Recommendations for Zoom lens for D50?

[Severian]

I picked up a brand new Nikon D50 with the 18-55mm kit lens. It's been twenty years since I had an SLR, so I'm slowly trying to re-learn everything I've forgotten since then.

The wife is planning a family cruise to the Yucatan to see some Mayan ruins, and I'm planning on bringing the D50 as well as my older PnS cameras. I'm interested in picking up a zoom lens for the D50, but am truly baffled by the huge number of different lenses available. I was thinking of picking up a 70-300mm, but there seem to be many different versions of that lens as well.

I'd like anyone's recommendations for a zoom lens for the D50, and why you'd go with that lens.

Thanks,

Dave

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

What's your price range? Some options:

1. VERY expensive: 70-200 f/2.8 AF-S VR - Always gets amazing reviews, but big and heavy, and $1600 :shocked:

2. Mid-range (cost): 70-300 f/4.5 - 5.6 AF-S VR - Came out ~1-1 1/2 years ago, very good, a lot lighter and smaller then the 70-200.

3. Cheaper: 55-200 f/4-5.6 AF-S VR - the "kit" telephoto partner to the 18-55

I'd probably go with the 70-300VR, seems to be the best bang for the buck, but YMMV.

 

[Severian]

well, I didn't pay a lot for the camera, so I suppose I'd try to keep the lens purchasing moderate. Is the VR (vibration reduction) similar to the IS (image stabilization) found on my Canon S2 IS?

I'll hunt up some prices on the 70-300 AF-S VR....any reason not to go with older, even original SLR lenses, which are going for a lot less on Ebay these days? Is it just the VR?

Thanks for your help.

 

[soydios]

Nikon VR and Canon IS are just different names for the same thing: anti-camera-shake stabilization. I also have a D50 thumbsup, but I use the 18-200mm VR. The 70-300mm VR seems to be at a good point on the cost/performance curve. Don't worry about the gap from 55-70mm, you won't miss it.

 

[dug777]

I'll be getting the 70-300mm Nikkor next (well, after Christmas clears ).

Great reach, good writeups, VR, and cheep!

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Originally posted by: Severian
well, I didn't pay a lot for the camera, so I suppose I'd try to keep the lens purchasing moderate. Is the VR (vibration reduction) similar to the IS (image stabilization) found on my Canon S2 IS?

I'll hunt up some prices on the 70-300 AF-S VR....any reason not to go with older, even original SLR lenses, which are going for a lot less on Ebay these days? Is it just the VR?

Thanks for your help.

If by older SLR lenses, you mean manual focus lens, I would say no, it's not worth it. I think (not 100% sure) that a D50 can't meter off of older AI lenses.

VR is very nice, and does cost a bit more money. Be wary of some 3rd party lenses, make sure you look at some reviews from decent web sites if you are thinking of using them.

 

[morkman100]

Originally posted by: Severian
well, I didn't pay a lot for the camera, so I suppose I'd try to keep the lens purchasing moderate. Is the VR (vibration reduction) similar to the IS (image stabilization) found on my Canon S2 IS?

I'll hunt up some prices on the 70-300 AF-S VR....any reason not to go with older, even original SLR lenses, which are going for a lot less on Ebay these days? Is it just the VR?

Thanks for your help.

Using the 70-300 at the end of it's zoom range (200-300mm) without VR will limit you to shooting with a tripod (or a very steady hand, a wall, etc). With VR, you gain (actually preserve) up to 2-3 stops (i.e. you can shoot at 1/500 instead of 1/125) so you might not need the tripod.

 

[Severian]

Guys, thanks for all your helpful information. I guess I'll go with the Nikkor 70-300 AF-S VR.

 

[Severian]

Any reason not to consider Sigma lenses? They do seem to be cheaper, but I don't see any with VR or eqivalent....

