Looking to possibly get a new lens(Nikon D5000)

[Mac K]

I've had my Nikon D5000(love it) and Nikor 18-55mm Lens and Nikor 55-200mm lens for just under two years now and I'm thinking of picking up another one, I mainly do car photography(Check out my Flickr linked in my signature below for examples) so "panning" shots at race tracks or just normal shots at car shows and events, as well the occasional organized photoshoot of a specific car.What kind of lens would you guys reccomend I pick up next? I don't plan on selling my other two, so thats out of the question. Suggest away

 

[TB]

I'll start off by saying that as a Canon guy, I know next to nothing about Nikon's lens abbreviations (G ED VR AF-S DX?!? ).

That out of the way, in looking at your panning shots you regularly run the full range of your 55-200 so I think a prime is out of the question so then it comes down to, as I see it, one of two options. Do you need more length? If so, maybe pick up a 55-300. If not, is there better quality glass you can purchase in the same 55-200 range that would get you faster/sharper images?

 

[RSwagoneer]

Hi There,

If you're not want to sell the other lenses, so you keep the 18-200 mm focal range, I think I would suggest to look for a prime tele lens. Like the AF-S 300 f4. This would give you more range over your current lenses, which in some cases would be handy. And with a TC like the 1.4 or even the 1.7 you could extend the range.
Would look for a secondhand, because new it's still pricey, but it's a quality lens for sure, but it doesn't has the VR.

Otherwise I would suggest to look at the new AF-S 28-300 f3.5-5.6 VR lens.
Would be in the price range of the AF-S 300 f4, but would give you more flexability in focal range.

Grtz

Bryan

 

[Public'sTwin]

Just get the 70-200mm f2.8 AF-S VR II. It's about $1800, but lenses last forever, virtually appreciate in value, and on a DX frame it's the same zoom length as a 140-300mm zoom length on film. Also, it's tough as nails. That's for your track days.

Next, get a 10-24mm AF; it's extremely wide—you'll love how surprisingly flexible it is (I don't go anywhere without it unless I know I'm doing purely portrait- or tele-shots). It's so wide, you can shoot it hand-held at night without getting distractingly-blurry shots.

 

[35mm]

^ You have to consider that the 70-200 f/2.8 is more expensive than all the equipment the has put together... Even if it holds its value very well through years, it is still a too big invesment.

I see two options here:

- If you want simply more reach, yes, trade the 55-200mm for a 55-300mm;

- If want something different, I'd suggest wide angle as well (10mm). Or something with a big aperture, like a 35mm 1.8 or 50mm 1.8 for the organized photoshoots.

 

[Mac K]

Well I've decided that I'm probably going to stick with what I have for now, thanks for all your input and suggestions though guys, its greatly appreciated.