Which of the many Nikon lenses.

[joe_orange]

Thinking of buying the D200, but a bit confused as to the different types of lenses

such as G, D, DX, ED, AFS and sales assistants tend to contradict each other.

 

Eg I've been told to stay away from the "budget" G lenses, yet there's one priced at

ﾣ1199 - hardly "budget".

 

I would be quite happy to go for the DXs as long as the quality is there, but

should Nikon go full frame, they would apparently not be compatible - so not exactly

a long term investment.

 

Anybody else been there, any ideas, opinions apprecaited.

 

TIA

[Michael R Freeman]

All DX lenses are also G, so you can hardly avoid them. The 'budget' G lenses are those such as the 28~80G, 28~100G and 70~300G plastic mount consumer lenses. :-)

 

For a starter kit, you really can't go wrong with the 18~70DX (the kit lens for the D70). By all reports it gives excellent results and represents very good value (optically and economically) for the price.

 

As for any future incompatibility of DX lenses with a Nikon full frame digital body, it's not here yet, and when it does get here you be sure it will be SEVERAL thousand dollars. Don't worry about it. There will be MILLIONS of DX bodies in circulation that will work with your DX lenses, so you can easily sell them if you go 'full frame'. Lenses (and cameras) are tools, but for the most part very poor investments. I seem to remember the very first digital SLR's (Kodak on Nikon F5 bodies?) were over $10,000 new just a few years back - today they are practically worthless (cash value). Not exactly an 'investment'.

[klix]

This will give you a good start on Nikon lenses.

 

http://nikonlinks.com/equipment_lenses_general.htm

 

The Nikon 18-70mm is a good value and probably a good start. When you're ready to go beyond that, I would suggest: Best/Value

 

WIDE - Nikon 12-24mm / Sigma 10-20mm

 

NORMAL - Nikon 17-55mm / Nikon 18-70mm

 

TELEPHOTO - Nikon 70-200mm / ?

 

MACRO - Nikon 200mm / Nikon 60mm or Tamron 90mm

 

 

KL

[frank_skomial]

"stay away from the "budget" G lenses"

 

G indication has nothing to do with the price of a lens or quality of the optics. It is mere indication that the lens has no aperture ring.

[fk319]

G does not refer to budget, but no apature ring

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00ENOB

 

Many young sales people confuse D & G as lens quality, but it is mechnical definition. It is a nice question to get a feel for the intellengents, I mean experience, of whom you are talking to.

 

DX, is about 2/3 full frame, actually I have some DX lenses that work on my 35 mm film camera just fine, just not zoomed all the way out. One more note on DX lenses, they are designed to work with a digital sensor. Many older lenses have the last lens as flat. This plays havoc with a flat sensor that has a mirror finish, aka ghosting.

 

ED is glass quality, my first two lenses where not ED, but every one since then has been, or DG from sigma. I have replace my first two lenses, because my wife let me go into the camera shop all alone a couple of times.

 

another link: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikortek.htm

[ShunCheung]

Check out this link on Thom Hogan's web site: http://www.bythom.com/lensacronyms.htm

[bourboncowboy]

The 18-70 DX is a great little lens. I use it with my D70 and get remarkable results.

[frank.schifano]

"Many young sales people confuse D & G as lens quality, but it is mechnical definition."

 

That's true, lenses with the "G" designation have no aperture ring. One would need to set the aperture using contols on the camera body. You cannot effectively use this lens on a body without this control even though the mount will match up. However it is easy to see how the confusion got started. The first "G" lens was indeed a budget lens and got a lot of bad-mouthing when it first came out. I've never used one, so I'm in no position to say if it was good or not.

[joe_orange]

Many thanks for your helpful reponses and the useful links.

 

What would be the "pro" or high performance equivalent of the 18-70 and is the

difference truly worth the extra cost seeing as the DX 18-70 is also IF and ED.

 

Are there any online sample shots that indicate the obvious differences between

lenses.

 

What prefix would I have to look for when looking at "pro-type" lenses and would

these happilly work on all Nikons including a full frame should/when they come up

with one.

 

I have to say, having seen and held a G lens, I can see why they're regarded as

budget lenses but there again the aforementioned 18-70 is also is a G.

 

I come from a medium format background where the only real consideration is the

focal distance so this is turning out to be quite a learning curve before I've even

bought the body!

 

If only a digital back was within budget.

 

Thanks again.

[jamison_moon]

If you are getting a D200, then get the 18-200mm VR lens.

THEY ARE BOTH NEW, AND BOTH KICKING SERIOUS ASS.

