Need advice on lenses, Please!

[anasko]

Hi! I am seeking your professional advice.
I've been crazy about photography for several years now, taking pictures every opportunity I get but with my equipment I don't feel like I am getting good results.

At the moment I have Nikon D40X and Sigma DC 18-200 1:3.5-6.3 HSM (+ the kit lens). I am ready to upgrade and my next choice is Nikon D7000 (even though I would rather get D300 but I cannot justify the difference in price in my situation. After all I am taking pictures for pleasure not for a living).

My main objects are my young and very active children and pets. I also love sunsets. So most of my pics are taken indoors or in low light conditions where I either need high ISO or/and fast lens.

This is what I need your advice on. I have been reading the specs but I still can't decide what lens(es) are good for my situation. My budget is $3000 for lenses. I do want to get a good zoom (up to 200-300), too, because kids activities and my new interest in wild life photography will require it. (soccer field and such)

Right now I narrowed my choices to
Tamron 17-50 VC F2.8
Sigma 50-150 f 2.8 HSM
Nikkor 70-300 VR
Nikkor 35 f1.8 G
But now I have second thoughts. These are all fine lenses but how much room for growth will they give me? Is there a better way to spend my money?
Please let me know what are your thoughts?

[OsmosisStudios]

Will you be selling the 18-200 to fund this endeavour? If you hadnt planned on it, I would and use the funds for a wider-angle option (if you shoot that way) or a flash.

[firebox40dash5]

Personally, I'd ditch the Sigma 50-150mm & 70-300mm VR combo, and go for a used 70-200mm VRI. Gets you the constant f/2.8 to 200mm instead of 150mm, and would cost about the same as those lenses combined. I just upgraded from the 70-300mm VR to a 70-200mm VRII, and I can't believe the difference the large aperture makes, I wish I had done it sooner!

I honestly don't miss the 200-300mm range much, and you could always add a TC later on if you find you need it. Even with a 2x, you'd still be at the same f/5.6, and at 400mm instead of 300mm. I'm not a fan of 2x TCs, but the option is there.

x2 for selling the 18-200mm, since you're working with a budget. A single lens that covers most any FL you'd want is nice to have, but not really needed when you have it covered with other, better lenses.

[Almond.Butterscotch]

If you're going from the list you gave up there, I'd go with the 35 f/1.8 + 70-300. The 35 is a beast- my workhorse. It's what I use 98% of the time. That said there are definely times when it's just not long enough, and that's when the 55-200 comes out, but its not built as solidly and doesn't work as fluidly as the 70-300 does (a lens I've used on occasion when I've borrowed it).

That said, with a budget of $3000 just for lenses, I'd go for the 70-200mm f.2.8 ($2400) + 35mm f/1.8 ($200) or 70-200mm + 50mm f/1.4 ($370), depending on your needs at the wider end.

[bruceliv]

I don't agree re: the 70-200mm f/2.8. True, it's very sharp and works excellent with the T1.4E tele-converter. The lens can be a burden to carry around and shoot with. If you think you might someday go to FX, you'd want the VR II. That lens would use up your $$ right there. The hugeness of this glass makes it very cumbersome as a candid lens. If you were a professional and "needed" this, that would be a different story.

The choice of the D7K is likely a better choice than the D300. It will give ISO sensitivity that can not be paralleled with any DX camera made today. And most of the older Nikon glass can be used. The high ISO capabilities will give you an edge with your active kids and low-light needs.

Lenses: I suggest you keep it simple and save about $1000 of your budgeted amount
#1- the new 24-120mm f/4.0 VR
#2- Your original choice of the 70-300mm VR

The advantages are you'd have an enormous range covered with modern, fast and sharp glass. You would have ultimate portability. You could carry one lens case on your belt, and that's it. And nearly every situation would be covered. In fact, the overlap is wonderful because those would be ideal focal lengths (overlap=70-120) to take your candids with either lens!

I own and shoot with about 15 lenses that I can use on my camera. My walk around is now becoming the new 24-120 I just bought. In my pack, I carry a 40 yr old fisheye and a very specialized macro lens. The 70-300 VR is with me when I need the reach.

BTW, for sunrises and sunsets, or even for bright skies in landscapes, I also carry the Coklin pro Z filter adapter and a 4X5in soft graduated ND filter. This way, I'm able to adjust for bright skies through the camera. I mention this because of your interest in sunsets.

I've tried to answer you as you've described your needs. As you shoot, get experience and practice, you might find a focal length that dominates most of your shooting. Perhaps it will be 85mm. Then, at that point, you buy an expensive fast prime lens that will further enhance your needs and wishes. If you feel, that you want a prime "now," then there's the marvelous tack-sharp 50mm f/1.4G, and it's inexpensive!

[anasko]

Originally Posted by bruceliv

#1- the new 24-120mm f/4.VR

Thank you for your advice. I do like the idea of versatility. I looked this lens up and it seems to be for FX format only. If I am getting D7000 - it is DX format... Did I miss something?

[bruceliv]

"Did I miss something?"

Yep. DX lenses will usually vignette on FX because they're designed for the smaller sensor of DX. However, FX lenses will perform very well on DX. As a matter of fact, they sometimes performs better on DX because the center is optically the sharpest part of the lens.

Therefore, an FX lens can always be used on DX format, but not the other way around.
Just note, however, the FX lenses will often be somewhat bulkier -- the nature of the beast

[firebox40dash5]

Originally Posted by bruceliv

I don't agree re: the 70-200mm f/2.8. True, it's very sharp and works excellent with the T1.4E tele-converter. The lens can be a burden to carry around and shoot with. If you think you might someday go to FX, you'd want the VR II. That lens would use up your $$ right there. The hugeness of this glass makes it very cumbersome as a candid lens. If you were a professional and "needed" this, that would be a different story.

I only mentioned it because he had both the 70-300mm and the Sigma f/2.8 on his list. I figured he wanted both the reach and the speed. It's bulky and expensive, but not as bulky as both of those lenses put together, and the cost is similar. Honestly, I've been using my VRII almost exclusively since I got it (my wife hogs the D90 and I use the F100, and right now the only fullframe lenses I have are the VRII, the 50mm f/1.4, and a cheapie 28-80mm), and I quickly got used to the heft. It's not that much bulkier than the 70-300mm, and if I need to hold it for a while, I bring my walking stick-turned-monopod. If I sling the strap and keep one hand on the tripod foot for support, I barely notice it's there.

Also, I don't think the VRI is any worse on FX than the 70-300mm is- they're both best on DX. If the speed can be compromised on, I totally agree with recommending just the 70-300mm. Considering what like-new ones sell for, it's a bargain of a long lens, especially on a DX body.

[anasko]

I am a woman and not a strong one, so weight does matter. I do love the images taken with 70-200 vr ii but the size/ weight scares me! )

I would enjoy the versatility of 24-120. I found the conversion for FL for a DX body. it seems it would be more like 36-180 on my camera. I will consider that.

[bruceliv]

Right. And the 70-300 (which is an FX lens too) would give an effective angle of view as a 105-450mm on DX. Imagine looking at a sensor that's 1"x1.5" (FX) but you're only using 2/3 of that sensor (DX).

Now, the 24-120mm f/4.0 is chunky -- it takes 77mm filters. It's no lightweight, but it's sized well for what it can do. My wife has used it on her D5K and enjoys it. I sold my D300 because it was too big and heavy for her. My wife uses moderate telephoto more than wide angle.

Have you looked at the 18-200mm? A lot of serious amateurs really like this glass.

@Firebox, I use the 70-300mm on my D700 and it works just fine, that is when my wife isn't using it