I have a decent range of prime lenses that I can use for a 35mm adapter but i was also thinking that it might be nice to have a zoom lens for shoots where I wouldn't want to be changing lenses the whole time.

Does any one have any suggestions for a decent zoom lens (nikon mount) that wouldn't be too expensive (<400)?

How much of a zoom are you talking about? I just recently bought a 135mm Nikkor F2 prime lens and found out that is the most I would ever want to go because with the longer zoom lenses, you would have to sacrifice light speed. And after comparing a 135mm f2.8 vs f2, the faster lense is necessary in low light situations. When you start getting into the 300mm or above the light speed is really sacrificed.

I am not sure if I am getting my terms messed up or you are but from what i understand you are talking about telephoto lenses, while I am just talking about a zoom lens, the ability to zoom in and out with it between differn't focal lengths. Like i have a 18-55mm cannon zoom lens, but it has a cannon mount which isn't want I want for the adapter.

I am not sure if I am getting my terms messed up or you are but from what i understand you are talking about telephoto lenses, while I am just talking about a zoom lens, the ability to zoom in and out with it between differn't focal lengths. Like i have a 18-55mm cannon zoom lens, but it has a cannon mount which isn't want I want for the adapter.

Cary is trying to gauge the longest FL you will need, since the longer generally means more lightloss.

I'm also in the same boat at you. I was wanting to know if other people using zoom lens from 18-100mm instead of buying 3 to 4 prime lens. I know the zoom lens lose a lot more light, even so, would it be worth saving money and just light the set more?

Nikon makes a bunch of F2.8 zooms... 17-35mm, 20-35mm, 28-70mm, 70-200mm, 80-200mm. All very good lenses. But the longer FL lenses are at least a grand.