DullesJason

Do you have a maximum price in mind?

Basically, your 3 criteria doesn't exist in one lens in the Nikon lineup.

* wide angle down to the teens
* fixed aperture
* VR

You do however have a lot of choices if you can eliminate one of these criteria.^

For example, you can get both wide and ultra-wide in one fixed aperture, and the wider you go, the less you need the VR. Also, you can easily get a wide zoom that can extend to short range telephoto with VR, but no fixed aperture.

Some of the lenses others in this thread have recommended are going to be what you end up with, but to really know what the right lens is for you, I think it's important you give use more information to help advise you. Such as:

1. What kind of photography do you intend to do with this lens?
2. What are the lenses you already have and intend to keep (sell the others)?
3. What's your budget for this?

For anyone who is non-proe and doesn't need to shoot rapid-action, I would tend to suggest you drop the expensive fixed aperture criteria because Nikon is now making excellent variable aperture lenses. Though I have 3 pro lenses, I have made some award-winning shots on variable aperture consumer lenses, too. And that's what I use most often.

DullesJason

Another thought . . . if you want all-new modern lenses, here is the setup I recommend for most people shooting with a D300.

Budget:

18-55VR, $200
55-200VR $200
35mm f/1.8 $200.

More power and more expensive:

If money isn't a concern, replace 18-55 with 16-85VR for $600+ and get the $450 70-300VR instead of the 55-200. I have the 70-300VR and love it for times when I don't need the heavy 80-200 f/2.8.

Along the lines of what you want, you can get a fixed aperture wide zoom with the 17-55 f/2.8 others have suggested, but it's heavy and $1200-1300. Or a fixed aperture ultra-wide zoom like 10-24 and 12-24 from both Nikon and Tokina (which I have, but you didn't say anything about ultra-wide. So I'll be curious to see what your intended uses are, which is how we'll know what's really right for you.

The _Banking_Scot

Hi,

This site seems to give reviews to a lot of Nikon lenses;

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikkor.htm

Regards

TBS

darthbimmer

Ken writes vigorously, which makes his blogs interesting to read. But keep in mind that he's ultimately writing to justify the gear he's personally bought. Sometimes that blinds him to the other choices out there.

For a wider set of user perspectives, check out the discussion boards at Digital Photography Review. What FT is to travelers, DPR is to photographers.

For quantitative and dispassionate reviews of various lenses, check out www.photozone.de.

The _Banking_Scot

Hi,
Thanks for the comments darthbimmer!^

Regards

TBS

michswiss

Hey Gaucho,

Others have already mentioned them in various comments, there are three lens in Nikon's collection that are a "must."

• 14-24
• 24-70
• 70-200

All are f2.8 constant aperture and generally speaking, the 14-24 and the 24-70 are considered amongst the best zooms Nikkor have produced. The 70-200 has been recently updated optically and with VR-II. Frankly, the other two don't need VR as far as I'm concerned with the shorter focal length and the ability to open them up. This is the Nikkor zoom trifecta.

I have the 24-70 and 70-200 VR-I and have used them extensively on a D300. The 70-200 is NOT a walkabout lens and way too long for most casual photography on a DX body. I also had the 16-85 for a while but sold it to a friend as I spend most of my time in very dim lighting where any form of flash wouldn't be a good thing. I generally shoot wide open or close to it on the street at night.

If you're buying long-term, I would get the 24-70 along with a 20mm f2.8 prime. If you're buying DX specifically for the D300, follow some of the advice above for the fine fixed aperture DX models.

I've recently picked up a D700 and the 24-70 is even more attractive. The 20mm prime will get a little less use and I'm considering adding a 35 and 85 prime to the collection.

D1andonlyDman

None of these lenses are a "must" if one has an APS-C sensor camera such as the D90, D300, D5000, etc. In fact, they are, in general, a poorly selected range of focal lengths for an APS-C camera. And, as Gaucho pointed out in his post - his camera is a D300 - which has an entirely different sized sensor, and thus completely different needs, from a D700.

