Nikon Lenses

[Foxman]

Guys, I ruined a older basic 35-80 Nikon lens I had from a N series film camera. When I purchased the D80 a couple of years ago I bought it body only and then added a 70-300 for about $60 bucks.

And that has gotten me by. A couple of really inexpensive basic lenses. Well my 35-80 crapped out on me when I grabbed it from the focus ring by mistake when we were recently in the Mountains and it was really cold. I think I stripped the zooms gear(?).

So, I am looking around and am amazed at prices for some of the lenses. I knew mine was in the cheaper line of Nikon lenses but some of the prices of the lenses I am seeing are blowing me out of the water. I have always heard that you should invest in good glass. Well, what exactly does that get you? Are we talking about crisper pictures with a wider aperature range and a longer lasting lens?

I hooked up on a 15-55 II AF-S DX and a Lensbaby 2.0 off of ebay on the cheap. I am considering a longer higher quality lens for when my son starts playing HS football and am curious if I need to be looking for something specific.

I noticed most of the Nikkor long lenses say 200MM and up have a tripod mount, I guess they are a much heavier lense? Do I have limits on how old a lens I can use on my D80? Also, any thoughts on how long a lens I would want for this.

I had a shot at some estate liquidation stuff and the guy was selling a Nikkor 500MM lense with the case and I almost jumped on it, but it got away from me and I really wasnt sure if it would have worked on my camera.

[magnus]

you want a lens that will AF, I guess. I shoot Minolta glass on Sony so I'm in a similar boat - so, I know that both the Minolta A mount and their autofocus are from 1985 and newer. You'd want to know what Nikon changed to, as well.


What you'd want if you were buying a relatively new lens? The 50/1.8 and 35/1.8 are good on Nikon body. You can get the 50 for $100 (there's a solid copy I found for $66), 35 for $200 (the 35 is new this year, so you can't really do anything used, but the 50 I'd definitely buy used). Of course you know with the crop factor that the 50 is a 75 (portrait) and the 35 is a 52 (standard) equivalent.

For a zoom, there are some solid options - found a 24-120 3.5-5.6 for $100 that looks solid quality.

200mm primes are usually pretty heavy. Also, Nikon doesn't have VR in the body (my Sony does, so 210mm handheld isn't a big deal), so then you're talking about hand-stabilizing a big lens. If you're an old-school shooter, you know what you're doing, though.



One thing that some shooters on a budget do, is look at ebay and craigslist for pre-digital bodies with a lens. Some keep the film body, some don't, but it's often cheaper.

[Foxman]

I have heard that it is a heavy lens but I am thinking this would be a pretty solid solution for a Friday Night Football Lens


I have been following similar lenses on ebay to get a feel for what they are bringing. Thoughts?

Edited to add that I am seeing similar lenses run through ebay for around $300. They are older, but still a very high quality lens.

[magnus]

$300 sounds like a steal for any sort of f/2.8 telezoom. I'd switch to Nikon for that type situation.

[Foxman]

Actually, you are right...300 was a bit optamistic. Here is one I followed recently that ended at $410.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...=STRK:MEWAX:IT

Very similar lens to the one I pictured, but I did ask and it didnt have the tripod mount.

[magnus]

neat.
this might help, too.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/80-200mm-history.htm


The non - D version does actually look like it sells in that $400 range on first look (keh.com prices -5%), but as you add the digital, the IF, the prices go up to past $1000.

[Foxman]

Thats a great link Mag. I have read through it some, but need to spend some more time. Wish I could just go out and buy some of this stuff but you know money just aint free flow like I wish.