Used nikon lenses?

[cruisertoy]

The Nikon 50mm 1.8 has come highly recommended and I found one used locally but the owner wants to sell the following together.

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=218&ad=10581393&cat=&lpid=4

I bought my D90 used a month ago and it came with a cheaper nikon 18-55mm dx lens. I have read good and bad about the sigma 70-300mm and thought I would ask the experts here. There is no way I'm throwing down a grand on a lens right now, but if I could get going on this photography learning curve with my current lens, the 50mm and the longer range Sigma for a few years I might be able to talk the wife into the $225. Flame away.

 

[AYIAPhoto]

The price is on par for the lens' being offered. B&H lists a used Sigma 70-300 for a Canon at $129. With the "nifty" fifty(particularly a 1.8), the Sigma and your kit lens you have all the bases covered to, as you put it "get going on this photography learning curve". The real problems start when you get to lusting after "fast" fish-eyes or tilt-shifts.

 

[nbleak21]

the 50 1.8 is a great little lens, but be careful, after a month you'll find yourself wanting the 50 1.4, and then the 50 1.2.... and IIRC there was at one point a 50 0.95 (canon screwmount for rangefinders possibly?) anyways, 50's are great for composition, especially when starting out. and they are always stellar low-light performers...

that sigma 70-300 is worth it's weight in poop for anything other than a lense thats used to take snapshots. build quality is poor, AF loud, some copies are sharp wide open while others have to be stopped down to f8-16 just to feel like you're not in the O.Z. You'd be much better off waiting a few weeks and picking up a decent zoom, than settling IMHO.

 

[DiploStrat]

With the usual caveat that free advice is worth what you pay for it:

-- The D90 is a very nice body - got a few more years of use on it. But with digital cameras, you expense bodies as each new generation of sensor/software makes the cameras better.

-- You INVEST in lenses as they generally last forever and while cameras may leapfrog in resolution, etc., lenses don't change that much. When I look at thirty year old slides it is clear that my old SMC Takumars (primes) from the early '70's are the equal of anything on the market today. (The exception being zooms, today's zooms are much better.) My lenses were all stolen, but they were lovely!

-- A 50mm is a mild telephoto on a DX body, not a "normal" lens. (To get the same angle of vision on a D90 you would need a 35mm lens - which is why Nikon is coming out with new, fast 35mm DX lenses. Even on FX, I didn't use a 50mm much, preferring a 35mm or a 135mm. But it all depends on what you shoot. Your shooting style should drive your lens choice, not what is on sale.

-- Right now, the ONLY 70-300mm worth buying for Nikon is probably the Nikon 70-300mm VR. Even Thom Hogan notes that is it competitive with the uber-expensive 70-20mm VR unless you need the F/ 2.8. (I own the 70-300mm VR and while, like everyone, I lust after the 70-200mm VR, I doubt that I will be laying down the cash anytime soon.)

Sooooo, you have a great camera, don't waste money on poor lenses - you are likely to keep the lenses much longer.

Some thoughts, offered with best wishes.

 

[cruisertoy]

Thanks guys. I've thought about the 35mm 1.8. Both the 50 and the 35 get really good reviews. A few people have said that the 35mm puts you uncomfortably close to people when taking thier picture? I was basically just looking for a good quality, faster lens to start playing with.

The only thing about the 50mm that I posted was that I believe it was the older one made in Japan vs the newest ones that are made in China. I've thought I understood the former were better durability wise. I'm going to email the guy back and see if he will sell the 50mm for $100 or less. I've seen them as low as $125 plus shipping or $140 plus tax locally. I

 

[Herbie]

I came to say the same things DiploStrat did.

I have a D90 that we use with an older 50mm 1.8 AF that my wife had from an older film camera. I LOVE that we can use those 20+ year old lenses.

As stated, it is a mild telephoto, which sometimes makes it harder to compose when shooting in the tight confines of our living room, which is where we do a lot of shooting currently because we have a new baby! I have the Tamron 18-270mm which makes composing very easy, but it just isn't as fast a lense, which doesn't work when trying to capture an active baby. I would be very happy to have a 35mm that was just as fast.

Here's an example of D90+50mm1.8+Amateur Photographer

 

[DiploStrat]

Thanks guys. I've thought about the 35mm 1.8. Both the 50 and the 35 get really good reviews. A few people have said that the 35mm puts you uncomfortably close to people when taking their picture?

Don't ever take a portrait of a person with a lens shorter than say, 70mm, unless you REALLY don't like them or they REALLY like le Grand Charles (deGaulle). Even on DX, 50mm is short for a portrait lens and will tend to give you huge noses, etc. FX, is, of course, worse.

