Lens Recommendation for Nikon

[gt350mike]

I have a Nikon D50 that I have been using for over a year and I've been thinking about buying a VR (Vibration Reduction) type lens to use mainly for indoor shot (i.e. wrestling tournaments). A buddy of mine has been able to take some great shots with his Nikkor AF-S DX VR Zoom 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED which sells for around $750.

The other lens that I'm considering, a Sigma AF DC 18-200 3.5-6.3 with OS (Optical Stabilized) sells for about $500.

I'm wondering if anyone has experience with either (or both)......any recommendations/comments would be greatly appreciated!

[kstar]

I use the Nikon 18-200 almost all the time for general purpose shots. It's not perfect because it tries to do so much, but it is an excellent all around lens, IMO.

I highly recommend it!

[jhelgesen]

I've used both Nikor and Sigma lenses. I've found the higher grade Sigma's to work just as well as the Nikor's for a much more reasonable price. But if all I did was shoot pictures all day for a living, I'd stick with the nikor's.....

[Palum6o]

I have the Nikkor 18-200, its nice to have one lense with that range because I don't usually carry a bag, however it does add weight.

[nostatic]

Do you need the zoom? If you're shooting indoors with available light, then you will need a fast lens. VR doesn't get you that much as you need a reasonable shutter speed so that your wrestling subjects aren't blurred (assuming you're trying to capture action). In other words, VR is great to stop your motion, but doesn't do anything to stop their motion.

If you can move around to get the shot, a 50mm/f1.4 is going to get you the most light indoors.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by nostatic

Do you need the zoom? If you're shooting indoors with available light, then you will need a fast lens. VR doesn't get you that much as you need a reasonable shutter speed so that your wrestling subjects aren't blurred (assuming you're trying to capture action). In other words, VR is great to stop your motion, but doesn't do anything to stop their motion.

If you can move around to get the shot, a 50mm/f1.4 is going to get you the most light indoors.

All excellent points, IMO.

The problem for me was that going from the 18-200 as an everyday lens to the 50 (which, as you know is more like an 85 on a DX camera) was just too limiting and often times I didn't have enough space to back-up to compose the right shot.

I've been happy using a diffused and bounced flash with the 18-200 indoors.

Of course, everyone should have a 50mm lens and the f1.8 is excellent, as well, at only $100 or so vs. 3xs that for the f1.4

FWIW.

[nostatic]

That's why I asked if he can move around. At indoor sporting events it usually is a case of not being able to get close enough rather than far enough back. Just depends on the venue.

I hate flash with a passion, so I avoid it at all costs. Maybe I just am not patient enough to get it right, but I'm going for a certain look and flash just kills it.

I just am not a fan of zoom lenses unless I'm forced to be stationary. As for price, I'll admit to not knowing current Nikon stuff. I know that used 50/1.4 lenses for Pentax can be had very cheap. 1.8 is ok - I actually am going to shoot indoors at a niteclub this sunday and was pondering lenses. I'll probably take my 35/2.8 macro and 77/1.8 ltd, but am anticipating shooting mostly with the 77 due to the speed and the fact that it is a magic portrait lens. I'm trying to get "people" shots rather than whole band stuff so I don't need a shorter lens.

Trying to get more/better shots for this page:

http://gmjc.net/about/

[kstar]

I'd prefer to not use flash and have some of the faster, but extremely expensive zooms or a family of even faster primes! But I am not a pro and in almost every case want to use the lens on my camera . . . and not carry a bag.

But, I have managed to make flash work well in many cases (not most!) with much trial and error with the 18-200. I typically shoot people indoors (family, friends and kids) at close-ish range.

I can leave the house with the camera, the 18-200 and my diffused, artculated Speedlight and make 90% of the types of shots I take. It's a general, all purpose set-up that I think would work for most amateurs.

FWIW.

[vash]

a flash drops off at zoom range anyways.

for sports stuff, a long lens is great. you get to minimize your DOF and really get the action. short lens, busy sports photos are too hard to look at

[kstar]

I guess it depends what gt350mike wants, so perhaps he will answer Todd's question about zooms.

If he is looking for one lens for a variety of situations, I would go with a zoom, and the Nikkor 18-200 is an excellent choice, IMO.

If he wants to carry a bag, then the options increase.

