D300 Lens Advice

[yrsonicdeath]

Here's what I'm thinking. My experience with a 18-55mm on my previous camera often had me needing lower than 18. For that same camera I also have a telephoto that is 70-300mm which I hardly used in the upper range at all. This is why, at this point I'm leaning towards the Tokina/18-200 VR combo. After that I'll probably start getting some FX primes and see what happens after that.

Edit: The Tokina is also 2.8.

 

[compuwar]

Since the FX and DX sensors in your scenario would have pretty much the same size photosites, I'd expect the noise levels for the 12MP DX sensor and 24MP FX sensor to be the same (as long as we're talking about same-generation sensors).

I'd think you'd have more heat bourne effects with the larger sensor, especially for longer exposures or high frame rates.

 

[cr2sh]

I recently made the decision to start buying pro glass... I'd purchased a 70-300 G lens two years ago and was never happy with it. I never really used those focal lengths because I always needed a lot of light and a slow subject to get the shot. I'd rather buy pro glass now and have it, then buy something cheap (DX) that isn't going to fill the FX sesnor in my future camera. I believe in the saying that a fool pays twice.

Long story short... I bought a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR last week and it's amazing... I've never been able to take shots like this. Fast focus, sharp images in low light and (I hope) a lens I will not have to replace for years and years to come.

I can see where a 14-24mm would come in handy.. but on my current D200, 14mm isn't really that wide. I'm going to keep my current 12-24mm ultra-wide and wait to buy an FX lens when I have an FX sensor.

 

[Westside guy]

I recently made the decision to start buying pro glass... I'd purchased a 70-300 G lens two years ago and was never happy with it.

Pro glass will certainly be better; but there are different levels of consumer glass too. The lens you mention was pretty widely regarded as, um, shall we say sub-par. The ED version was much better (and cost a few hundred dollars more).

The tradeoffs with pro glass are size and weight. A lot of times you can get very good pictures with the mid-tier consumer lenses, as long as you understand their shortcomings. The big one is usually making sure you're shooting at a stop or (preferably) two above the minimum aperture. With pro glass, though, you can shoot at f/2.8 or f/4 and still achieve great results most of the time.

 

[cr2sh]

A lot of times you can get very good pictures with the mid-tier consumer lenses, as long as you understand their shortcomings.

Absolutely. Buying a lens with a lot of shortcomings was a dumb move for me... but it wasn't one I was willing to make twice. A 70-300mm VR would produce good images I'm sure, but the first time I tried to shoot something that moves in low light I'd cuss myself for not having bought the better lens. That's my advice for the OP, know what you want to do and then buy the absolute best you can afford... because if you buy the lens knowing that it's not capable, you'll just be buying another one down the road.