I have a Nikon D80...need lenses...

10/31/2008 02:21:02 PM · #1

I have a Nikon D80 and would like to know more about the lenses that are compatible...and why you like the alternative lenses or why only nikon...I am about to purchase my next lense and would like some advice as to what to get.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

10/31/2008 02:42:12 PM · #2

What lens do you have now?

I have the 18-200 VR puppy: I like it for several reasons: good walking around lens--no need to carry any others most of the time, no need to change lenses in the field (avoids dust). There are a couple of drawbacks: it is not very fast, so I end up cranking ISO up if I don't have a tripod, and it is very soft around the 135mm range.

My next planned purchase is the 50mm f1.4. A good prime always outperforms a zoom set at the same focal length. Might go for an 85mm 0r 105 prime after that (someday, when the $ re-accumulate :-)

I can't speak to other brands nowadays--back in my Olympus OM2 35mm film days in the 1980s, I had the Zuiko prime and an off-brand 35-70mm zoom with macro. The off brand was pretty crappy. It was very handy, I was new to photography way back then, and I used it as my walking around lens all the time. Then I popped the zuiko 50mm on again, and was astounded by the quality difference. I never used the off-brand again, and went to ebay and snagged some Olympus Zuiko primes and zooms.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

10/31/2008 03:21:17 PM · #3

I have the 18-200 VR myself......and I LOVE it!

I had a 28-300 Tamron and while it was a decent lens, I like this 18-200 with the VR soooooooo much better. I had an 18-55, a 50mm 1.8, a 55-200......they're all gone in favor of the 18-200.

It's the only thing I use.

I sold all my other lenses and just don't care to use any other.

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

10/31/2008 03:36:16 PM · #4

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I concur with

NikonJeb: if you are going to have one lens (as I do now), this is the one to get. It's advantages far outweigh the two minor drawbacks I noted. If you plan to get more lenses, I would still recommend this as the one to start with--it will easily meet most of your needs, and you can learn over time by using it which focal length you tend to use most (if you even do), or where this lens does not meet certain needs, and then go invest in a good lens to fill a known gap.

I find in traveling that taking a tripod is just too big of a hassle: on my recent business trip to the UK, walking around London all day, the 18-200 VR was fantastic! Until early evening, that is--once it was twilight amongst all the tall buildings and narrow streets, the lens was just too slow (cranking ISO up with the d80 just gets noisy real fast). That is why now, after a year with the 18-200, I see that a fast prime would be nice--I could have switched to that and kept shooting a bit longer.

I hate changing lenses on dslrs--dust dust dust. My "dream" is to get a d90 with a second lens, and then just switch cameras! (I can dream, can't I?)

I recommend getting the 18-200mm and the vertical battery grip instead of a second lens. You won't be disappointed with the 18-200 VR, and you can add a lens later when you are more sure what will fit your specific needs.

jaysonmc

Nikon D200

Nikon MF 105mm f/2.5 AIS

10/31/2008 03:48:07 PM · #5

Originally posted by Ja-9:

Any new Nikon lens you buy today is compatible. You can also use old AI/AIS lenses on your D80 also, it just won't meter (you'll have to step up to a D300 or D3 if you want to use the old Manual Focus lenses). I'm sure the other brands are fine as long as you buy the Nikon Mount version (Tamron, Tokina and Sigma). I just buy Nikon but really the price difference isn't a concern to me.

Since you already own the 18-135mm I would not get the 18-200 VR.
The two lenses I would recommend to you are: the 60mm 2.8 micro This way you get a nice "fast" lens that is small and light and can double up for extreme macro closeups.

Second lens I might recommend is getting the 70-300mm VR to extend your range if you want to shoot telephoto.

Personally, I don't own either of these lenses. I only own three prime lenses, a 20mm 2.8, a 35mm f2, and a 105mm 2.5 AIS (though I do tend to rent lenses when I need to).

The ones I recommend are just suggestions (60mm 2.8 micro and/or 70-300mm VR) and I think you would find use for them opposed to other lens. People often suggest the 50mm 1.4, but personally I would find the 60mm micro much more convincing.

Mephisto

Nikon Coolpix A

10/31/2008 03:49:11 PM · #6

well, i guess it REALLY depends on what yer going to do and shoot.
i would never go for one of these all-around lenses, it's just not my thing. not fast enough for what i'm shooting and a big compromise considering IQ compared to good primes or zoomes. of course they have their value and place for some as cromey and nikonjeb mentioned.
that said, i'm all for primes. i love shooting with fast lenses that give a nice bokeh and will give good quality in low light.
the sigma 20 f1.8 is an awesome lens for the money, tho it has its downsides.
my favorite lens is the nikkor 85 1.8, just amazing IQ and great for portraits, theater shoots and such.
if you're looking for a decent "allaround" lens then the tamron 28-75 is it!
my favorite street lens and also the only one i use in studio.
i believe nikon is top notch in built quality and IQ, tho some third party lenses are well on par with these for sometimes less than half the price so it's well worth looking at these as well.

