Best Lens I have D50 along with three cheapie lenses. I have the 28-80,18-55 and the 55-200. I also have the 50 1.4 lens. I'm looking to spend about $500.00 for a better lens. Can anyone recommend a good sharp lens for about that much. Best Lens I have D50 along with three cheapie lenses. I have the 28-80,18-55 and the 55-200. I also have the 50 1.4 lens. I'm looking to spend about $500.00 for a better lens. Can anyone... » Read More Best Lens I have D50 along with three cheapie lenses. I have the 28-80,18-55 and the 55-200. I also have the 50 1.4 lens. I'm looking to spend about $500.00 for a better lens. Can anyone recommend a good sharp lens for about that much. « Show Less
1786215
Sigma, Tamron and Tokina are the best 3d party lenses by brand. The 18-200 Nikor is NOT a cheapie.Go to Ken Rockwell's website for complete info on all things Nikon.
1786216
For the D50 and D90 I'm partial to the 28-200. Got three from Tamron and one from Sigma and all were under $100 on Ebay. They AF quickly and are razorsharp. Most were bought attached to a cheapo camera like an N60 or a N2020.
1786217
Thanks for the information. I'm definately looking to unload the 28-80. I hadn't thought about third party lenses. I was always told to stick with Nikon. I'll check out the Sigma.
909214
I prefer the D50 which uses countless AF lenses. The D40-60 must have a motorized lens to AF.I got two D50s and a D60 for under $250 used, body only. Two were refurbished the other one was pristine. Many AF lenses work on the D50 and can be had for $50 or so.
1771110
Thank you for the information.I have a 10-20mm and 18-55mm at hand. I decided to purchase 50D with a 28-135mm IS lens and 100-300mm. I will appreciate if you can share your suggestion.Thank you and best regards,GO
1825169
I agree as well with the others. I own the Tamron and love the lens. Very sharp and works great for general use but the 50 I have heard is a great lens. If you don't mind using your feet instead of a zoom you should be good starting with the prime.
1111391
Dragoneer makes some really good points, particularly about go slow an buy quality. Master one lens before getting another. Personally, I think this is the best lens to start with due to its quality and versatility. Once you have a taken a lot of shots, you can determine from how you shoot what the next lens should be (if you even need another). If you find yourself in a lot situations where you wish the could go wider, get a 10-24mm zoom; if you find you're cropping a lot of shots when zoomed all the way in, get the 70-300 (if you have the 18-140, don't get anything that only goes to 200 unless you want to drop some $$ on something faster). This a lens you can keep on your camera and be ready for almost anything. With a wide zoom, mid prime and telephoto zoom, you'll have the ranges covered, but will likely be changing lens a lot. If you want another lens for a DX format camera - the 35mm 1.8 is fantastic and an extreme bargain - super-sharp, great for low-light and terrific for experimenting with shallow depth of field. If I could only keep 2 of my lenses, it would be this one and the 35mm.
1260789
By far the best overall performing lens is the Pentax DA 18-250mm F3.5-5.6. This lens is a miracle performer from wide to zoom. Hunting around you can get this lens for under $400. I would highly recommend having more then one lens so you can shoot in a greater variety of settings. I currently have 3 lenses but my 18-250mm spends the bulk of its time on my K20D.
269557
Wow -- you are looking at two completely different focal ranges -- what do you plan to shoot?..If you want distance shots (i.e. nature, landscapes, walk-around shots in the city, being able to zoom in on, well, basically anything, then you really DO need a longer focal range lens like the 55-200 in addition to your kit lens. If you plan on shooting things in "normal mode" -- i.e. the 35mm lens will replicate pretty much exactly what the human eye is looking at, then it is far faster than your kit lens, and it's a great walk-around lens. But if you are a first time dSLR buyer, you have to think about what you are going to shoot. If you are coming from the world of point-and-shoots that start at a standard 3-5X zoom, you will right off the bat see that the 18-55 kit lens is very limiting in zoom. Your typical point and shoot goes from 28 - 210 or so. There is software available that lets you see what focal range you shoot most of your photos in - just google for that. It basically looks at your photo folders and determines what the focal ranges of your photos are. I find that I take about 40 percent of my photos at 35mm and below -- and about 40% of my photos at 200 or above....and the rest sort of scattered. I would not be able to survive with only a kit lens and a 35mm lens (which is the same as a normal 50mm lens on a DX camera like the D5000)...With that setup, you would have a range of 27-80 with duplication of the 35mm smack dab in the middle). That is about 1/3 the normal zoom range of a point and shoot. My take -- get the D5000 with the standard kit lens, and add the 55-200 option. Down the road, you will know if you need a 35mm lens as well. The only reason you would need it with that setup is if you find yourself taking a lot of low-light photos where you need a faster lens (the 1.8)...otherwise you might not need it for your purposes at all.
75252
Thank you for taking the time to answer my question, I ended up buying the Sigma lens and I agree with you when you say that is a great value for the price.So far I'm very happy with this lens, I have used it in both daylight and night time (with external flash) and the results have been excellent with my D5000, the OS is great and focusing is very fast indeed.Again, thank's !George
910058
Photofun123-I am in a similar situation. What did you decide on and what do you think of it? I will be getting a 50d and only one lens. My main subject will be my toddler. I am considering 24-70 and 24-105. Thanks.
