Confused help please

[Tyson L. Sparks]

I have been posting to this forum for a while and I am not the brightest person in the world and I am having trouble with a lens decision. With all the info out there in forums and on the web, I am confused about what lens to buy. I bought a Nikon 18-200mm VRII for $680. I really enjoy doing portraits and stuff. I want to try and step up my quality a bit and just switched from Olympus to Nikon. Granted I am using a Nikon D50 right now but I am going to step into a D300 soon. I bought a 50mm 1.8 lens for $100 and I want a good tele lens for portraits. I do shoot a wedding from time to time but nothing serious. Did I screw up buying the Nikon 18-200mm VRII, is it worth having or should I have bought the 80-200 2.8 for $800? Also I want to pick up the 85mm 1.8 for $400. Can anyone offer me any advice or suggestions? I want to start doing some glamor work also. Magazine quality stuff is what I am looking for.

[Photo-John]

Usually, technique is more important than gear. In the case of portraits, a good, large aperture telephoto does make a difference. The camera isn't really that important as long as you have something decent, which your D50 is. You're definitely doing the right thing looking at better lenses before a new camera.

Now, about that 18-200mm lens. It's a great all-purpose lens but it wouldn't be one I'd choose if portraits were a high priority. Large aperture is key for portraits because it allows you to use shallow depth-of-field to drop out the backgrounds. You can do that with your 18-200mm if you fill the frame, wide-open at 200mm. But you need a lot of room to do that and f/5.6 still isn't a very large aperture. You'd definitely do better with the 80-200mm f/2.8. If I were looking at for a good all-purpose zoom for portraits, I'd take a hard look at the 24-70mm f/2.8 Nikkor. That is a beautiful lens. Unfortunately, it also costs $1600. An inexpensive alternative that I can vouch for is the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. I bought one years ago and I'm still happily using it.

It's also useful to remember that buying new gear won't make you a better photographer. Understanding how what you have works and learning to get the most out of it is always the best way to proceed. Like I said, better lenses will make a difference for portrait photography. On the other hand, a great photographer will break all the rules with all the wrong gear and still make better photos than you or me

[Franglais]

I have the 18-200. I find it works fine for portraits - and just about anything as long as I use it at f8-f11 (easy in the studio). I have had a few pictures which looked soft at wider apertures, especially at the 200mm setting but I'm still very happy with it.

I have the 80-200 f2.8 AF-S. I use it only when I really need that f2.8 aperture. I used it just once in the studio - big, heavy, limited zoom range - I went straight back to the 18-200 with no regrets.

I have the 50mm f1.8 and the 85mm f1.8. I use them when I really need f1.8. Can't say I've really noticed any difference in image quality compared with the 18-200 in real life. At f1.8 image quality is actually pretty bad but better that than a blurred image

I make it sound like the 18-200 is the perfect lens - well it isn't. I've tested it and it has the lowest performance (sharpness) of all the lenses that I have. But it gets me the shot that I might miss by changing lenses with the others

[Tyson L. Sparks]

I think I am going to try and return the 18-200 I bought, I won't get it until the end of the week. After paying $680 for it I feel like I am going to be disappointed. The 80-200 2.8 is only $790 from Amazon, I should have bought it first. I think between the Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 and the 80-200mm 2.8 I will be ok on lens's for a long time, I just hope I can return the other one I bought. I own a 50mm 1.8 already, I don't think I will need the 85mm. My brother has the 70-200mm 2.8 Tamron, it has a red tint to it but it is cheaper at $690.