Zoom Lens for a D50

Hello.

 

I have just recently bought a D50 with the 18-55mm kit lens. I am looking into getting

another lens with a bit longer zoom. I have absolutely no experience with dSLRs or

choosing lenses.

 

I have been looking at the Nikon 70-300mm F4.5-5.6D ED AF and the Nikon 28-200Mm

F3.5-5.6 G If-Ed and wanted to see what other people's opinions were. I am wanting to

spend about ?300 ($500) but could save up more if a more expensive lens (up to ?500 or

$800) would make a considerable difference.

 

Thanks for any help,

Damien

Try looking at http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/13. You also might want to consider the about-to-be released AF-S DX VR 18-200mm F3.5-5.6G IF-ED lens

Hello Damien, you might consider buying a good used 80-200 2.8 AFD which should cost just about what you are looking to invest.

The 28-200 G, ED, IF AF lens is great.

If you don't mind the weight a used 80-200 f2.8 would be my first recommendation. My second choice would be the 70-300 ED or the Tamron 70-300 macro. I've never been a huge fan of super zooms. They are very versatile, an ok choice when you can only cary one lens, but they are not very sharp.

"but they are not very sharp" - I am not sure what lens John is talking about, but certainly not about the latest 28-200 G Nikkor lens. Does John have one?, has he used it?

The lens I have is sharp when wide open at wide and tele extension.

 

The problem is with motion blur in low light, when photographers do not pay attention to actual shutter speed used in automated modes, and do not boost ISO when needed.

 

Clearly this lens needs better photographer to make perfect pictures, but there is nothing wrong with the lens sharpness or contrast. Color rendition, near macro close up, - all good when in hands of good photographer. I also have 70-200 VR lens, and do not see much difference in quality when both exposed properly, as both lenses provide good enlargements up to 13 x 19". The only thing is the 28-200 is slower to focus as it is not a SF-S lens, and no VR, but for the money you have allocated for this - this is your best choice for a brand new lens (unused).

thank you all for your help... much appreciated.

 

i am quite swayed towards the 28-200mm G but i have found a AF-S VR 24-120mm

F3.5-4.5 on ebay for ?300 (new & boxed) which is the same price as the 28-200. Do you

think a that would zoom far enough and be a better option for the price?

You already have a 18-55 DX, right? Are you replacing that lens or are getting an additional lens? Either the 28-200 or 24-120 will have significant overlap with the 18-55. Do you really want so much overlap? If not, the 70-300 ED should be a good choice at a very affordable price.

if i were to get the 28-200mm or the 24-120mm i would use it to replace my current lens.

 

In the reviews which Harvey S gave a link to, people say that the 70-300mm ED is not very

sharp past 150mm and also says that if you tilt the camera so that the lens points down, the

zoom will rotate and change position. This puts me off a little.

Even 24mm is not all that wide on your D50. If you replace the 18-55 DX, which isn't all that great a lens to begin with, with something starting from 24 or 28mm, most likely you'll be missing the wide side.

 

As far as I know the 70-300 ED is a pretty good lens. A frind of mine is among the best Canadian professional wildlife photographer and he uses this lens extensively. I doubt that it would be worse than some 28-200 super zoom.

 

If you have the money, I would upgrade to the D70's kit zoom: the 18-70mm DX and then get another zoom whose entire range is telephoto, e.g. 80-200 or 70-300.

"I doubt that it would be worse than some 28-200 super zoom" - may be is not worse than "some" super zoom lens, but is worse than the Nikkor latest 28-200 G, ED, IF, AF lens that has 3 ED glass elements, and 3 Aspherical, and close focus correction.

 

The kit lens that came with D70 had too much distortion when used as wide angle for architectural shots. I replaced it with 20/2.8 AF and the 28-200 G.

if you are just starting in the dslr, it's best to study, learn and experiment in at least the better of both ends ------ get the kit lens on the D70 and the 70-300mm which is a pretty good lens. i've used it in the trails. these two lenses will complement each other. i'm not a pro but am critical....you will miss the wonders of the wide angle if you start with 28mm or even 24mm.

Ditto to Shun's last comment suggesting the 18-70 and an 80-200 or similar. I have the D70 with 18-70 and had purchased the $300.00 Nikon 70-300 but not pleased with the results. I upgraded to the Sigma $839.00 70-200 and like this lens a lot. Similar threads on the Nikon forum you may want to look at (11-21-05 Is a Sigma....) or (11-14-05 Lens advice....) You could also get the Sigma lens in the non D version for $699.00 and save few bucks.

You probably know this already. 24mm on your D50 will be like 36mm on a 35mm camera and 28mm will be like 42mm. The 1.5 conversion factor

<P>

36mm and 42mm would not give you much on the wide end.

thanks once again to everyone for their suggestions. This is really helpful. I am glad i did

this before splashing out any money.

 

I have been scared to look at other brands of lenses because i know so little about what

works and what doesn't. I will check into the sigma... cheers, Jay.

 

Is there a huge difference between the 18-55mm D50 kit lens and the 18-70mm D70 kit

lens?

the december '05 of popular photography compared the 18-55mm

and 18-70mm. it's very a basic comparison but worth the quick look.

good luck.

Damien,

<P>

I was also worried about going with third party lenses and thought I would just stick with Nikon all the way. I was going to get the Nikon 80-200 but did not care for one of the features. I could not afford the $1,650 Nikon 70-200 so I looked at Sigma and it had some really good reviews.

<P>

I have not used the D50 kit lens you have. Here is a review you may want to look at on that lens.

<P>

<a href="http://www.bythom.com/1855lens.htm">Thom Hogan Review</a>

Just because a lens has Nikon's logo on it doesn't mean it is necessarily good. Nikon has to make a lot of very cheap lenses in order to compete against 3rd-party alternatives. As starters, the 18-55 kit lens sure looks very cheap to me, but I have only played around with one and never actually shot with it.

 

The 18-70 DX is by no means an excellent lens, but IMO it is very good value for the money as it only costs $200 to $300 depending on whether you are getting it as a package or not.