And given that the typical user has less than $2000 (in many cases FAR less) for their camera and lenses, I fail to see how such a budget would be divided amongst these lenses. What a professional photographer with a nearly unlimited budget for equipment "must have" is generally of little use to the average consumer.

darthbimmer

This trio of top quality zoom lenses is considered the standard for pro-level photographers with FX (full frame) cameras. For other types of users they are probably a poor choice. Three reasons:

First, as D1andonlyDman noted, on a DX camera the zoom ranges are inconvenient. The 24mm breakpoint on a Nikon DX is the equivalent of 36mm full frame, which means swapping lenses frequently.

Second, the lenses are big and heavy, so they are ill suited as travel gear for all but the most dedicated photographers.

Finally, they are very expensive. Purchased new they cost about $1700 US -- each!

michswiss

Hey, I did put it in quotes as well as qualify the recommendation on a number of points.

They are expensive and heavy, but in my experience having used mine on a D300 for 18 months, I can still recommend the 24-70 and 20mm prime combo. Then again, I really like primes and don't mind changing lenses based on the setting I find myself in. Then again, the 16-85 is a fine and very useful lens.

Gaucho, what will be your primary use for the new glass?

dimramon

While he makes some valid points, there's another site out there that I like much better, and it is also geared towards Nikon users:
www.bythom.com
http://www.bythom.com/rationallenses.htm

sykocus

I think you need to prioritize which of those factors are the most important. If it's A and B then I'd recommend then 24-70mm f2.8. It's on the heavy side but should be fairly well balanced on your d300. The optics are great and it's sharp at 2.8.

If D and E are more important then I'd say the 18-200mm 3.5-5.6 VR II.

My old camera was a D70s and when I picked up the older 28-70 2.8 it almost never left my camera. It was bigger and heavier then the 24-70, but i loved the sharpness and large aperture. Later I got the 18-200 and didn't end up using at much. It wasn't as sharp wide open and didn't have as much DOF control. Often people use the expression "jack of all trades, master of none" to describe it. The 18-200 didn't really fit my shooting style. I've since upgrded to the D700 and 24-70 and haven't looked back.

DullesJason

These are all of course indisputably great lenses; I'd only take issue with characterizing them as a "must" especially with DX, but even on full frame, because there are a lot of still great Nikon lenses that can be had for less.

But yeah, if you're willing to spend on the north side of USD $5000 and only the best will do, by all means, fit yourself out with this trio of amazing zooms. I've shot with them all but never saw fit to buy them. I still get great shots with less expensive lenses.

DullesJason

I totally concur. When I first bought a DSLR more than 3 years ago, I got the 18-200 and the 50/1.8. I kept the 18-200 for a year but felt underwhlemed and couldn't agree more that it's a "jack of all trades; master of none."

For me, my Tokina 12-24 covers most of my wide needs while either the 70-300VR or 80-200/2.8 gives me tele. I love my 50mm for most of my mid-range, but if I'm traveling light and just want one walk-around mid-range, I'll either use a 24-85 or 18-55.

For Gaucho, he may want to consider the 18-200 only if the idea of never changing lenses appeals to him.

Otherwise, I'd split up my lens duty 3 ways if I were him, and if he's a casual family and travel shooter + the occasional casual nature/landscape shooter, who is on a budget then I'd say:

18-55VR, $200
55-200VR $200
35mm f/1.8 $200.
(prices approx)

Everybody should have at least one prime lens.^

kewltea

i got the 18-200mm. it's great since i don't like to be mobile.

ORDFlyer33

I have a D300 and own a Nikon 18-200, Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, Nikon 10.5mm f/2.8, Sigma 10-20 and 50 f/1.8

My main travel lenses are the Tamron 17-50 and the Nikon 10.5. The 18-200 is ok but really like the f/2.8 and I don't find myself needing the longer range.

Someday I'll invest in a Nikon 70-200..