I bought a 50-250mm canon because I could afford it. At some point it was holding me back, in fact, I never used it again. I lent it to a friend of mine and I will probably never see it again. I invested in one quality fast lens and I love it to date, best investment I ever made (besides my 6D)

I would be interested to know what the OP decided - since he started this thread on 6th January.

BTW I have a degree in computer graphics (specifically animation) and I am trained in studio Photography. I am a developer in my day job, so I know the equipment and software well. I know what U want in a lens, however, I don't have the funds to spend on the equipment that my employers have. I used to have access to a variety of high- end lenses with my past employer, but now I have to rely on my own equipment.

Stock is a side thing I do to supplement my income along with freelance work. Most of my portfolio is CG and I make the most from animations. I want to bump my returns by using my studio photography experience.

Anyway with that said, I am looking for decent quality at a good price. I do enjoy the manual lenses, but I feel I can become speedier if I had AF

I forgot to say thanks guys I do appreciate the advice

Quote from: JPSDK on January 25, 2014, 04:33

BTW. Old DLSRs are not competitive anymore.

Actually I would advice the OP to get a new camera and not a lens.

BS I get great shots from my D50 still. Sure I'd love an upgrade, but not a necessity

I started out in 2007 in stock with a d 50, and it is problematic, because there is not much to crop from with 6,1 mpix.
Also my version was a noise monster. Maybe yours arent, and maybe not in the studio.
I would still recomend the 18-200 because:

CONTRA:
It has vignette
It is very not sharp at 18-22 and 170-200.
It has heavy cromatic abbrevation in some situations
People laugh at you, and you loose street respect among photographers

PRO
It is cheap
It is reasonably sharp in the range from 22-170
It can produce tack sharp pictures
AF is fast, and precise.
It has VR that compensates for ever so much camera shake, but not motion blur.
It can be handheld at 1/60 or even 1/30 at 200 mm and get sharp images.
the close range is good, and it is close to becoming a macro.
It is very versatile, and you can photograph everything with it. Landscapes, portraits, product and wildlife.

� of my stock port is done with that lens and a d 200, of which I have also had 3, since i upgraded to a new d 200 every time I dropped the set on the floor and broke it.

http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-88729p2.html?sort_method=newest&safesearch=1

That is a good summary.
And I remembered that I have a lens for sale cheaply, like you can have it, if you come and get it and bring a couple of beers.

Ninor AF 85 mm, 1,8
Almost mint condition, works perfectly.

Quote from: dingles on January 25, 2014, 12:03

Quote from: JPSDK on January 25, 2014, 04:33

BTW. Old DLSRs are not competitive anymore.

Actually I would advice the OP to get a new camera and not a lens.

BS I get great shots from my D50 still. Sure I'd love an upgrade, but not a necessity

I started out in 2007 in stock with a d 50, and it is problematic, because there is not much to crop from with 6,1 mpix.
Also my version was a noise monster. Maybe yours arent, and maybe not in the studio.
I would still recomend the 18-200 because:

CONTRA:
It has vignette
It is very not sharp at 18-22 and 170-200.
It has heavy cromatic abbrevation in some situations
People laugh at you, and you loose street respect among photographers

PRO
It is cheap
It is reasonably sharp in the range from 22-170
It can produce tack sharp pictures
AF is fast, and precise.
It has VR that compensates for ever so much camera shake, but not motion blur.
It can be handheld at 1/60 or even 1/30 at 200 mm and get sharp images.
the close range is good, and it is close to becoming a macro.
It is very versatile, and you can photograph everything with it. Landscapes, portraits, product and wildlife.

� of my stock port is done with that lens and a d 200, of which I have also had 3, since i upgraded to a new d 200 every time I dropped the set on the floor and broke it.

http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-88729p2.html?sort_method=newest&safesearch=1

I have no issue with noise as long as I keep the ISO in check. Never had much vignette issues (although I often add vignette in post...must be the artist in me). Never had issues with Chromatic Abrasion either...at least nothing noticeable. I personally like a bit of imperfection in my photos, except when doing studio shots. Even though it may be cheap now, it was not a cheap camera in 2007 ...

Dingles,  I see nothing wrong with wanting to stick with your D50 for now as you start out, it's a fine camera.  After 11 years in the photography business, I've just started contributing to Microstock this past year and have been uploading images from my back catalogue from older cameras including a D50 (which I still own) and  an even older D100.    I'm happy to report that images made with these cameras are being accepted and selling.

As for a fast lens, in 2003 I bought a used 50mm F1.8 lens for about $85 and it was a workhorse for me until I sold it 2013 on ebay for $75.  I'd say it's the best 10 bucks I ever spent, but in truth it paid for it self more times than I count.  I recommend it for your D50.

Thanks for the advice man, I guess the good thing about lenses is they really don't loss much value. I think I'm going for a AF-D 50mm 1.8 for now. I'll stick with my manual 70-210mm lens for now. An 85mm 1.8 sounds like fun also. I guss in short there really aren't many off-brands for Nikon lenses and I don't want to mess with adapter mounts for AF.

The only possible downside of buying the 50 mm AF-D version of the f/1.8 is the issue of its compatibility with cameras which you might own in the future. For example - if your D50 ever fails you might want to replace it with, say, a D3100, D3200 or similar lower end Nikon.

The AF-S NIKKOR
50mm f/1.8G will work with all Nikon DSLRs. It might be worth spending the extra money.

Quote from: JPSDK on January 25, 2014, 13:54

the nikon d 50 cost 1000 dollars back in 2005.

I spend around $800 in 2005, but that isn't cheap for me...but it is all relative. I was thinking of upgrading since I only need the body and would love to add HD video to the mix. I saw some Nikons running around 4 and up. One thing I do not like about some of the new nikons is the lack of the digital display on top...looks like they all expect you to use live view in the LCD now...good for focus, but a pain for checking settings.

Im in Europe. But that was with the kitlens 18-55, and despite what people say it was a good lens.

But now, can anybody tell me WHEN exactly fast lenses are important?

The ability to focus in low light conditions can be useful. For me it is. I like to shoot in a low lit studio environment.

Since aperture selection greatly impacts the Depth of Field and therefore the overall appearance of the resulting image, fast lenses also provide the photographer with more creative control than slower lenses - in addition to low light performance.

I'm not saying that everyone needs an arsenal of fast glass, but a 50mm 1.8 is so inexpensive and offers so much in that regard, I would recommend one to anyone.