New Nikon Lens advice

C

Corruptionphoto

Messages
5
Name
Craig
Edit My Images
No
Hey ladies and gents,

I'm looking at getting a new lens for my Nikon D90, obviously to suit what I tend to shoot.

I have 3 main things that I shoot;

  • Live bands - Small venues and Music festivals
  • Cage fighting - either on top of the cage or around the side
  • Home studio work

Some examples of my work;

Cage Fighting

Live Bands - Music Festival



At the moment I am using the "Nikon 18-105mm F/3.5-5.6 VR" and it is a really good all round lens and is doing me a really good service so far.

One of the lenses that I have looked at is the "Nikon 55-200mm F/4-5.6 VR" NOT the "G" series one.

One of the main things is catching someone moving pretty quick.

Does anyone have any suggestions, or if anyone has used the 55-200mm, what did you think of it?

Thank you in advance

CraigB
 
Whats your budget? You might be better off with something faster like a 70-200mm f2.8. But they don't come cheap.
 
Budget wise i'd like to keep to about £300 - £400 ... but am thinking of waiting and saving to get "Nikon 70-200mm AF-S Nikkor f2.8G ED VR II Lens", but as you said, not cheap, by any means.

On the other hand, might get something to fill the gap until I get my next referal at work, which would get me the f2.8.
 
If your 18-105 is doing you good service so far, do you really need a longer lens?

What about looking at the EXIFs on your shots and seeing which focal length you use most? You can then think about a fast prime around that FL.

If you definitely want a longer lens, then the 70-200 VRII is worth saving for.
 
twist said:
Sigma 70-200 2.8, should get a used copy for around £450.
Click to expand...

Big +1 I wouldn't consider shooting a gig with anything less than a f/2.8 zoom.
Paid £350 for mine and it's sharper than the Nikon version I had which cost over £1000
 
You would definitely benefit from 2.8 glass for the type of shooting you do. I bet you're pushing the ISO right up for a lot of those shots? 2.8 will allow you to keep it a little lower for cleaner, more crisp shots. Most gig/indoor event shooters only ever shoot at 2.8, or even wider with primes.

What about something like a sigma or tamron 24-70? You won't be able to get in as close, but I really think 2.8 glass is that much cleaner it would allow you to crop a bit to make up the difference.

Or, look out for an old 80-200 2.8 Nikon. I use the old push-pull type, paid about £400 for it and it's as good optically as the newer 70-200 versions. It doesn't have VR, but for moving subjects you don't need that option.
 
Phil Young said:
Aren't we talking about low light situations? Isn't the 18-105 a slow lens?
Click to expand...

But we have to take the budget and what he's got into account too.

I agree in a perfect world, a fast standard zoom and a fast tele zoom with perhaps a 50/1.4 just in case is the way to go (plus an extra body). But Craig's got 400 quid to spend. And looking at his images, yes some would be less noisy or have less motion blur with a 17-55/2.8 but they go for ~700 quid used so are out of budget.

Many of his images are none to shabby with his existing zoom so one option is to hang on to it and supplement with a fast prime. At the distance he shoots, "catching someone moving pretty quick" could be achieved with a 50/1.8 or an 85/1.8 and be within budget.

Another option of course is to sell the 18-105 and put it toward a faster standard zoom like the 17-55/2.8 (but then he loses on the long end) or get a newer, faster, slightly longer VR standard zoom (but that would mean FX and he'd lose at the wide end).
 
Last edited:
Oh and just for completeness, my fast prime suggestion is based on Craig's most used focal length. If his shots are more or less evenly distributed throughout his zoom range, then a fast prime is not the way to go.
 
Just in response here to your reply so the OP can get a fuller understanding...

chromatin64 said:
But we have to take the budget and what he's got into account too.
Click to expand...

On a budget of £400 he can easily find a good zoom in his used range, perhaps with a slight compromise in focal length and he did say he was thinking of saving a bit more for better glass...

chromatin64 said:
I agree in a perfect world, a fast standard zoom and a fast tele zoom with perhaps a 50/1.4 just in case is the way to go (plus an extra body). But Craig's got 400 quid to spend. And looking at his images, yes some would be less noisy or have less motion blur with a 17-55/2.8 but they go for ~700 quid used so are out of budget.
Click to expand...

The tamron 17-50 can be had for under his budget used.

chromatin64 said:
Many of his images are none to shabby with his existing zoom so one option is to hang on to it and supplement with a fast prime. At the distance he shoots, "catching someone moving pretty quick" could be achieved with a 50/1.8 or an 85/1.8 and be within budget.
Click to expand...

Yes it could, but they would have to move into his frame rather than the photographer adjusting for his subject...

chromatin64 said:
Another option of course is to sell the 18-105 and put it toward a faster standard zoom like the 17-55/2.8 (but then he loses on the long end) or get a newer, faster, slightly longer VR standard zoom (but that would mean FX and he'd lose at the wide end).
Click to expand...

Yes, this would be an option to sell a slower lens in aid of getting a better, faster lens. VR would be of no benefit for what he's shooting.
 
Phil Young said:
Just in response here to your reply so the OP can get a fuller understanding...



On a budget of £400 he can easily find a good zoom in his used range, perhaps with a slight compromise in focal length and he did say he was thinking of saving a bit more for better glass...



The tamron 17-50 can be had for under his budget used.



Yes it could, but they would have to move into his frame rather than the photographer adjusting for his subject...



Yes, this would be an option to sell a slower lens in aid of getting a better, faster lens. VR would be of no benefit for what he's shooting.
Click to expand...

All fair points Phil. I don't think the Tammy 17-50 would be long enough looking at his shots but as I said, it would be interesting to see which FL he shoots at most.

I think shooting action with a prime is a learnable skill and a Nikkor 85/1.8 (D or G) will be within budget. And it's faster and longer than the Tammy f2.8.

VR wouldn't be of benefit for shooting action but if this is to replace his current zoom after he hypothetically traded it in, VR would come in useful in other situations especially gloomy sports venues.

Good discussion this, Phil.:thumbs:

To the OP - Craig these are all equally valid suggestions and there's no perfect solution for you at 400 quid. (Let's face it though, we're talking lenses and there's no perfect solution at 4000 quid either). Whichever route you choose, there'll be a degree of compromise. See what FLs you shoot at though as that will help inform your decision.
 
Thanks for all the advice, will take it all on board and have a nice long think about it.

Will probably save some more cash up and then maybe even get a couple of lenses for more options..... no harm in being a little greedy from time to time

Craig
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top