Camera Labs

Hi Guys!

I am just interested to hear your thoughts on this. They can be any Nikon lenses, however try and make them ones that you could go out and do a days shooting with them!

Mine would be:
16-85mm
35mm
70-300mm

Thanks for sharing your thoughts

_________________
Nikon D3100, 18-55mm, 80-210mm

I'll go completely leftfield here:

3 manufacturers, 2 manual focus, all fast - you'd have great fun for more than a day with this little set:



Samyang 35mm f1.4
Voigtlander 58mm f1.4
Nikon 85mm f1.8

16-85mm and 70-300mm would be a great combo. For prime lens I probably prefer a 50mm f1.8 over the 35mm f1.8. 35mm is probably a bit to much "lens-in-your-face" in some situations. you can use the 16-85 for indoors anyways.

how about Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 + Nikon 85mm F/1.8 + Nikon 70-300mm? for usability & overall quality,I recommand this path.

_________________
Gear: Nikon D80, 18-105mm, 35mm F/1.8, 85mm F/1.8, SB-600
Visit my work here

How about just the Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 and the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 with no primes? Then you get two pro lenses, both 2.8s!

_________________
Nikon D3100, 18-55mm, 80-210mm

I don't know, I really like primes. Besides, isn't that over budget?

I'd go for a 16-85, a 70-300 and then your choice of a 50mm 1.8 G or the DX 35mm 1.8 G. I own a 16-85 and I love it, plus I've heard great things about the 70-300. I've considered picking up one of those two primes as well.

_________________
-Evan

Gear: 7 Nikon Nikkor AI-S and AF-S lenses, SB-700 flash, Nikon D7000, Nikon FM, variety of accessories

"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs."
- Ansel Adams

With the old version of the 70-200 it's right around the budget. Although to be honest I think the budget is a little unreasonable. Personally, I'd rather have two very good lenses rather than two okay lenses and a cheap prime. A 17-50 and 70-200 would cover most general photographic uses, and if RanaldPhotos wants a cheap prime, it should be easy to save up for one in the near future.

Of course, we're missing the most important information, which is the primary intended uses for the lenses.

_________________
Body: Canon Rebel XS, Canon EOS 7D
Lenses: Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.0 OS HSM DC Macro, Canon EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS II, Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II, Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM, Canon EF 85mm f1.8 II USM

Dear Ranald

Those lenses suit me!!

_________________
HCC
Nikon DSLRs, film cameras from Leica to Linhof

@EvanK.

Are you sure the 200mm sigma is going to be long enough range?
very nice to have F2.8 across the range I definitly agree on that. We want as much light as possible all the time. But if you dont have the range (and therefore cannot make a decent shot) whats the point of having enough light. I rather double my ISO settings and take the framefilling shot at 300mm then make some shot with a subject to far away and crop some crappy Sigma photo at 200mm F2.8.

I love animals and love to photograph them. I came from a Canon G9 which is 200mm maximum. I think 200mm is just to short for animal/zoo/wildlife photos. Even 300mm isnt good enough sometimes but so far 90% of the time 300mm was enough. At 200mm it was more like 65% at the time it was good enough range (and of course you can crop in photoshop but i rather have a 300mm range). 300mm Nikkor is definitly an improvement over 200mm. (And remember that 200mm lenses are always 200mm , hey wont magnify to 300mm as some people appear to think, its just a crop).

As it was RanaldPhotos who originally suggested the 17-50 and 70-200 combination, I suspect he doesn't need the extra range of 300mm. But we can't know for sure without knowing the intended use.

_________________
Body: Canon Rebel XS, Canon EOS 7D
Lenses: Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.0 OS HSM DC Macro, Canon EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS II, Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II, Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM, Canon EF 85mm f1.8 II USM