 

[troytime]

the 70-300 without VR is fine if you're shooting with good light (daylight)

 

[soydios]

Originally posted by: troytime
the 70-300 without VR is fine if you're shooting with good light (daylight)

Meh, perhaps my priorities are skewed somewhat. According to the Metadata Browser in Adobe Lightroom, I have:
- 168 shots (6.2%) at ISO 200
- 536 shots (19.7%) at ISO 400
- 1114 shots (40.9%) shots at ISO 800
- 904 (33.2%) shots at ISO 1600
Needless to say, I take quite a lot of photographs in dark situations, where VR, an f/2.8 or faster lens, or both is handy. My D50 ain't the best at high-ISO (roughly on par with a D2X).

 

[troytime]

Originally posted by: soydios

Originally posted by: troytime
the 70-300 without VR is fine if you're shooting with good light (daylight)

Meh, perhaps my priorities are skewed somewhat. According to the Metadata Browser in Adobe Lightroom, I have:
- 168 shots (6.2%) at ISO 200
- 536 shots (19.7%) at ISO 400
- 1114 shots (40.9%) shots at ISO 800
- 904 (33.2%) shots at ISO 1600
Needless to say, I take quite a lot of photographs in dark situations, where VR, an f/2.8 or faster lens, or both is handy. My D50 ain't the best at high-ISO (roughly on par with a D2X).

you certainly shoot a lot of high iso, something i don't do all too often

usually when i'm forced to crank the iso up due to low light, i'm not in the 70-300 range, i'm in the 30-60mm range

 

[soydios]

Originally posted by: troytime

Originally posted by: soydios

Originally posted by: troytime
the 70-300 without VR is fine if you're shooting with good light (daylight)

Meh, perhaps my priorities are skewed somewhat. According to the Metadata Browser in Adobe Lightroom, I have:
- 168 shots (6.2%) at ISO 200
- 536 shots (19.7%) at ISO 400
- 1114 shots (40.9%) shots at ISO 800
- 904 (33.2%) shots at ISO 1600
Needless to say, I take quite a lot of photographs in dark situations, where VR, an f/2.8 or faster lens, or both is handy. My D50 ain't the best at high-ISO (roughly on par with a D2X).

you certainly shoot a lot of high iso, something i don't do all too often

usually when i'm forced to crank the iso up due to low light, i'm not in the 70-300 range, i'm in the 30-60mm range

For the 30-60mm range, I have 35mm f/2.0 and 50mm f/1.8 lenses, but I do stage photography, so a longer lens (70-200mm VR, the most useful lens in the lineup for me), would be nice. The 200mm f/2.0 looks unbelievable, but so is the price.

 

[troytime]

i have the 50mm 1.8 as well

i'd love to have the 200mm f/2...but i'm too poor

 

[chucky2]

You could pick up a AF Zoom-NIKKOR 80-200mm f/2.8D ED. That should be cheaper than a 70-200 VR (which is a sweet lens, but as noted, sorta heavy to be carrying around with you all over (so might the 80-200 though, not sure on that).

The 80-200 in good used condition is probably available for much less than the 70-200 VR's out there.

Also, the aforementioned AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED is probably one of the best all around walkaround lens Nikon has put out. If you're planning high vertical angle shots though (like taking a pic of a bird high up in the sky), know that there have been many reports of lens travel...basically at high verticl angle the lens doesn't stay in place. I'm not sure how pronounced this is...heading over to Nikonians.org Nikkor Forum though I'm sure you could find the answer to that.

Good luck and have fun!

Chuck

 

[JDub02]

I bought the 55-200 VR lens with my D40. I find myself using it a whole lot more than the 18-55 kit lens. It can be had for under $200 right now and takes great pictures. I'd love to get the f/2.8 lens, but really can't justify the cost right now.

 

[soydios]

I have the oldest model 80-200mm f/2.8, the push-pull one-ring AF (non-IF). It is heavy, but no matter what AF f/2.8 lens you buy from Nikon, it's the real deal: professional glass.

I still vote for the 70-300mm AF-S VR

 

[Severian]

well it seems that VR is a really valuable asset that I probably shouldn't go without, as I would like to be able to take some long-range shots at Chichen-Itza without blur. Although I don't see any Sigma lenses with VR or equivalent, anyone care to chime in on the merits of maybe getting a Sigma prime as well?

