So I currently have a D50, which has suited me just fine getting through school, but it's time to upgrade. I'm for sure getting a D300 and that's about all I know.

I was considering doing a D300 with the 18-200 VR or the 18-135 through Calumet. But I'm not sure if that's the right decision. I currently have the 18-55 that came with the D50 and will be leaving with the D50, a 50mm f/1.8 and a 55-200mm f/4. I'm having a hard time figuring out what to buy. I love my 50mm, so that's a keeper for sure, but beyond that I have no clue. I have just under $1,200 to spend on lenses and accessories and I was hoping that you guys could help me figure out what in the world to buy.

Right now, I'm mainly shooting portraits, but I am going to be second shooting a few weddings this summer. Any suggestions on what I should be looking at?

Thanks!!!

I heard Nikon has a new 16-85mm thats supposed to be pretty awesome for around 600 I think I got quotes on it.. recently.. look into that one.

You're going to want some faster glass for weddings. Your 50 is nice but you'll probably need some more range. It's a bit more expensive but the 70-200 2.8 is a must eventually. Also you'll need a faster wide angle possibly a zoom 17-35 2.8or 17-55 2.8. But if you're ever thinking of upgrading to an FX sensor like the D3, get the non DX lenses as they won't work the same on the D3.

A basic set up would be 17-35 2.8, 70-200 2.8VR, 50 1.8 or 1.4 and for portraits, I love the 85 1.8 but really want the 1.4 (not that there's that much difference but in build quality)

So you've got $1200? Throw down a few hundred more and get the 70-200. You won't regret it.

I'm currently shooting Canon, but intend to make the switch to a Nikon d300 as soon as funding allows. Initially the only lens I will have for it is the 24-70 F2.8. I love this lens on my 30D and the D300 has the same crop factor. New it is a little out of your price range, but you might be able to find a used one within your budget.

Since that one is so new to Nikon, I haven't seen many(any?) on the used forums here/FM/DWF... I was keeping an eye out I settled for a 28-70 2.8 for now.

Anyway, back to the question at hand, I agree that you are going to want fast lenses if you are looking at moving into weddings. I don't buy anything not 2.8 or below now.

To give you an idea of what I have for a beginning lens set with my D300:
*Nikon 50/1.8 Cheap, fast great
*Sigma 20/1.8 Nikon doesn't have any <2.8 wide primes (that are in my price range)
*Nikon 28-70 2.8, as mentioned above. Haven't shot a wedding with it yet-- that's this weekend. It's pretty, though!
*Nikon 105 2.8 Macro (nonVR to save money) chose this to give me some extra reach and double for macro shots... reviews say it is slow to AF, and they are soooo right, it has to really search for it because of the huge possible range that a macro lens has to focus in!
*I have an older crappy 70-300 that I pull out when I have to (and subsequently bump that iso)

I actually didn't even think about the fact that it was so new. Oops... maybe I should check KEH and provide a link next time.

I love the super-wides...if you had a D3, I'd say the new 14-24mm, but I loved my 12-24 for years!!

It's not new in Canon, and you haven't officially switched yet, so who can blame you?

I'd say with what you have the 70-200 VR is the one. Check KEH often. You may have to add some dollars but maybe not.

I bought the 70-200 2.8 and while--yes--it is pricey, I can tell you that you will LOVE the images it produces. Also, when I was looking to add a wide angle to my bag for groups, etc. everyone encouraged me to get the 16-55 mm 2.8, but after spending my big bucks on the 70-200, I decided to give the Tamron 16-55mm 2.8 a try. I love it & I use it WAY more than I thought I would (even for portraits). It only cost around $350, too! The only other lens I work with right now (b/c those seem to cover most of the ranges I want) is a 50mm 1.8 (I'd really like a 1.4) and I am debating a 85mm. HTH!

The problem with those lenses is that while nice they are "slow". As long as you are going to invest, invest in good, fast glass.If you don't have the money to go for the 70-200 f2.8VR I would buy the 80-200 2.8. You can get it for around $800.00. If you cannot get the 17-55 2.8, I used for a while the 18-28mm that while is not fast, it has a good price and can keep you going until you can get the 17-55mm, specially if you get the 50mm f1.8 or 1.4.Three other lenses I would put next in line and that are sweet are the 10.5 fish eye, a macro (there you can go with the new Nikon 105 or the Sigma 70mm) and the new sweet 14-24mm f2.8.Megan, you may want to hold on in buying the 85mm. There are rummors that Nikon is revising the 85mm and will come up with an actualized 85mm soon. I am also waiting for that one.

70-200 2.8 a must.
I got a 50 1.8, 17-55 2.8, 70-200 2.8. and some backup junkies

I'll be getting rid of the 17-55 soon(Augh, DX)
and be picking up a 85 1.8 or 1.4 if funding can be streched.

I have a tokina 12-24 f4 that works great for outside wides. A 17-35 2.8 for inside getting ready. 70-200 2.8 vr. but I got by with the great 80-200 2.8 for a long time.

I'd stay away from dx glass for the most part. You might want to upgrade to the D3 in the future, and it uses non-dx.

I have no idea what an "actualized 85mm" could possibly mean. Am I alone here?

Not at all!

What David said was the best advice - 17-55 or 80-200 instead of the 70-20VR image quality is the same on both , VR is great but slightly overrated when your really on a budget and especially when considering the lower noise of the new Nikons.

A 24-70 2.8 on a DX lens is a waste of money, with the crop factor it is not wide enough for large formals, getting ready shots etc. You will have to change lenses too often, You can work all day with the 17-55.

Thanks guys -- lots for me to think about and figure out how I can scrape together some more money!!

David-

Can you provide any info or links about a new 85mm?
I would much appreciate it

We have no idea either. . .now a "self-realized" lens is one that meditates twice a day but "actualized"?? It would be great if'n it were a 1.2! Anyone have a link to info about it?

Don't get your hopes up for an 85/1.2. I'm pretty sure they've tried to do it but can't with the size of the f-mount opening. That's one of the reasons Canon switched from FD to whatever they call it now (I haven't shot Canon since I used an FTb).

I went to a local store today and picked up a used 80-200 and 17-35. I can't wait to shoot this weekend with them!!

My only concern is the 17-35 squeaks when it's trying to auto-focus. They said at the store if it continues to make noises I have 30 days to return it or they can send it out for repair. So I guess we'll see ...