Help needed on 1st purchase...

[Skinflint13]

Hi Guys, I'm, really pleased to join your forum as I'm sure I'll learn a lot and improve my digital photography.

I've just been given a S2 Pro and I have been told to purchase 3 items

1) Wide angled lens
2) Telephoto Lens
3) Flash Unit

I do not have a large budget, but I want to get good equipment that can cover a wide range of shot taking scenarios..

So I ask you..my learned friends for your recommendations...good kit thats value for money...

Any help you can give will be appreciated.

Regards

Leroy:(

[Steve Wynn]

The choice of the lenses depends a great deal upon what you will be shooting.

The flash....simply get the Nikon SB80DX. Fabulously awesome with the S2 !!!!

[brenz45]

Yes it was a decision for me too,from some good advice on this board I decided on 18/35 1:3.5-4.5 D Nikkor AF and 28/105 1:3.5-4.5 D Nikkor AF.These are reasonable priced approx $900.00 AU each and are really versatile for portrait and outdoor promo shooting.Im happy with my choices,for some sport shooting I will be buying an 28/200 3.5-5.6 D Nikkor AF next once again around the $1000.00 AU.As my business grows and photography skills improve I will be looking for some faster more expensive lenses,I hope this was some help for you,regards Brenton

[brenz45]

And yes the SB-80DX is a mean machine on top!

[quill]

Hi Leroy,

I'd go for:

-50mm f1.8D (works as a 75 mild telephoto)
-24mm f2.8D (your major expense, but still a good buy, gives you 36mm, mild wide)
- used SB28 flash

Then when you really know which you prefer to use, you can buy an expensive zoom either the tele or wide style.

Should cost you about $1100 Canadian and will give you top-of-the-line images.

I say the SB28 because it's cheap if bought used, all the power of the 80dx, and since the S2 does regular TTL, it is as good as any. Heck, that's one of the reasons I bought the S2 over the D100.

Then show us some cool pics!

Q

[S_Leeper]

I agree with Quill for the flash, sort of. With the S2 using regular ttl & a low sync speed no need to buy ttl-d...
The question is will you be using the flash for distance shots, kid's recitals, school plays, etc. or around the house.
Don't rule out non-nikon flashes either...

For lenses, who is defining wide angle? On a regular camera 24mm is wide, but on the S2 it is equivalent of 36mm, which is wide for me (but not for others) & a highly recommended wa lens, $280-300.

For the second lens required I would recommend either the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 $700, or the Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 (the pre AF S model) $800, or $650 used @ B&H. While not the fast focus of the AF S it still focuses very fast & is several hundred less than the AF S, which is less than the VR version just released.

With all of the money you just saved buy a nikkor 50mm 1.8, $100, a beautiful lens & takes good portraits...

[Tom Nolle]

I'll have to sing the praises of some Sigma glass: these are all the EX lenses.

1--24-70 f2.8. Not an HSM fast-focus lens, but real nice at most settings and the macro capability works well too.

2--70-200 f2.8 HSM. Sharp, fast, clean--what can I say!

For the third, it will depend on what you do. I have both a Sigma 500mm f4.5 and a Sigma 180mm f3.5 macro. If you shoot wildlife, a 500 is awesome on an S2--it gives 750mm performance. The 180 macro is a beautiful lens for closeups of animals, insects, or flowers at five or six feet, but it's also a great prime telephoto--equivalent to about 270mm on the S2.

The Sigma glass is less than the Nikon, so you can sleep a little easier at the end of the purchase.

Tom

[Swampy]

I'll agree that the Sigma glass is nice. My first lens (on a budget) was the Sigma 24-70mm and I still keep that on my camera as my general purpose lens. I will also have to say the the Nikkor glass is far superior to the Sigma when you get to the lower ends (24mm-105mm in my experience from my own photos and other peoples so far anyway).