10/31/2008 04:47:15 PM · #7

As you have seen I have an 18mm-135mm. This is what came with the camera...I am dieing to get another...I had almost thought that the 70mm - 300 mm was it, but now I need to look at the 18-200 closer...this is why I asked...I really want one right now that has range and flex...as I just can't afford (yet) to drop that much $$ in this bag...but I am thinking I will get there sooner or later. The other one I am really interest in is the 105mm, but a couple of you mentioned the 60 mm....so maybe I should look into that more. (all with VR). We travel alot and I find myself saying...I'm to far for that shot...so take it from there...So, I think maybe I should ask if you could only have one extra lense...what would it be....

10/31/2008 05:05:34 PM · #8

Originally posted by Ja-9:

Do you often find the 135mm limit too short? If so, either the 70-300, or switching to the 18-200mm and selling your 18-135mm might be the way to go. If you seldom find that you would like to zoooooom beyond the limit of your current lens, you might wanna go for a good prime as your second lens.

Since I have the 18-200 now, the 70-300 is a lot of overlap for me, so to answer your one extra lens question, I am planning on the 50mm 1.4 as my next lens (though I dither between it @ 300 Bucks and the 1.8 version at 100 bucks). I took a quick look just now at the 60mm 2.8 macro--interesting, too, but my recent experiences point me to a faster prime first. And Nikon just announced a new 50mm 1.4G version (instead of the rumored 1.2) so I gotta think about that one now....

banmorn

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

10/31/2008 05:06:31 PM · #9

Originally posted by Ja-9:

The Nikon 105MM VR is a hefty lens. Very weighty. I like it and the weight does not bother me. If the weight is an issue, the Nikon 60MM Macro is a very good, sharp macro lens. You seem to have your wider end covered with the lens that came with your camera. The Nikon 70-300 VR is great! I love mine. That said, my walk around lens is the Sigma 18-200MM with OS, Sigma's version of VR. I like that as well and only carry either of the two noted Nikon lenses with me when I want to do macro or for something that needs more reach than the 18-200 can accomodate. Also, I think that the Nikon 70-300 VR is a great buy.

Message edited by author 2008-10-31 17:08:17.

10/31/2008 05:12:36 PM · #10

ok, I guess I need to ask another stupid question...what is prime? I am so new and green to this it isn't funny...but.....I am trying to learn....and LEARN I WILL...HMM Please don't groan out there....

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

10/31/2008 05:23:19 PM · #11

Originally posted by Ja-9:

No stupid questions (though I am known for stupid answers :-)

In short, a "prime" is just a fixed focal length lens (no zoom). The reason these are good (why is a 50mm prime better than just setting my zoom to 50mm, for example?) is that the lens is designed and optimized for that focal length. In a zoom lens, more tradeoffs have to be made in order to get a lens that will work acceptably over the wider range. In a prime, the "acceptable" standard is much higher. In my experience, a prime lens will always outperform a zoom at the equivalent focal length: sharpness, clarity, contrast, speed (and of course, weight).

Message edited by author 2008-10-31 17:38:49.

SteveJ

Canon EOS-7D

10/31/2008 05:34:40 PM · #12

Don't really want butt in, but a prime is usually better glass than an all purpose zoom. Because it only does one job, it is better quality and has better aperature range.

Okay, I'm letting the Nikon boys/girls take over again:))

raish

Olympus C-2500L

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

10/31/2008 06:28:33 PM · #13

The 18-200 does have an enormous versatility. If you're indoors or in poor lighting a lot and you want to move around and take a variety of shots without being too obtrusive (i.e. no tripod or flash), then the 18-200 VR is especially good.

Primes are, as has been said (and generally speaking), cheaper, faster and have better optical quality. I've got a 50mm 1.4 and, apart from the points listed, I find it seems less in-your-face and hi-tech than the huge nano-coated light suckers that are so good for other things - so it's extra handy for candids.

As the wise one said - it really does depend what you want it for.

snaffles

Nikon D7100

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor 12-24mm f/4.0G IF-ED

10/31/2008 06:47:46 PM · #14

I have three lenses: the 18-55mm that came with the D40 which I use indoors in museums and suchlike about 2% of the time, the 18-200 which I now use 95% of the time, and the f1.8 50mm which I use about 3% of the time for macros.

That 18-200 is allowing me to get the shots with the camera that my human eye can see and wants to capture. LOVE IT!!!

Message edited by author 2008-11-01 20:39:06.

jbsmithana

Nikon D300

10/31/2008 07:19:50 PM · #15

Personally I would think that if you already own the 18-135 as a general purpose lens it wouold be silly to duplicte most of that range by purchasing an 18-200. Sounds like you want a second lens and you want it to reach further. Unless you are willing to carry quite a bit of weight and spend more money that leaves you with the 70-300 VR. Again that is assuming I read you to say you want a 2nd lens and you want it to reach further than the one you have.

IMHO of course.

ralph

Nikon Z9

10/31/2008 07:40:53 PM · #16

i'll have to second jb ..
70-300vr or even a secondhand 70-300ED (stay away fom 70-300 not ED) if you want/need reach (or to $$ it futher even 80-400VR )

with what you have / any of the above and a 10-20 sigma would cover the range ..
then go for a macro ;)