Most studio portrait pros shoot in the 85mm range. (Which is why Nikon make an 85mm F/1.8, as a shallow field portrait lens.) I tend to shoot mostly candid portraits of people who are not comfortable around cameras. So my favorite has always been a 135mm. (Nikon makes one with selective defocus - throws the outer edge out of focus - especially for portraits.)

You really wanna shove a 50mm in this guy's face? (But run the image out to full size; not bad for a 30 year old slide.)

I like the 35mm lens for wandering markets, etc. I find that with a 50mm, buy the time I "see" a shot, I have to back up. With a 35mm, I am usually perfect. You will hear strong arguments for wider lenses, and they are valid, it is just that they add more distortion and I find that they reduce mountains to molehills.

People, especially on the edge of a 35mm or shorter, gain weight, noses, girth, etc. So if you are ever in a group photo, move to middle!

So I would go back to my original question, what do you want to shoot? People? Landscapes? Sports? Critters? Get an idea of that and the pros on this forum can give you lots of good advice.

All the best!

 

[Ryanmb21]

My wife and I have picked up photography in the past couple of years and we have been loving our D90. Right now our favorite lens is the 35mm 1.8 (which we recently purchased). We also have the 50mm 1.8 but we use it sparingly.

My wife took some great portraits, here which were all taken with the 35 1.8.

For a budget zoom, I would recommend the 55-200mm VR for the price I think it's outstanding. Here is an example of how sharp hand held at 98mm 1/400 f/4.5 iso 2000 from a recent Brooks and Dunn show.

 

[john101477]

to bad that nikon changed the kit lens to the 18-55 again. the original kit 18-105 for the D90 is still one I use quite a bit and a lot better IMO than the 18-55. Like most people the natural progression was for the nikon 75-300 vr1. and then I got the 50 1.8. I can honestly say I rarely take it with me as a carry around. it gets used for portraits and model shoots for the most part. I also have not picked up the 75-300 since I bought the 70-200 and yes i carry the beast on hiking trips. It really depends on what your looking for. if large landscapes is your thing the wider the better. My next lens will probably be some where in the fast wide angle range. reason being is if you have a good wide and a good tele such as the new 16-35 f/4 and the 70-200 f/2.8 there is not much you can't get with a few steps forward or back. the only other lens I would love to add is the 200-400 but it is heavy but for close up nature shots... yeah baby. Now this changes significantly for portraits where your subject is semi stationary. The 35 is great the 50 is great. heck I even use my 70-200 for some shoots depending on my mood and my goal for the shots. I just plain prefer zoom lenses for outdoor work.

 

[john101477]

Brooks and Dunn show.

You suck lol My wife begged me to take her but the good seats where gone and i hate sitting in the grass at sleep train. My grandfather and his wife went to the after party in vegas and the tribute concert to B&D the next night. not sure how good their seats were but they are in thick with Benny Brown so I am sure it was pretty good.

 

[cruisertoy]

Great info. I picked up the SLR thing again to do a few things. First, my wife runs a home based business selling interior vinyl lettering. She has been doing it for 6 years and makes a pretty good side income with it. She needed higher quality pictures for her website, plus I can deduct the camera.

Second, being in Utah (one of the most picturesque places on earth) we are always camping and hiking. My waterproof Pentax is fine, but I desired better picture of my kids and the landscapes we visit. It's been 25 years since I really did anything with an SLR but I knew I should head down that road again to fulfill my needs. The current kit lens (18-55 DX) and the D90 take better photos than my point and shoots did so I'm fairly content. Ultimately I would like to pick up a nice fast Landscape lens and then a more versatile all around zoom that I can take hiking.

 

[john101477]

Ahh I c. I will say I am not a fan of the 18-200 lens it is just to slow but many like it as a walk around lens. Plus they are not super expensive. IMO the 70-200 is one of the best telephotos made. But if you can find one. A lot of people really liked the 80-200. Lot smaller package and no VR but a solid lens. One thing I have been keeping in mind is my glass filter sizes. At $120 each good filters are getting spendy. I am in the process of trying to have 1 size filter that fits all the lenses I carry in the outdoors.

 

[Lost Canadian]

For filters, there are a couple of good options for saving money. The first would be to buy big screw on filters, 77mm or up, and use cheap step up rings for those lenses that use smaller thread sizes. The second is to go with a system like Cokin or Lee and use drop in sprocket filters. Singh-Ray is now offering a drop in of their LB polarizer sized for the Cokin Z holders. If I was starting anew that's the way I would go.