The "Magic Three"

[Fortytwo]

I am starting from scratch. ....if you could have only 3 lens which would you choose?

1. Tamron 17-50mm f2.8
2. Tokina 50-135mm f2.8
3. Tokina 12-24mm f4

These are all very sharp and fast lenses for a very reasonal price. They are just as good as their Canon/Nikon counterparts, for half the price at least.

[Bambi]

1. Tamron 17-50mm f2.8
2. Tokina 50-135mm f2.8
3. Tokina 12-24mm f4

These are all very sharp and fast lenses for a very reasonal price. They are just as good as their Canon/Nikon counterparts, for half the price at least.

Newbie Question:
so, I don't have to buy lenses from Nikon even though I have a nikon? there are others that will fit?

[Fortytwo]

Nope. Certain manufacturers make lenses for different brands. Especially Tamron and Sigma make lenses for almost every DSLR brand. So when buying one, you have to make sure it's the one that fits your brand. Which mount is has, is stated on the box etc.

Tamron and Sigma are the biggest ones. Both make lenses for Canon/Nikon/Sony/Pentax/Olympus. Usually, a similar lens from them is cheaper as an original Nikon. Sometimes the quality is less and you're better off buying an original Nikon, but sometimes they perform similar of even better. It depents. The ones I recommended to you are well known to be excellent performers for a very good price. So buying a Tamron or Sigma requires some research whether the lens you're buying is a good performer, but it repays itself in cheaper gear.
Tokina makes lenses for Nikon and Canon only. Well, it actually doesn't make them theirselfs. Tokina lenses are actually Pentax lenses in disguise. The Tokina 50-135mm f2.8 is in reallity a Pentax DA* 50-135mm f2.8. This helps in finding reviews about them. Except they are cheaper then their Pentax cousins.

Basically, when looking for a particular lens, you've got these options:
1. The original Nikon lens
2. A Sigma/Tamron/Tokina counterpart with a Nikon mount
Which one is best, depents on the lens. The internets helps to make your decision. A lot of people however are firm believers that anything 'original' is better. Test results show different. I've got myself a Sigma 50mm f1.4 because it clearly outperforms the original Pentax one.

And if you're not sure, ask here at the forums. There are tons of people like me who like to geek around lens specs for you and give you advice. At least I will...

[F8&Bthere]

This is actually a very good angle coming from Fortytwo, don't know why I failed to mention it. Buying non OEM lenses can give you the best of both worlds if you make your choices wisely. Sigma, Tokina and Tamron all have some gems. You will still probably spend quite a bit more than on the kit lenses and name brand 50/1.8 I mentioned earlier, but if you have funds available yes of course it is better to invest more into the glass. My point was made under the assumption that this was a "baby steps" move into DSLR from a point & shoot and for around $500ish to get two decent lenses to cover from 18 - 200, with VR on the longer one, plus one fast prime deal like a 50/1.8 is hard to beat just to get you up and running.

[kat]

I noticed everyone talking about the lens not the base.. the lenses is what takes you on.

BUT..get the wrong base and you'll be hitting your head on the ground. Make sure you get what you need from your base as much as you need from your lenses. In other words..don't get the Nikon D40x..lol. You'll regret it.

I would love to get that range of lens that Marko and F8 has listed. That would cover all my wants..and most likely most peoples wants.

Good luck!

[zenon5940]

Originally Posted by Fortytwo
1. Tamron 17-50mm f2.8
2. Tokina 50-135mm f2.8
3. Tokina 12-24mm f4

Thanks 42 for the reseach you've made to come up with the three lenses you mention.
Any reason why you went to Tamron (instead of Tokina) for the 17-50 mm ?. My first SLR was a Pentax SP II and the sharpness of its 50mm lens was so impressing that I would without any hesitation buy a Tokina lens ... and I will buy very shortly the 12-24 F:4 you listed.
Thanks again for mentioning it.

[Marko]

Keep in mind everyone's needs are different.

My 3 lens choices (14-24, 24-70 and 70-200) are based on my needs which is a little bit of everything . Your needs may well vary and this is NOT the perfect solution for everyone.

Many people forgo the 24-70 favour in favour of a 50mm prime; but having shot weddings for years, that lens is a must have.

[F8&Bthere]

My 3 lens choices (14-24, 24-70 and 70-200) are based on my needs which is a little bit of everything . Your needs may well vary and this is NOT the perfect solution for everyone.

Yeah that's a real nice trio of lenses as long as you don't mind schlepping them around. It's hard to leave it at only three though, as I wouldn't mind adding the 85/1.4 "cream machine" for portraits and such. And of course if birds or wildlife is your thang you might want one of the longer lenses as well. All I've been able to justify cost wise so far is the Nikkor 300/4 (older version with slower AF). But I don't do a lot of bird/wildlife type shooting. I'm currently saving up for the 14-24. Maybe next summer.

[Marko]

Just so it's clear....those lens choices are based on a 'choose only 3' scenario. There's puhhhlently of other desirable lenses. I also own a 24mm 2.8 prime that is superb!