Lens purchase advice

[Shepp59]

Hey guys, thanks for your replies.I need to puchase 3 QUALITY lenses for use on a D300s and eventually a D700 for use in landscapes and some sports action. For low light weddings and portraits. Looking for full compatibility on both bodies and the quality that a budget of $3000 for the 3. Any suggestions?

[OsmosisStudios]

$3000 won't get you much in full-frame lenses, especially for quality.

Landscapes usually means wide-angle
Sports/action/weddings/portraits suggest long fast lenses.

You can probably get away with 2, maybe 3:

The Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 is a fantastic lens: wide on a D300s, super-wide on a D700. Beautiful everywhere. The thing is that it's a BIG, HEAVY, EXPENSIVE lens. You're looking just shy of $2000 (US) for it.

Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRII: the standard for fast telephotos. This'll do well for weddings and portraits and will certainly do well for close-in sports. You're looking at another $2200 (US) for this one

You can get away with either a teleconverter (the new 2.0III, for instance) or you can try for a fast prime. TCs are cheaper, but fast primes are better quality. YMMV

These are both exceptional lenses, and are the best of the best for the time being. They also blow your budget straight to pieces.

If you wanted to try primes, you could always get something like a 20/2.8 for landscapes, a portrait prime (85/1.8 or 1.4, 105/2, 135/2) and a fast prime for the sports (something like a 300/4 or 400/2.8), but those also blow your budget to pieces. Cheapest scenario here would be the 20, 85 and 300: 550+450+1500=2500. It's within budget and covers what you need with great lenses. The 300 just might be a bit short, depending on the sport you want to shoot.

In many of these cases (weddings, sports in particular) a zoom is preferable though, just becauseof the nature of the event. If you can more accurately describe what you'll be shooting, it might help narrow things down.

[Shepp59]

Thanks, well if I have to I'll settle for 2. The quality is more important to me. I''ll be shooting photojournalistic style weddings with only available light and watersports, skiing,boating,jet skis etc. from a boat in the water so i'll be able to get reasonably close to the action.

[OsmosisStudios]

Even in a boat, thr 70-200 may fall short, especially on full-frame. Your best bet may be to rent a few varying focal length lenses at first, see what works, then buy from there.

[kirbinster]

Nikon 70-200 F/2.8 AF-S VR, unless you have lots of critical stuff in the corners the VR-I will do just fine. You can get a good quality used one for about $1,600.

Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 AF-S used is about $1,500.

Guess you have to save more for that third lens.

[equilution]

My recommendations would be the 85 f/1.4 for your weddings, and portraits...hands down (I have one), the 16-35 for landscape (gonna get one!), and a budget 70-200 for outdoors. I've found that there's usually enough light outside that you don't really need 2.8 in a zoom. I have the 80-400 which is a tank, but it's an awesome lens.

I think those 3 should fit your budget and give you amazing flexibility. Plus they're all for full frame sensors.

I have the 14-24 also but rarely use it. So, I'll probably surrender it in favor of the new 16-35. The 85 f/1.4 is awesome for indoor sports. You can see my previous basketball posts. The 70-200 2.8 is awesome, but it will blow your budget for sure.

Word of advice: stay away from the 24-120.



Hope this helps.

[inkista]

17-35 f/2.8 (can be your wide-to-normal now, and an ultrawide on the D700), 85/1.4, and maybe a 70-300 VR until you can find something better. Over your budget, though.

It's not like watersports are shot indoors or at night. While f/2.8 is nice, you can get away with something slower that you won't mind getting splashed.

I will just mention that Jeff Ascough, who shoots weddings PJ-style with only available light uses full-frame bodies, a 16-35 f/2.8 (which has mostly replaced his 24/1.4 and 35/1.4 lenses), a 50/1.2 and an 85/1.2. Which, on the Canon side, all autofocus. To him the 70-200 f/2.8 is just not on. He's not typical of most wedding photographers, but the fact that you say you want to go PJ-style without a flash means his aesthetic and working methods may be similar to yours.