Help with lens selection

[Ben]

Hi guys
I have the old age question - which lens to buy! I have a D300 with 16-85 lens 50mm 1.8 and old 70-300 zoom. I have the budget to purchase one higher end lens. Have been out of photography for a little while due to work committments but things are settling down.

Camera is mainly used for holiday snaps and landscape photography and I would have to say that landscapes are my passion but I do have two kids and their adventures to capture. I occasionally write for a 4WD magazine so take both action/campsite photos and landscape stuff. In time, ie the next two to three years I will probably get a few lenses but to sart with not sure whether to go the 14-24, 17-35 of even the 24-70. ANy advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks again
Ben

[Pa]

Hi Ben I have the 16-35 F4, my opinion is it's a very good lens but so are the others you've mentioned especially the 24-70 F2.8....

Work out what your needs are, do some research and read reviews.....I read a fair few when making my mind up...

I was tossing up between the 17-55 F2.8 And the 16-35 F4 lens.... The review by this fellow swayed me...Link below

http://floggingkevin.com/2010/03/16/fin ... 5mm-f4-vr/

[radar]

Ben,

long time no see

The lenses you list are all FX lenses and great lenses. Do you plan to eventually move to a full-frame camera?

The 17-35, which I have, is a great lens and I used it on my D200 and now on my D700. The biggest reason I went with the 17-35 instead of the 14-24 was the issue of using filters. At the time, there was nothing to put filters on the 14-24. This is different now but the options for the 14-24 is still limited.

The 24-70 would certainly serve you very well for the kids. On a D300 it isn't much of a wide-angle but still a great lens. For myself, I am currently holding off on the getting this lens as I want to see the newly announced 24-120. It is f/4 instead of f/2.8 but to my landscape photography, that's not an issue. Plus it has a bit more reach and would make a great general lens if the quality is there, which from the initial specs, it should be. Price at ECS is $1600AUD so a bit of a saving there.

For wide-angle, the 16-35 that Pa refers to would also be a great choice and I would get that one instead of the 17-35 if I was buying today.

you are welcome to try out my 17-35. Just PM me.

cheers,

André

[aim54x]

All the lenses mentioned are good lenses outright.

It appears that the telephoto end of your kit is the weakest at the moment so maybe consider bolstering that end with a 70-300VR or a 70-200 2.8 VR?

[Murray Foote]

Hi Ben

If landscapes are your passion and you intend to stay with DX for the foreseeable future, a good choice could be the 12-24mm.

If you haven't used an ultrawide before it will also be a learning experience. You don't want to stand off and just have a distant view because everything becomes small and anonymous. You need to get in close, expore depth of field and combining near and far. Also watch the horizon line and some images you may need to compose with the horizon in the centre and crop later to avoid perspective distortion. It also opens the possibility of graphic and even abstract images if used in the right way.

[Ben]

Thanks for all the helpful replies guys.

I think i will move to full frame at some stage - not too long I hope so would like to buy lenses with that in mind. I hadn't heard of the 16-35 lens and that may be a good starting point and follow that with 24-70 or 24-120. Too many lenses-not enough money!

Thanks again for your replies.

Andre I might take you up on the offer but am pretty busy this weekend and want to get a lens before we leave for Tasmania on 26/9.

Ben

[petermmc]

Hi Ben

I have the 14-24 and the 24-70 and they compliment each other very well. I still have a D200 and will definately go for a FX at some stage. I had the 17-55 and traded it for the 24-70 just because I got a good deal and I am pleased I did. The 24-70 handles a bit better and is a little smoother IMHO. Having said this, I had no real complaints with the 17-55 and you would have to be splitting hairs to say it is not as sharp as the 24-70. I bought the 14-24 because I missed the 17 end of the 17-55 so take that into consideration. I tend to take more care with the 14-24 as it has no filters and seems to attract dirt...or is that just my paranoia? Having said all this, the new 16-35 gives you a really good range for DX. I also have the 16-85 which also may be a consideration. It is a beauty and very sharp. Now that I've weighed it all up...the winner is the 16-35.

Regards

Peter Mc