This is what you need if you are not going to spend more than $1000.

This one lens does it all.

Don't waste your time spending money on lens that are too cheap.

MOST IMPORTANT THING IN PHOTOGRAPHY AMONG MANY THINGS IS LENS.

DON'T BE SO CHEAP ON LENSES. YOU DON'T SPEND MONEY ON LENSES, THEN WHERE DO YOU SPEND MONEY ON FOR BETTER QUALITY PHOTO???

THOSE TWO ARE WHAT YOU NEED.

GO GET'EM TIGER!

[lilly_w]

<high performance equivalent of the 18-70> 17-55mm f2.8 G AFS DX

 

<is the difference truly worth the extra cost> You'll have to be the judge.

 

<and would these happilly work on all Nikons including a full frame should/when they come up with one.> The zooms won't cover a full frame throughout their entire range (e.g. the 12-24/4 DX will provide coverage from about 18-24mm).

 

<I have to say, having seen and held a G lens, I can see why they're regarded as budget lenses>. There are budget G lenses (70-300mm) and then are those that require two budgets (200/2, 300/2.8, 200-400/4, etc.)

 

<18-200mm VR lens...KICKING SERIOUS ASS> From an 11x zoom? Hmmmmm...I'd like to see a 10-400mm/2.8...all this talk of Vibration Reduction for camera shake is fine and dandy but how about subject stabilization to minimize subject and background blur at slow speeds? Can that be so difficult?

[bernard_frank]

They started the G series indeed as a budget series. As as already been pointed out, they

have no aperture ring, so they saved on that, first. But they could only be used on bodies

wich offered thumb-wheels to control things like aperture and/or shutter speed. I think

bodies like the F90, F100, F80, F5...

 

Now, since the thumb-wheel thing is found on all D-SLRs, they continue to develop lenses

without aperture rings to be used only on D-SLRs with small sensors. But I understand the

quality is much better than the initial G series lenses since the DX-G lens - ie no aperture

ring and smaller image - is becoming the de-facto standard.

 

Since I use D2X as well as F6, F3 and FM3a, I think it's too bad that no new lens has been

developed to use on conventional film bodies as well, and I avoid buying the new DX-G

lenses for that reason.

[cjfraser]

Joe, you don't mention your budget or your typical shooting subjects (portrait, event, architecture, landscape, etc.). If you are coming from a medium format background, I think you will want the 17-55mm f2.8 DX lens with the D200, if it is within your budget. This lens offers superb performance in almost every respect.

 

The 18-70mm lens is sharp and has good color rendition. It is compact, light, and attractively priced. However, it has two serious drawbacks. It suffers from very serious, complex distortion at the wide end (18-24mm), and it is slow -- f4.5 at 70mm. The distortion can largely be removed with free software (Panorama Tools), but doing so adds a step to your post-processing, and it is hard to believe that image quality is not affected. The f4.5 aperture means it is not possible to shoot a portrait at 60-70mm with really shallow depth of field.

 

The 18-70 is a decent lens, but it really can't compare to the 17-55, which is an amazing lens. However, the latter costs about three times as much and is bigger and heavier. So there is a clear trade-off between them. Only you will know which is suitable for you. If you do go with the 18-70, I'd urge you to also pick up a 50mm f1.8 prime lens for shots in which you need a fast, pin-sharp lens. (The 50mm f1.8 costs less than US $100, fits in your pocket, and is a joy to use.)

 

If you shoot mostly landscapes or cityscapes, you should also consider the 12-24mm DX, which is priced between the 18-70mm and the 17-55mm. If your budget is high, you may want to look at the 70-200 VR as well.

 

The new 18-200 could turn out to be a wonderful do-everything lens that suits many people's needs, especially for travel. Until we hear much more about it, though, I'd expect its limitations to be similar to, but more serious than those of the 18-70. (Ken Rockwell is enthusiastic about it here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm. But Ken is enthusiastic about lots of things, and notice how much information he gives on correcting distortion in Photoshop.)

 

You're going to love the D200.

 

Chris

[cjfraser]

Two links in which the 17-55 and 18-70 zooms are discussed:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007r7T

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009jVw

[jamison_moon]

If you want those perfect lenses to do what you desire to have in your pictures. You have to buy whole array of lenses, and that will costs you thousands. If you know what I mean! Unless you know exactly what you want to capture, you just need a lens that will pretty much cover wide range of angles. This new lens will do just that. Experiment with this lens and if you really get the feeling that you need to do some refinement, then invest on some serious lenses. I will bet that if you don't know what you want, then you will spend lots of money before you figure out what you want to capture.