and underbuilt. For half the cost, I'd get the wider Sigma 10-20 or better-built Tokina 12-24. If you want outright performance, the new Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 FX-format lens will be incredible on a fullframe camera. Tokina just announced an 11-16 f/2.8 DX lens that's also worth looking into.

For mid-zooms (wide on FF) I love the 17-35 f/2.8 Nikkor, moreso than the 17-55 DX. For much, much cheaper, the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 (DX) and Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (DX) will get you 90% of the performance for 33% of the price.