i'd like to recommend the nikon 50 f/1.8. real cheap, real sharp.
if you just gotta have a zoom, have you looked at sigma? they
have a 70-200 f/2.8, which is not cheap, but less expensive than
the nikon. they also have a lower priced 70-300 f/4-5.6. please
note that i cannot attest to the quality of the sigmas, as i do
not own either, but i do own a 30 f/1.4 and a 105 f/2.8, and i
am happy with both.

Do you have to pay dowry?

The size of the print is not determined by lens quality. The size of
print comes into question when you are buying a digital camera. Higher
resultion cameras (read sensors) allow you to magnify a digital shot
into a larger frame without losing out on details.

Lens quality does matter when you take 4x6 prints. A fast lens will
allow you to take a low-light shot. No matter how large you develop it
to, if its not taken from a fast lens -you will surely lose out on some
details.
 The best way to save on lens cost is NOT to buy zoom lenses. Buy
primes i.e. ones with fixed focal lengths. Some good nikkors are:-
35mm f/2 approx $300
50 mm f/1.8 approx $100
50 mm f/1.4 approx $300
85 mm f/1.8 approx $400

Actually, before you buy a lens -you need to decide what kind of shots
will you be usually taking?  A landscape shot requires wide-angle
lenses, a portrait shot can be better done with a 50-85 mm prime, a
shot of birds would require something telescopic. A night shot would
require fast lenses i.e with one with lower <no> in f/<no>.

regards
-kamal

Nikon doesn't have a monopoly on great glass by any means, but
the better 3rd party offerings are not inexpensive either.

If the £600 Nikkor you're looking at is an 80-200mm f/2.8D, it's
well worth the money.  But a lot of what you are paying for is
the extra speed.  But if you're willing to buy used gear here
are a few alternatives.

1.  A used "one-ring" 80-200mm f/2.8.  This is the model I own.
Instead of having separate rings for zoom and focus, you push
or pull on the large focus ring to zoom.  The big disadvantage
of this model is the lack of a tripod mount.  But you get either
the same or virtually the same optics for half or less of the
price of a new copy.

2.  A 70-210mm f/4.  This is another "one-ring" design and a
full stop slower than #1.  It's an older design that lacks ED
glass and autofocus speed is on the slow side.  But it's
solidly built, easier to handhold, and will deliver fine
results.  For a copy in excellent condition, expect to pay
around £100~£150.

3.  A 70-200mm f/4~5.6.  This replaced #2 in the Nikon lineup.
There have been a couple of laudatory internet reviews of
this thing, so it's currently selling for inflated prices in
the used market.  I've never used this one.

3.  A 75-300mm f/4.5~5.6.  In the U.S., you can still find
these new occasionally.  This lens has more reach than #1
or #2, but is slower still.  It is sturdily build and has
an acceptable tripod mount.  If I didn't already have an
80-200mm, I would have seriously considered this lens.

4.  A 70-300mm f/4~5.6.  There are two flavors of this lens.
I have the more expensive ED version, which includes one
small element of extra-low disperson glass and has an aperture
ring.  Its light weight and relatively small size makes it
my choice when I don't want to lug around an 80-200mm f/2.8.
The less expensive G version which probably doesn't have the
ED glass and lacks an aperture ring.  With an N60, you set
aperture via the camera body.

These lenses compete directly with lenses from Tamron, Sigma,
Quantaray and the like.  One of Tamron's older offerings is
so similar that there's been extensive speculation that one's
a rebadged version of the other -- Nikon has formally denied
that this is the case.

Both lenses have a reputation for being soft at the long end
which I find exaggerated.  Because of the small maximum
aperture, lack of a tripod mount, and long focal length people
often handhold the lens.  This frequently presents the user
with an awkward dilemma -- do I shoot wide open where the
70-300mm is at its worst, or do I risk camera shake by choosing
too slow a shutter speed for handheld shooting?

I would expect the same behavior of the third-party alternatives
in this class.

The good news (for you) is that Nikon's announced a new
70-300mm with VR, so in a couple of months there may well be
a glut of these in the used market.

5.  A Tokina 80-200mm f/2.8.  I used the manual focus version
of this lens for almost 20 years.  The Nikon version is fractionally
better, but the Tokina is very well built as well and no slouch
optically.  Like most other 3rd party lenses, it doesn't hold its
value well on resale so if you're lucky, you may be able to find
one of these for about £200.

