Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

MrsLarry · Mar 19, 2007, 04:37 PM

I have a Nikon D50 'stock model'.

Local guy is selling these lenses:

$80 for the 28-80mm (with the protective filter over it so the glass on the lens itself cannot get scratched)

$100 for the 70-300mm (also with the protective filter).

worth it? do i need them? i'm getting more into my photography, but not sure what these lenses do - HELP!

cenutrio · Mar 19, 2007, 04:41 PM

May be checking ebay would help you with the prices. You need to provide more info regarding lenses to be of any use.

Good luck.

MrsLarry · Mar 19, 2007, 04:44 PM

hmm, maybe i didn't word that correctly...

Is there an advantage to having a 28-80mm or 70-300mm lens over my 'stock' lens?

Mastrap · Mar 19, 2007, 04:49 PM

Well, yes. Added flexibility. It all depend son how you're using your camera. Do you ever miss a wider or longer lens? If so, this might be a good deal for you.

sknapp351 · Mar 19, 2007, 07:59 PM

What are the apertures for the two lenses? Also what is the " stock lens"? If it is the 18-70, I wouldn't bother with the 28-80 unless it has a reasonably faster aperture. I think the 70-300 that I have is an f3.5 to f.56 or along those lines. It is nice, but not the absolute best. Easy on the budget though..
SAm

placebo1969 · Mar 19, 2007, 08:26 PM

I have the D50 and got the 28-80 lens. I just got the 18-200 VR, so I'm in the market to sell my original lens. Which lens do you have? The 18-55? or something close to that?

tie · Mar 19, 2007, 09:32 PM

I think by "stock" you mean "kit" (18-55). The 28-80 would be a huge mistake, I think -- definitely not worth it. If you need slightly more range, look into the 18-70 for ~$200 used. The 70-300 I think you are talking about is not a very good lens, but might be enough for you. Try it and see if it satisfies your requirements. (BTW, if the filter is a cheap one [which it must be], then you are better off without it.)

MrsLarry · Mar 19, 2007, 11:04 PM

ok, i did some more research...sorry so vague before. i'm a photography buff, but a camera n00b (if that's possible

)

turns out the lens i have is a 28-80, so obviously I don't need that one.

i guess the 70-300 is more of a macro lens, which, eh... i think for what i like to shoot, i'd be more in the market for a zoom or a wide angle lens.

thanks for the tips!

Goldfinger · 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by MrsLarry

ok, i did some more research...sorry so vague before. i'm a photography buff, but a camera n00b (if that's possible

)

turns out the lens i have is a 28-80, so obviously I don't need that one.

i guess the 70-300 is more of a macro lens, which, eh... i think for what i like to shoot, i'd be more in the market for a zoom or a wide angle lens.

thanks for the tips!

The 70-300 isn't a macro lens.. It's a tele-zoom. The only reasonable 70-300 Nikkor is the new 70-300 VR version. It has a new optical formula. The non-VRs aren't great. But not horrible either if you're on a budget. You don't have much choice if you're on a budget and want a lens in that range. You could try and find a 70-210 f4. But it's a pretty rare lens (they only made it for one year back in the 80ies), it's based on the 80-200 f2.8. I have one and I like it.
Otherwise it's a 80-200 f2.8, older versions can be found for reasonable prices these days ($400 or so).

edit: just thought of something: The Nikkor 70-210mm f/4-5.6D is another possible choice. I hear it's pretty sharp and it focuses pretty quick (my 70-210 f4 is really slow on a D70, so probably equally slow or slower on a D50). It's a push-pull zoom. I don't have any first hand experience with it.