714416
Here is a greast site for lens discussions. www.dpreview.com Go to the forum for Canon lens talk. The 50mm 1.8 is a great portrait lens. It's fantastic in low light conditions. Just treat it with utmost care as the build is not great and there have been many of a complaint on how easy it can fall apart. As a previous poster mentioned the EF-S 17-85 is a good choice. It has full time manual focus with IS. As an every day multi purpose lens this is a nice lens. I also have this lens. The only problem I have with it is the low light shots. It is too slow. If used with External Flash it is fine. That's why I bought the prime lens. I just have to use my feet for zoom. You are going to have a lot of fun using AV mode with the 50mm and playing around with WB and ISO. Enjoy!
759249
My brother has loan his 50 1.4 to me. I like. I may get the 24-70 2.8 - we get so many positives about it. Use the 24-70 indoors and the 4f lens where there is good light??Thanks for your suggestions.
916479
So despite it being a macro there's no problem with regular focusing?The 50mm 1.8 is really shoddy build quality, I think you're thinking of that. The 50mm 1.4 (3 times the price) is quite sturdy.I use the 28-105mm (the cheap one, not the L glass) I got this around the same time my friend got the 28-135, which looks like a better lens on the surface, yet he hated his and sold it. It's a much larger lens physically, while the 28-105 is really small, so that's something to consider. I also felt like mine focused better, although that wasn't an objective test. And it's half the price, which is nice. Something to consider So despite it being a macro there's no problem with regular focusing?The 50mm 1.8 is really shoddy build quality, I think you're thinking of that. The 50mm 1.4 (3 times the price) is quite sturdy.I use the 28-105mm (the cheap one, not the L glass) I got this around the same time my friend got the 28-135, which looks like a better lens on the surface, yet he hated his and sold it. It's a much larger lens physically, while the 28-105 is really small, so that's something to consider. I also felt like mine focused better, although that wasn't an objective test. And it's... » Read More So despite it being a macro there's no problem with regular focusing?The 50mm 1.8 is really shoddy build quality, I think you're thinking of that. The 50mm 1.4 (3 times the price) is quite sturdy.I use the 28-105mm (the cheap one, not the L glass) I got this around the same time my friend got the 28-135, which looks like a better lens on the surface, yet he hated his and sold it. It's a much larger lens physically, while the 28-105 is really small, so that's something to consider. I also felt like mine focused better, although that wasn't an objective test. And it's half the price, which is nice. Something to consider « Show Less
1163548
Uff... to much i will said... this are one of the finest cheapers lenses that you will find, the one thing that you must have in mind is that this is a f1.8 so that allows to get a lot more light meanwhile the 18-55 is a 3.5 and that my friend on the DLSR world is a big diference.
39229
If your are deciding between a 35mm and this lens.. I would ask.. What do you plan to shoot? If you need a wide lens for landscapes I suggest the 18 - 50... If you are looking for a portrait or low fstop fixed lense for close ups I say go with the 1.8 35mm. If your asking Nikon versus sigma.. I would say you get what you pay for. As far as the sigma performance... I use the lense quite often. I shoot in low light bars and venues and the lens is covered in beer..The lens is great for low light shooting at 18mm. I usually switch to a 50mm if I need a closer shot.
450741
I have some nikon lenses from my nikon f3, i have some lenses from nikon d90, i have some sigma lenses they all work fine for me but ofcourse no autofocus you have to set nikon1 to manual in order to use all these lenses. For example 50mm 1:1.2 lens is doing a great job. I hope this info is enough if not i can write more. For$20 this is good product. No need to spent $200 just for auto focus for the autofocus lenses.
759248
We thank everyone for there suggestions. We went to the 50 1.4 for a fast lens. Having not used our 17-40 that often, no need to spend mucho money on the 16-35.
774987
Hi Mr. Hewitt (I wonder if we have any relation?) Anyway, for a true beginner (as in you've never used anything but a point-and-shoot) I'd recommend you get a Nikon D40 and an 18-200 VR. Keep the 18-55 kit lens, you'll find it lighter when your just taking snapshots of the family or whatever. The D40 is an excellent starter camera, it has almost all the tweaks of this much more expensive camera without the weight and cost. The D300 has many advantages over it, but I really feel you'll learn a lot faster with a simpler camera, and step up to this when your ready. I actually started out with a D40 a bit over a year ago, it made starting out quite fun. The 18-200VR will follow you as a great lens on the D300 too, and you can use any newer AF-S lenses on it. If you have older AF-D Nikon lenses lying around that you want to use, a D80 is also a good place to start. It's easier to make the custom tweaks you'll learn about in your photography classes on the D80, but it still has Auto modes as well to get you started. Checkout www.kenrockwell.com, especially his recommended camera page. He's a bit more eloquent than I am. And I wouldn't be so fast to recommend the D60 to anyone, it's just the D40x's guts (plus active D-Lighting, but without the other enhancements of the D300/D3) with a different name stamped on it. I wouldn't recommend the D40x or D60 to anyone, they exist to fill a price point to compete with Canon. If your eyeballing either, jump to the D80 and don't look back.