[RWebb]

right. mike, post what kind of shots you want to take.

i can go ahead and tell you to buy only nikon!

nikon lens hold their value well - others do not

top off-brand lenses can be ok IF you do not blow up the photo - esp. at the edges; IF you do not take photos with the sun where it can cause flare; IF you do not do low light pics

nikon makes their own glass

nikon is the porsche of lenses

there is a reason why pros use nikon [some also use canon]


i've shot film since the 60's and digital since dlsr's got to < 1k; i have well over 10k worth of glass ....

And I have never seen anything as amazing and capable as the Nikkor AF-S DX VR Zoom 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED. as close to the ONE lens ideal as anything has ever come.

[gt350mike]

I know the 18-200 is a versatile lens but the main reason I'm buying one is to take shots at wrestling tournaments. In the past I have used the flash with 28-50 and 70-300 lenses and the results were ok, but I think a VR reduction lens will help improve my ability to catch the action. The AF on the lenses that I have now are SLOW so most of my shots were out of focus....my lenses are the cheap "starters" that come with the camera.

I will see if I can post a few of my shots (good and bad) to give you an idea of how "amateur" I am!

[nostatic]

A couple of things. First, do manual focus. It is your friend in these circumstances, especially low indoor light where AF systems can be challenged. Second, VR will not solve all your problems in low light. Often the issue is the speed of the subject rather than holding the camera. In order to catch the action you're going to need to do shutter priority and make sure you're fast enough there and hope the lens lets in enough light.

The "cheap starter" lenses that came with some of the Nikon cameras were actually quite good. I actually bought the 18-200VR lens but took it back when I had my D70. I just didn't like the feel or look of the shots I got. But I am not the typical user and most love the lens.

The lens that is on my K20d most of the time these days is a 35mm ltd macro, but I'm whack...

[gt350mike]

Now I'm having trouble loading a 120k photo.......Anyone else having this problem???

[gt350mike]

Originally Posted by nostatic

A couple of things. First, do manual focus. It is your friend in these circumstances, especially low indoor light where AF systems can be challenged. Second, VR will not solve all your problems in low light. Often the issue is the speed of the subject rather than holding the camera. In order to catch the action you're going to need to do shutter priority and make sure you're fast enough there and hope the lens lets in enough light.

The "cheap starter" lenses that came with some of the Nikon cameras were actually quite good. I actually bought the 18-200VR lens but took it back when I had my D70. I just didn't like the feel or look of the shots I got. But I am not the typical user and most love the lens.

The lens that is on my K20d most of the time these days is a 35mm ltd macro, but I'm whack...

The starter lenses was Quantary....about as basic/cheap as you can get.

[nostatic]

ahh, thought they were the Nikon kit lenses. Different story.

[gt350mike]

The day I bought the camera, my kitchen pass was only good for about $1k............since then, I've bought a Nikon SB600 flash unit and now I'm ready to upgrade to a decent lens.

[Steve Carlton]

The 18-200VR is a great lens for what it is. Not sure how the Sigma compares, but I doubt most people could tell the difference. There's also a Tamron 18-270 "VR" Macro that was recently released for about $600 street that's more of that kind of thing. Haven't seen reviews on the Tammy. All those lenses will be "slow" for your application, meaning a slower shutter speed or higher ISO will be required to work with those f/3.5-5.6 apertures. The VR won't help you with wrestling photos, but it's very useful when shooting still subjects. There's also a 55-200VR Nikon kit lens that's way better than it deserves to be for about $210 street.

[Eric Coffey]

If I could only have one Lens for a modern Nikon body, it would probably be the 70-200 f2.8D(ED-IF AF-S VR). If you don't need the vibration reduction, the 80-200 f2.8D (ED-IF AF-S) is a great lens for half the price. I had one on an old N90s setup years ago and loved it (you know, back when cameras used FILM ). The only other lens I had was the 28-70 f2.8D (ED-IF AF-S), and felt I was always covered. In fact, if I could only have two lenses, that would still be the other one I would choose. In hindsight, I should have never sold that set-up. Well, I wish I would have just sold the N90s body but horded those lenses!

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by gt350mike

The day I bought the camera, my kitchen pass was only good for about $1k............since then, I've bought a Nikon SB600 flash unit and now I'm ready to upgrade to a decent lens.

no matter how many $$ you have, Nikon has a lens for you

want to defocus? - 2 of 'em

want a 85mm f/1.4? only $1,400 -- discounted way down to just 1 kilosmacker!

noctilux? nla

400/2.8? hordes of them

for dx they are all longer than listed