This year I am taking my Nikon D80 with me to WDW in November and am looking to buy a new lens for the trip. ; I am currently looking at the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G SIC SW Prime ($450) and the Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S ED VR II ($850). ; I know the 50 prime would be great for dark rides and the size alone would be much lighter but the 18-200 would be very versatile....any suggestion........
I currently have the 50/1.8 AND the 19-200 zoom...my answer is it depends on what you want to do with them. ; I use my 50/1.8 when I want to take lower light photos, but also know that I have to work harder to get any given shot lined up. ; I use my zoom as an all purpose lens; it stays on my camera most of the time. ; Either one would be a great choice!
What you have now is probably most important towards deciding what to get next. If you've got a basic kit lens like 17-55 or something, than I'd probably consider the 18-200 to be the best pickup as it gives you one-lens versatility for all kinds of photography. ; Then, work on finding a cheap low light prime down the road. ; If on the other hand you already have, say, a two lens package that covers the range (eg: 17-80, 70-200), then I'd say to add the low light prime first since that's an area you don't have yet, then work on maybe replacing the two lenses for one when you make your next purchase. For me, I bought my camera and an 18-250 at the same time, because I knew I wanted a one-lens solution as a walkaround and travel lens. ; I later added the primes for low light to fill in the holes.
what about buying the original 18-200 ($600+?-) and the 50 1.8($100+/-). then you can have both? I have the 18-200 and love it!
Hmm. ; The 18-200 may be a slight upgrade for both of those, esp. since you'll be adding VR. But it depends on: ; how often are you using the 55-200? ; If it's rarely, and even then usually at the long end, I'd look at a 70-300VR and the 35/1.8G. ; The 18-135 is an excellent APS-C focal length in it's own right. ; But not having VR could be a sticking point if you are looking for that. For low light, I'd start wider than the 50 on a crop camera, esp. now that the 35 is out. ; It's just under twice the cost of the 50/1.8 but it has a new design (designed for digital) and a built-in motor, and that is still less than half the price for the 50/1.4G. ; You're only looking at about a 2/3 stop difference between the two.
Hmmm...I'd probably lean towards a nice low light prime if I were in your shoes. ; You've got the 18-200 covered, even if a bit less convenient than a 1-lens solution...but you don't have anything for low light. I'm not as familiar with Nikon lens availability, but if you're hunting for a low light prime lens in the F1.4 realm, I'd suggest at least considering finding something a wee bit wider, like a 30mm F1.4. ; I shot with a 50mm for a while, then got the 30mm and found it so much more convenient.
Good choice- that was going to be my recommendation until I scrolled to the bottom and saw you already had it.
