Nikon D80 - what lens next?

[Clinton1]

Hey all,
Wondering if anyone has some ideas on what lens I should step up to for my D80.

I have the 18 - 55mm that came with the D80 basic kit (the bog standard non-VR one).

I like doing landscape and am wondering if I should start looking at something in the 15mm to 50mm prime or something like a good 12 - 24mm?

I will get the Nikon 50mm F1.8... what else?

All thoughts appreciated.

[mcarthur]

I've got Canon stuff now (but I used to have Nikon!). My wide-angle is definitely most used for non-people shots = landscapes usually. The 70-200 is my standard for people, and my 10-20 is standard for sizeable landscape. Note that the Canon I have has a 1.6x multiplier, so 10-20 = 16-32 in 35mm equivalence. I use a 100mm macro for those "inner" landscape shots. In the last 12 months, I took 3285 using my 10-20, and 3254 using my 70-200 (Imatch (http://www.photools.com/) is great :D).

I'd definitely recommend a wide angle. In terms of prime or not, most landscapes want more DoF rather than less, so a really good fast prime isn't as critical (IMHO; for my landscapes!). I also find the prime a bit of a pain for landscapes, since often I can't actually move my feet to frame - it'd mean moving 2 kms and creating a mountain to sit on like the one I'm on :p. I'd suggest a good wide zoom starting at 10-12mm (1.5x/1.6x).

Rob

[rsser]

Not your brand but I'm a fan of primes and have just got a 70 mm f2.4 for my Pentax. As you'd know, that's about 105mm film equiv.

It's exceptional as a portrait lens, doing excellent skin tones.

Have yet to try it for landscape shots - but the focal length suits me as I bushwalk and ski in the mountains and unlike Rob am willing to move to frame ;-}

Have never found much use for WA for landscapes - a 28 mm film equiv. would give some dramatic shots eg. of a cluster of snowgums but beyond that ...

[sawtooth]

G'day Clinton, been surfing and just found your question, so I thought I would give my thoughts. I have a D100 and D200 with 24-70 as the "main' lens. Also an older 80-200 f2.8 and have recently added 12-24. The 12-24 is a top bit of glass. I often say I wish digital was never invented but I would not be with out it. I have been screaming at Nikon to bring out full size sensor and now they have made the D3 and D700, so now [when I find $3500] I can go back to favouite lens; 50 f1.4; 85 f1.8; the beautiful 24 f2.8; 60 f2.8 macro plus a few others. So what best for you? Don't get the 50 F1.8!!! If you want 50mm go for the F1.4. But don't forget it will be 75mm on a Nikon Digital which is not here or there. A few [long] years ago, I made a comment that if I had to select one camera body and one lens it would be the the old manual FM2 and 50 f1.4 lens. Although digital has stuffed the thought a bit it is still pretty true. The 80-200 F2.8 is another must have, even for landscapes when you need to isolate a subject. For the wide stuff get the 12-24; [I]it is good. But consider this; when I bought my 24 mm it took a fair while to learn how to use it; properly. Natural that was on film cameras so it was a true 24 mm. Hope this is not too late and that it is a helps. To show I do know a little bit, go to www.betterphotos.com.au (http://www.betterphotos.com.au) Bugger; now everyone will know who the mug is!! :doh::BCheers

[bitingmidge]

So what best for you? Don't get the 50 F1.8!!! If you want 50mm go for the F1.4.
I'm curious. Why not?

I don't think the 1.8 has a bad review anywhere, and while I don't have one at the moment (it was stolen last year!) it represents fantastic value for money. I'm not sure that there's a situation where an amateur needs that extra .4!

Apart from that, my collection is:

My basic walk-around lens 18-200
12-24
105 micro (macro)

I have thought about an 8mm for VR panoramas, but that will wait till I get serious about them.

Cheers,

P

[sawtooth]

G'day again, RE: Nikon 50mm 1.4 v 1.8: the 1.4 is just a better lens. Nothing to do with 1.4 or 1.8. I also had a 1.8 and yes, it was pretty good and a lot better then the similar Cannon. But the 1.4 is better, the same way a Contas 1.8 was better then my 1.4. They are available second hand because people do not appreciate the fixed lens and I have to admit many zooms are excellent these day. One final point; I wish the people in Adelaide who "borrowed" my Cannon with about six lens and my Hasselblad system plus the other bits and pieces about 7 years ago would return them.

Does not matter what you use, it's how you use it. Cheers

[bitingmidge]

Thanks,

Yep. Can't argue that the 1.4's not better. I was getting hung up on your advice NOT to get a 1.8.

