DSLRUsers.com

should i get the d300 with the kit lens or are there better suggestions for lens choice.
i only have a 3k budget btw

Does it have to be a D300?

Why not a D200 (approx. AUD1400 ex HK) and the lens you want?

Why get a lens on it all? Buy the lens you want at the same time as your body but not necessarily in a kit, it is not as if they are $500 cheaper in the kit. What lens do you feel you are lacking ? What will the new lens do which your present wont?

well i just got rid of my d200 and lenses so its start from scratch time.

i just wondered what ppl opinions of the d300 kit lens as opposed to buying a body and then an alternate lens/lenses

AndyL wrote:Why not a D200 (approx. AUD1400 ex HK) and the lens you want?

Because the D300 is a way better camera than the D200.

By an order of magnitude.

With a body like the D300, I reckon you'd soon want a faster lens than the 18-200.

Assuming you are looking at the forum prices, that's about $900 you have for glass. Consider getting a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 or similar wide angle zoom... maybe an 18-50 f2.8 if you want wider?

Then a tele zoom.... Nikon 70-300VR blows the budget slightly.... Sigma 70-200 f2.8 would take you over by ~$500, but you have 2 good fast lenses

Actually - hey - if you want an 18-200VR I'll sell you mine, will get me closer to buying a 70-200 f2.8.


I have the 18-200VR and while it is a handy lens, I think its on its way out the door as it is too slow IMO, especially now I have a Nikkor 28-70 f2.8 which is a lot sharper, faster so better pics in challenging light, and I just love it. It now lives on my D200.

I'd have to agree the 18-200 is slow. But it's a good general kit lens and as such isn't outstanding at anything particular. Trouble is once you get good glass it tends to stay at home more often. I believe the new ones are supposed to also not suffer zoom creep.

Simon, as an answer to what would be worthwhile to stick on the front of your D300 as I now realise you have no lenses, I would think it is worth considering the new Tamron 17-50 2.8. It is now coming out with internal motor in March (buy a 50 1.8 till then) and gets good reviews on the same model sans motor at both photozone.de & bythom.com. It will be relatively cheap and would allow a D300, 50 1.8 and 17-50 under $3k (it will probably be $500-$600). I have been agonising over a 17-55 AFS for a couple of years now, but didn't like the weight (760grams?) or DX issues. The Tammy is 440 grams so great for travelling and the money is such that I can throw it to the back of the cupboard if I buy a FX unit in 2 -3 years time. Sounds like I have talked myself into it if not you



Lens:

http://www.tamron.co.jp/en/news/release ... a16n2.html

Reviews:

http://www.bythom.com/1750lens.htm

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Nikkor% ... rt--review

obzelite wrote:should i get the d300 with the kit lens or are there better suggestions for lens choice.
i only have a 3k budget btw

Simon

Drop me a PM and perhaps over a coffee (or beer) you can have a play with my D300 with the 18-200mm on it. I agree that the D300 is going to benefit lots and lots from better faster glass, but if your budget can't be stretched that far then the 18-200 is a reasonable all round lens.

Until such time as you get a powerball, buying a 50mm F1.8 will turn your D300 into a damn fine system for use at night in low light.

Cheers
Bob in Bull Creek

Glen wrote:Sounds like I have talked myself into it if not you

and me .. I have the 18-200vr, but it is more for my wife to use the d300 as a point and shoot. Auto iso, "P" mode equals p&S..


But dont discount the old 17-80 kit lens , even a secondhand one for d300 until you decide.

I would like the big 3, 2.8's but dont have the cash...

One thing i find with the d300, with the higher iso range the slower lenses are now more usefull.

matt

well i got rid of my d70 kits lens with the d200. was just seeing if the d300 kit lens was in the same category as the d70's