Seems like the 55-200 F/4-5.6G ED IF AD-S DX VR can be had for $150 used online. I can't really justify spending $450 for the 70-300 VR...

 

[chucky2]

Just keep in mind that, even with VR, your high aperature lenses (4.5-5.6 type) are going to need a good amount of light to get good shots; and even then sometimes, you need to step up the ISO (which means noise).

Also, VR on moving objects from what I understand doesn't take you down that stop or two....so, just understand what you're getting...

Chuck

 

[Severian]

I'll keep that in mind. I do appreciate the expertise.

thanks

 

[Severian]

Well, the wife ended up getting me the Nikkor 70-300 AF-S VR for Christmas. Really amazing lens, even putting aside the zoom and VR, the image is obviously clearer than my 18-55 kit lens.

Any thoughts on a preference between the Nikkor and Sigma 50mm F/1.8 prime lenses? Or a reasonably -priced wider angle lens?

Thanks!

 

[soydios]

for the price, just get the Nikon AF 50mm f/1.8D. it's so cheap, don't bother playing around with a third-party lens. a Nikon lens is guaranteed to work with a Nikon camera, and sometimes third-party models can have compatibility issues.

a good "normal" lens for an APS-C (aka Nikon DX-format) DSLR is around the 30mm range. I have a 35mm f/2, but I got it used and it has oil on the aperture blades, so I would get yours new to avoid that. the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 sounds interesting, but I've read that it has iffy compatibility. I really wish that Nikon would release a cheap plastic 30mm f/1.8G AF-S...

 

[tdawg]

Originally posted by: morkman100

Originally posted by: Severian
well, I didn't pay a lot for the camera, so I suppose I'd try to keep the lens purchasing moderate. Is the VR (vibration reduction) similar to the IS (image stabilization) found on my Canon S2 IS?

I'll hunt up some prices on the 70-300 AF-S VR....any reason not to go with older, even original SLR lenses, which are going for a lot less on Ebay these days? Is it just the VR?

Thanks for your help.

Using the 70-300 at the end of it's zoom range (200-300mm) without VR will limit you to shooting with a tripod (or a very steady hand, a wall, etc). With VR, you gain (actually preserve) up to 2-3 stops (i.e. you can shoot at 1/500 instead of 1/125) so you might not need the tripod.

Huh?

VR does not increase your shutter speed capabilities, it just increases the speeds at which you can still hand-hold a lens and keep camera shake from blurring an image. However, if the available light is metering at 1/30th of a second, using VR will not make the meter change to 1/125 or anything. If a subject is moving faster than 1/30th of a second will be able to capture without motion blur, VR will not fix that. The background, static objects will remain sharper, though.

The normal rule is 1/focal length is the hand-hold limit (though people with steady hands / body can get away with holding steady at slower speeds). On a D50 and other APS-C sized sensors, the rule at 300mm would effectively be 1/450 and up viewed as hand-holdable. With VR, at 300mm you can possibly get away with hand-holding at 2-3 stops slower than this without introducing camera shake to the equation.

 

[tdawg]

Originally posted by: Severian
Well, the wife ended up getting me the Nikkor 70-300 AF-S VR for Christmas. Really amazing lens, even putting aside the zoom and VR, the image is obviously clearer than my 18-55 kit lens.

Any thoughts on a preference between the Nikkor and Sigma 50mm F/1.8 prime lenses? Or a reasonably -priced wider angle lens?

Thanks!

Definitely the Nikon 50mm f/1.8. It's only $100 new and is the best $100 you'll spend on this hobby. I was a skeptic back in my film days when everybody was suggesting it, but when I tried it out, I was hooked. This thing was perfect mated to my N80 and then F100, and I still love it on my D2H. It makes a great portrait lens. Here's a sample pic of my Dad & Uncle at Christmas this year with the 50mm (I think at f/4): image

You won't be disappointed!