I currently shoot occasional portraits, car photography, sometimes landscape and sports. Currently I have a Nikon d90 and Nikon d5000, SB-600, 18-55mm f 3.5-5.6 VR, 55-200mm f 4-5.6 VR, 50mm f 1.8, and a Nikon 35-70mm f2.8.
i wanted to get maybe a Tamron 70-200mm f 2.8, or a Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 (a push-pull or two ring older model) or even cheaper a Nikon 70-210mm f4 . (money is tight right now)
I want to get a Nikon 28mm f 2.8 prime but not sure if I should get that one or another
I want to get a shorter telephoto something like the Tokina 11-16 f 2.8 or a Sigma 17-50mm f 2.8 or a Tamron 17-50mm f 2.8, unless there is a cheaper alternative older Nikon lens within this range.
The only thing on your list of subject matter that really requires a f/2.8 lens is sports, IMHO. And the wide angle f/2.8's you list as possible alternatives don't make sense for sports shooting.
I need to lose 50 pounds and stop going bald.
I like your odds better than mine, but only slightly.
Of the ones you mention, I've shot the following on DX:
Nikon 80-200mm 2.8: I got pretty good results. I didn't need VR, and it served me well. I ended up getting rid of it to go mostly-primes.
Nikon 28mm 2.8: I got results I wasn't happy with. Ordinarily I chalk this up to my crap technique, but I go pretty well with the 20mm 2.8, which I like, and it jumped to FX with me.
If you're fairly happy with your 35-70 and wanted to hold it, something you might consider is the Tokina 16-28. I don't own that one but I rather wish I did sometimes. I tested it on FX, it's very good, and on DX it's going to be great too (and can always be complimented by the 11-16 you mention).
The 80-200 f2.8 AFd is also a great lens.
So if you are able to track the information on how to tear down a lens and are brave enough you can get some really really good glass for next to nothing provided you can sort out whatever is wrong with it. I have been kicking around flipping some of this nice older pro glass but have been to busy taking pics with what I have. So that is my 2 cents on the concept of "cheap" pro lenses.
khphoto; You're making a couple of basic mistakes here; you're seeking help from others with more experience, but you still haven't determined (in your own mind), exactly what you A. want, or B. need
until you do that, it's impossible for anyone to really help you. I will never "tell" someone WHAT they need, but I will help anyone try to find what they are looking for, after THEY have determined what it is they want / need.
I can also give good advice about what I have experience with;
The Nikkor 80-200 mm /f 2.8 AF ED My advice is; forget the Tamron; go with the Nikkor Now; that lens was built in two "flavors" with a focus motor, and without a motor; obviously, the model without the motor is less; (a lot less in fact) Your D 90 has a built in motor, so you need not get the one with a motor. the lens is a TANK ! it's quite heavy, it built like a Hummer, it focuses fast, and it's quite sharp; it was built before Nikon even thought about offering VR; ( so if you need to take a lot of dimly lit photos at 1/10 sec, plan on a HEAVY DUTY tripod. I think it's great that Mac (up above) has the skill and ability to repair lenses; I still do my own brakes and oil changes, but I have yet to tear a lens down; (fortunately, I haven't needed to YET) (Can't rule it out though, but I would advise against it to most people ); (not all, just "most")
If you are really determined to own this lens, and you go about it right, you should be able to score one on eBay for no more than $450. I know, it's a lot of money; it's also a lot of lens. I suggest buying one in pristine condition; (which usually takes a bit longer) ( the "door stop" models you can find immediately)
If you really apply yourself and spend some time at it, you may even get as "lucky" as i did when I bought my 80-200; the seller left a fabulous 77mm Heliopan brass circular polarizer on the front end; I even emailed him and tried to return the polarizer, but he insisted I keep it. (and people would stone me if I mentioned what I gave for it)
BTW; I'm fully aware off the fact that Nikon has long since come out with the 70-200/ 2.8, then the VR model of that, and so on and so on. I'm also aware that a careful, knowledgeable "worker" can produce photos with the "ancient" 80-200 /f 2.8 that no one on this forum can distinguish from one made with the newest model 70-200; ( and have far less invested in the necessary hardware ) (hey, I'm lucky......when I started taking pictures, lenses had no automatic apertures, auto-focus was only discussed in sic-fi books, and even "match-needle" exposure was still "on the horizon" ; as a matter of fact, 35mm SLRs hadn't "come out" yet ! Be very glad you decided to "go with Nikon"; there are thousands of old Canon shooters still harboring a closet full of EXCELLENT Canon FD lenses; (which make groovy paperweights, because that's all they're good for since Canon came out with EOS lenses ); ( while Nikonians are still taking great pics with glass that was 20 yrs old when Canon switched over to digital and EOS. ( I love to spring that story on a room full of unsuspecting Canonites !)
Nikon's best ever portrait lens, the beautiful 105 f2.5 can be had for under £100
or a 200mm f4 for £166
the excellent 28mm f 2.8 is going to be over £200
for cheap professional lens I would forget zooms
I kind of want one...
I fell in love with MF lenses after using the 50mm 1.2 on the D7000.
Don't we all want cheap pro lenses? Your best bet would be to find well used examples.
The "I want it all and I want it for free" syndrom ?
Are you cheap or are you pro is the right question !
Sorry but if you want pro gear, become a pro, work and try to make a living. If you just want cheap gear, you don't need no advice.
Nothing personnal. Just angry.
Sometimes the actual content is more important than the quality. Not every image is composed, focused, and exposed perfectly. In our purchase of equipment, and in our development of our photographic skills, we pass through many phases. At times we think we can find the very best equipment and not spend a lot of money. Occasionally this might be true in the used equipment. But, most often we have to spend the money to get the goods.
And, even the very best photographers will publish photos which are not perfect, but the content supports the publication of the image.
taken with that 35-70 :-)
Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.
Love 'em both!!!!
Nikon D800 FX & Nikon Coolpix A DX
Nikon AF-S 28-70 f2.8D & Nikon AF 80-200 f2.8D
Nikon AF 20-35 f2.8D & Nikon AF 50mm f1.4D
Nikon SB-800 & Nikon SB-300
Pro lenses are so damn good, and they're very likely to easily outlast the camera body. And quality optics really are not that cheap. Polishing, preparation, design of the elements .... and some people wonder why compacts don't tend to give SLR type results.
And you don't have to buy from Canon/Nikon/etc., you can easily buy from Tamron or Sigma:
So far I've resisted the expensive lenses, just making do with a 50mm F1.8 (which is gorgeous) and a 28-300 Tamrom that I picked up on holiday (when my 18-70 died).
The old mantra 'camera bodies come and go but lenses stay with you for life': https://getawaychief.com/lenses-for-sports-photography-nikon/
This unless you shoot Canon, where it seems every new body requires a different mount!
Sigma does an awesome 10-20mm wide angle for not very much cash:
I also have this one.
I been caught out again a 2013 post Arrrgh