Long-term lens strategy for D300 owner

  • Thread starter Deleted member 8670
  • Start date
D

Deleted member 8670

Guest
I've bought quite a bit of kit this year. All I had last December was a D40. I'm pretty happy with the stuff I've acquired - covering most situations I encounter, which is travel (architecture/landscape/nature) and miscellaneous pictorial stuff - but my lenses just aren't fast enough for some situations.

I have a D300 with Nikkor 50/1.8, 16-85/3.5-5.6 (my fave), 70-300/4.5-5.6, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, SB-400 and a Slik mini-tripod. It's already too heavy to cart about together, so I have to choose what to take before I set off. My conundrum is what to aim for next - a long-term plan.

I'm tempted to save up for one of the Nikkor pro lenses, but, as I now use the full range of my 16-85, I think I would be forever changing lenses, plus I could only afford one at a time anyway.

I could aim for a D700, and then the 24-70 would be the obvious choice, but that's a hell of a lot of money, even taking into account a trade-in for the D300 and 16-85.

Or another equally vaild solution would be to just get a life, and stick with what I've got.

Any ideas?
 
Hi, how about a 70-200VR with maybe a 1.4 /1.7 tele converter this would give you reach to 340mm with the 1.7 TC and a great fast lens without, would probably cover quite alot of most people's needs along side the 50mm 1.8 and maybe the Sigma 10-20(y)
 
I carry everything in my sig plus a load of bits and bobs, tripod and monopod around with me.

I use the Tamrac Expedtion 8 and find it extremely comfortable over extended periods
 
I can understand the desire for fast glass but you need to ask yourself the extent to which you are really limited by what you already have. From what you say you have issues with lugging a lot of gear around, replacing any of your existing kit with anything appreciably faster will not help in that regard since faster also means bigger and heavier (and in some cases more than one lens as you correctly say).

Consider carefully the shots that your existing lens collection does not allow you to get. This will hopefully narrow down your choices and allow you to consider even more carefully the balance between the pain of the missed shots and the pain in your bank account (and in your back when you have more/heavier kit to carry).

You already have one fast lens in the shape of your 50mm and at least that is small and light enough to carry with you all the time so you always have the option of putting that on your camera and using your feet!
 
Thanks for everyone's comments. I think Nicos hit the nail on the head. The fast glass thing is a desire, as I'm often forced to shoot at over f/5.6, and, although I have VR on my Nikon zoom lenses, I never get to play with shallow DoF. Maybe I should use my 70-300 more, instead of the long end of my 16-85. Most of the time it's left at home, to save weight.

The 50mm never stays on for long, and I don't actually rate it that highly for IQ. I tend to shoot on the move with family, so I don't have a lot of time to be messing about with 'foot-zoom' composition, and I've noticed that the 50mm produces more fringing than my zooms, and I have a large amount of AF compensation set for it on my camera. Maybe it's a bad copy.

I'm questioning the decision to buy the Sigma 10-20. Again, it never stays on long, as I find 20mm a bit limiting. I am happy with the lens overall though, and love what it can do.

I think part of my problem is convenience. I have a Centon backpack which is great for transportation of gear and my things (and great for getting a sweaty back), but useless for quick access to lenses. I wonder if I had a better way of carrying gear, I might be less bothered by lens changes. I just received a Kata DC443 with a magazine subscription. It looks a bit boxy, and unlikely to be comfortable to use, but I'll give it a try.

I will take the advice that I should identify the gap in my selection. But I want to make sure that anything I buy will fit in well with a series of purchases. For example, a 17-55 is an obvious choice for a walkabout lens, but I lose the 55-85 range (or 55-70, if you include the telephoto), and it's still an expensive DX lens, which I would have to resell if I ever went full-frame.

I'm starting to think that I have come to the end of the road with the D300, and should just be happy with what I've got. If I can get a better bag with easier lens-changing, I might be able to better identify my lens requirements.
 
My personal opinion is to aim as high as you can. If eventually you want a full range of 2.8 Nikkor glass, then start investing in it now tbh. Imo, Nikon have an awsome range of glass atm, with just three lenses needed to cover 14-200mm. expensive, yes, of course they are. But if that's what you want, make a start now. I had to sell 3/5 of my glass and my camera body to get the D700 and 24-70, and I've never looked back. Ok, I'm missing my 10-20, but eventually when i get the 14-24, it'll have been a smart move not only in the sense that all my glass is then full frame, but also because im carrying less around. Plus! it's all f/2.8 :D

At the end of the day, if you want glass to do something for you, don't buy cheap, as you just buy twice.
 
I am at the moment buiding my lens group with fast and sharp glass.

I currently have the can 50D which due to the new sensor requires good glass.
I will have as the end of January.

17-70 Sigma DC f/2.8-4.5
70-200 f/2.8 IS USM
50mm 1.4 USM
85mm 1.8 USM
150mm 2.8 HSM Macro (sigma)

my problem is my walkabout lens, its not FF compatible, its not fast at zoom, the motor is slowish and hunts in dim light, but its sharp and produces very good results.

I dont know what to do. Invest in a 24-70 /2.8 either sigma(hsm version) or canon. keep the 17-70 for widish stuff or put it to a 10-22 or 12-24/f4
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top