I currently have (in the order of purchase):

(Borrowed and GLADLY Returned) Nikkor 24-120mm ($490.00)
Sigma 24-70mm ($350.00)
(borrowed & Returned) Nikor 80-200mm AF Macro (no VR) ($850.00)
Nikkor 60mm Micro ($389.00)
Nikkor 50-300mm (original manual focus/manual everything) ($??)
Borrowed & sadly Returned) Sigma 50-500mm ($890.00)
Nikkor 70-200 AFS VR ($1999.00)

I picked the Sigma 24-70mm because I was short of cash at the time. I am happy I bought it even now. It's not the fastest focus (or the quietest for that matter), but it does very well and is inexpensive. My only problem with this lens is that it's pretty big for what it is. But, it's not that big of a problem, considering Nikkor doesn't have this range in a solid 2.8 or better.

The 24-120 Nikkor, I really had problems with this one. Soft edges throughout it's range, and seriously blown out shots when used in backlit situations.

I take quite a bit of Macro shots as well, so I chose the Nikkor 60mm Micro while I waited for the VR 70-200mm to come out. I'm pretty happy I did too. I may pick up a 105mm Micro however as the 60mm sometimes doesn't give me the distance I need not to block the light from the subject. I had to transfer 500 paper photos from the 1930's through to today and I used my 60mm micro and a couple of side lights to light up the pictures and did it this way instead of a scanner. Again, I'm very happy with the 60mm Micro. I did all 500 pictures with only needing some minor PS batch processing afterwards in about 6 hours. The Scanner would have taken days I'm sure.

A friend lent me a 50-300mm old school Nikkor that he had (no camera for it) and it has taken some very sharp pictures, considering its age, but this will be out of the question for 99% of the people since it's older than spit and is manual focus, manual aperture and only works in full manual mode on the S2.

The 70-200 Nikkor was an awesome lens. I took quite a few shots with that that some people here will remember (even won a Photo of the Day at digitalphotocontest.com with one of them). I REALLY loved that lens. But I heard about the VR, so I waited.

The Sigma 50-500mm is a surprising lens for its range. Look in the photos section here and see my hawk picture. I got some good shots with this one as well. I returned this lens to its owner just today unfortunately. I really liked this lens as someone once told me that it's better to get closer to your nature subject. They are mostly correct, but if you can't, you can't and this lens makes up for it quite nicely.

Now for the killer lens. I finally picked up the 70-200mm VR lens about 2 weeks ago. I sleep, shower and work with this lens. I've taken some low light shots with this lens of people walking around inside a house at dusk and everything was sharp even at 1/20th shutter speed. If you're looking for a lens in this range, I would highly suggest you save up for it.

I will probably buy the Sigma 50-500mm next, then the Nikkor 105mm Micro and that will probably be it until I can afford the Nikkor 17-35mm 1.4, which I'm definitely in no hurry for at $1500 bucks.

Ok, asleep yet? :) Anyway, I'm extremely happy with the route I took so far with the 3 lenses that I actually own and I cover a wide range with them.

[surfworx]

Greetings,

In Australia the Sigma 50-500 went new, for close to $3000. Now, it's not a prime Nikon lens, so you won't get the same quality as say, the VR 80-200 lens.

For what I shoot, which is primarily sports, the lens is great - on the S2 its a 75-750/4-6.3 lens, so it's more than adequate. It's an average performer in low light, and has a few annoying bugs, but bang for buck and the tele range it covers means I never change lenses - and I could'nt afford to.

I get Lambda prints, and up to around 100x100cm's the images are sweet. Only someone who knows what to look for, and looks very closely, could tell its not a 35mm shot. Who looks at a 100x100cm print from 20cm's away anyways?

It's a borderline choice, but all up not a bad lens to use.

Derrick
www.surfworx.com.au

[snapthepicture]

After purchasing my S2 and Quantum T2 Digital flash with dedicated modual for the S2, I spent $165 dollars for a used Tameron 28/200 F4-5.6. I also am using a Sigma 14mm F1.4? $650. All of these images were shot with the 28/200mm.
Brunohttp://www.snapthepicture.com/composite.jpg

[Steve Wynn]

Bruno, You'll like the 28-200 for the extreme range. I've got the Nikon and have used a relatives' Tamron on several occassions and the only difference that I can tell (up to 8 x 10 ) is that the Tamron focused a little bit closer. The 28-200 is the lens I leave on my S2 when arriving at weddings.