FWIW I'll probably eventually get a 1.4 rather than replace the 1.8 (but they are such terrific value, probably the best value lens out there I reckon.)

The blokes with your Hasselblad body might be just about ready to return it shortly if they can get their hands on a new digital one. ;)

I wonder if the bloke in Barcelona has ever wondered why my web address keeps popping up in the EXIF data from "his" D80 too.

cheers,

P

[Optimark]

If you are talking about the 15mm full frame rectilinear designed for Nikon film cameras, then that is a quite interesting piece of equipment.

Not sure how it would work the smaller format on an electronic camera, but on film, it is simply stunning!


If you ever would consider portrait work then the 85 f/1.4 Nikkor is possibly the best of the Nikkor f/1.4 prime AI or AIS lenses, it does require a lens hood though as so much light can get in and induce flare.

The various 50mm Nikkor lenses all have their slight differences and the wider they get the worse their performance is elsewhere in their possibilities. The f/1.2 is brilliant at low light photography wide open, but suffers flare in bright light, the f/1.4 isn't quite as bad in bright light. The f/1.8 is about the best overall 50mm prime Nikkor, in that it can be used wide open in bright and low light situations with almost equal success.

I'm not sure exactly where electronic capture cameras are with contrast, but the wider Nikkors are all higher in contrast as the get wider, this may be an issue, I don't know as I don't have any electronic capture cameras, except for an Aldi super cheap special compact camera.


Just some food for thought.

Mick.

[Clinton1]

thanks for the replies, sorry for not getting back for a while but I've been away from the net.
I didn't get the new lens when in Aus, could not decide and so I put it in the too hard basket. :rolleyes: :(

I guess my issue is that with the crop sensor:
50 is 80, 12 is 20 and so on.
Also, the picture angle is reduced.

Its thrown me off a bit as I don't have the opportunity to try out different lenses and see how they work on my D80.

Right now I wish that I did have the full sensor body, however it really is too expensive for me.

When in Aus, I was able to have a quick try of a 12 - 24mm f4/G lens, and really liked it, however I didn't really have enough of a play to be able to decide. It works out to be a 19 - 38mm lens anyway.

I guess the trouble with the DX lenses (Nikon lens for crop sensors) is the high f value and I can't seem to get info on the f value for the magnifications, i.e. f value for each 1mm increment.
Without that I feel that I'm taking a gamble that I'll get what I want.

I don't suppose that anyone knows if there is a teleconvertor that reduces the focal length of the lens (I can get a teleconvertor that increases the focal length by 1.4.) ?
If I could reduce the focal length with a minimal f stop loss, things might work out a little better for me.
Better yet is a teleconvertor that reduces the focal length and increases the picture angle.
any thoughts?

[sawtooth]

How wide do you really need? "19mm" is pretty wide!! If you need more you can always join a coulpe, or more images together. A good trick is the take several verticle photos and join them together, and you don't need a super wide for that. Buy the 12-24, you can not go wrong.

When I want it simple; I put a 24 mm on the D100 or D200 and just take photos. It gives me a 36 mm 2.8. Even more simple is my old MF2 manual camera with 50 mm lens and a roll or two of Fuji 400 or even 800 film. Those were the days!!

And when I want it r e a l l y simple; I use my Olympus MJU, a small pocket film camera with a fixed 35mm lens. What a little beauty.:roll:

What I'm trying say is it does not matter what you use: just learn to use what you have and there is more to good photography then digital

Cheers

PS Answer to your question; not that I know of, and if there is something like it available I would not buy it.

[Clinton1]

I've been taking a long, hard look at:
the Sigma AF 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX HSM DC,
the Sigma AF 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX HSM DG,


My thinking is that I should bear the long term in mind and get lens which are good for what I have now, and will be good if I go the full sensor route later on.

That rules out the 10-20mm as DC (digital camera) tells me it can only be used on an APS-C body. Lucky that, as the price is lower than the 12-24mm and its image quality is less as well... I don't need the temptation to save some $ and get less quality... its been doing my head in enough! :rolleyes:

The 12-24 works out to be equivilent to 18-36 on my D80, however it keeps its wide character, which is what I am after.
It supposedly keeps its resolution high and fairly constant throught the focal range, better than APS-C designed lens's. So, I'd expect little variation between its 'sweet spots' and its poorest performance.
Price is a bloody worry though!

So, thats my wide angle sorted out... although it has done my head in!

[noodle_snacks]

Hey all,
Wondering if anyone has some ideas on what lens I should step up to for my D80.


Perhaps a canon? :p