I haven't been able to find a direct and concise answer to this
anywhere, so I thought I'd ask here. I just acquired a Nikon N60 as my
first SLR. I got it pretty cheaply to learn on as I save up for a new
Nikon digital. I'd like to get some more lenses for it, but I don't
know what to do. I'd like something like an 80-200 first. I can't
afford the £600 Nikkor lens, and off brands like Quantaray are loads
cheaper.

Now I know full and well that a cheap lens is not anywhere near the
quality of a Nikkor. But I'm a grad student saving up for a wedding and
I don't have the money to spend. For the next several years, I can't
imagine needing any prints bigger than a rare 8x10 and mostly needing
4x6. With a 4x6 print taken with an off brand lens will I notice a huge
difference than I would with a Nikkor? I just want to know if someone
who is not a professional is looking at some photos of mine, will the
photos look bad, or does lens quality not mean as much when you're just
talking about small prints.

Thanks in advance,

Isaac

For general photography and printing at those sizes, yes, most lenses will
give you good results.
In most cases it is down to your photography skills that will make or break
an image, even the
best lens can give bad results in the hands of a poor photographer! (camera
shake etc.)
Having said that, do try to avoid the really cheap makes, and buy the best
you can afford, and not the cheapest
you can find! especially if you intend to use the lens on your new digital
body later. look here for lens compatibility - http://xrl.us/tiw4
The main difference in image quality would be that the cheaper lenses would
more than likely produce softer pictures than a more expensive one, which
would be crisper, and have better contrast, but, some people prefer the
softer look!!
Just use some common sense when buying, and you should be happy with
whatever you buy!
Good luck
Mick

<comtedelafere@mac.com> wrote in message

What lenses do you have already?

That would be my last choice.  I find it a pretty useless
lens.  It is heavy, awkward, bulky, slow focusing, small
apertured and puts you too far from the subject.  If,
though, you take pictures in zoos or at spectator sports YMMV.

For good reason.  Stay away from them and wait for a
decent lens to show up on the used market.

At a guess in a year or so you will be taking lots of
photos of a fast moving object at ground level.

For this I recommend getting a 50mm f1.8 AF Nikkor: there
are few better lenses when it comes to picture quality; they
focus close; they focus quickly [something common AF
Nikkor's aren't known for]; they take pictures indoors and
in low light without a flash.

The lens goes for ~$70 in the states.

Why not buy a second hand Nikkor 80-200 f/4.5 zoom lens off ebay.  They
sell for a few 10s of pounds.  

Robert

I don't know if the N60 is compatible with AI/AIS series Nikkor lenses.
If so, the old Nikkor 80-200 f/4.5 and f/4.0 are "near prime quality"
and can be found very cheaply (the f/4.5 version being the only zoom I
own among my many lenses).

Cheaper zooms will give you much more distortion, flare, vignetting &
other nasties. Whether those are immediately noticeable depends on the
beholder...

I haven't been able to find a direct and concise answer to this
anywhere, so I thought I'd ask here. I just acquired a Nikon N60 as my
first SLR. I got it pretty cheaply to learn on as I save up for a new
Nikon digital. I'd like to get some more lenses for it, but I don't
know what to do. I'd like something like an 80-200 first. I can't
afford the £600 Nikkor lens, and off brands like Quantaray are loads
cheaper.

Now I know full and well that a cheap lens is not anywhere near the
quality of a Nikkor. But I'm a grad student saving up for a wedding and
I don't have the money to spend. For the next several years, I can't
imagine needing any prints bigger than a rare 8x10 and mostly needing
4x6. With a 4x6 print taken with an off brand lens will I notice a huge
difference than I would with a Nikkor? I just want to know if someone
who is not a professional is looking at some photos of mine, will the
photos look bad, or does lens quality not mean as much when you're just
talking about small prints.

Thanks in advance,

Isaac
**************************************************

There is a lot of lens snobbery out there.  Some third party lenses are of
very good optical and build quality (Kiron; older Vivitar Series 1;
Tamron-SP grade) and will produce great results.  They have tested well
against Nikons in published reports. You can pick them up used for a song.
Conversely, Nikon, made some (but not many) dogs, esp. early zooms.