D200 Kit Lens or not

[fropa]

I've been shooting a Canon AE-1 Programmable since 1982. I have a

Canon FD 50mm 1:1.4, Canon FD 70-150mm 1:4.5, and a Sunagor 500mm 1:8

lenses. A few years ago I started into digital with a Kodak DC3200,

and a year and a half ago upgraded to a Kodak DX7630. I'm ready to get

more serious with digital and started looking at DSLRs. Initially

considered the Canon 20d, but then found the D200 and liked the fact

that it was weather sealed. Now I just need to decide if I should buy

the D200 with one of the lens kits or buy the body and lens

separately. If a kit, is the 18-70mm or the 18-200mm a better quality

lens? If not a kit lens, which one or two lenses would be best to

start with? My first projects will be shooting my sonﾒs high school

and Air Force Basic Training graduations so need a fair zoom plus good

natural light portrait type lens.

[mike_pak]

I think you will find 18-70 or 18-200 to be excellent general purpose lens. The 18-200 will give you more flexibility since it covers upto 200mm and has AFS/VR combination. It is hard to overestimate the usefulness of VR espcially toward longer end while handholding.

 

18-70, on the other hand, has smaller form factor than 18-200. Thus, more convenient to carry around. Furthermore, I find my 18-70 to have slightly higher resolution especially toward the periphery of image with less chromatic aberration. But, ever since I got my 18-200, I find it extremely useful lens, and I hardly touched my 18-70. However if I want to travel light, I may reconsider using my 18-70. Both lens cover very useful focal length.

 

However, if I am going to be doing people shooting in dim environment without flash, I will bring on my prime lens instead. My 35/2.0 AFD fits this role perfectly. I find it to be very sharp even wide open, so I don't hesitate to use it wide open. Although 18-200 has VR, the VR will not stop your subject movements. If you need focal length flexibility at low light environment, then only choice is 17-55/2.8 DX which is also very sharp wide open.

 

Good Luck!

[lex_jenkins]

Y'know, after dissing the kit zoom for the past year after buying one with my D2H, I'm actually starting to like the thing. After mostly using a 24-120 VR for the past several months I needed a wider lens for some indoor stuff I've been doing. It gave me a chance to revisit the 18-70DX.

 

When I first got the 18-70DX it was kind of a lark. I'd never owned any autofocus lens except the 28-85/3.4-4.5 AF Nikkor, a pretty good lens that came with an N6006 I received as a gift. But I was curious about the DX concept and wanted to see how much difference the Silent Wave Motor made in AF speed. AF-S is definitely quick and quiet but I was merely whelmed with the lens otherwise (neither underwhelmed nor overwhelmed).

 

OTOH, it has excellent flare resistance for a zoom. You can shoot it right into the setting sun. Not made zooms can handle that. Color rendition is accurate and vivid. Contrast is crisp.

 

But resolution is just okay wide open and the lens really needs to be stopped down about two full stops for good sharpness. Also, I tend to have shaky hands and the 24-120 VR helps me improve practical sharpness when I have to use shutter speeds slower than 1/125.

 

After using the 18-70DX for most of the past couple of weeks I'm reconsidering. The color and contrast are so satisfying photos actually seem sharper than they really are.

 

And maybe that's good enough. I've made 8x10 prints from photos shot at 1600 with my D2H and they look fine. I'm not expecting critical sharpness for these types of photos but I don't want mush either. Sure, I wish the 18-70DX was a non-variable f/2.8. But it's actually pretty good for what it is and what it costs.

 

I think my initial dissatisfaction came about as a result of testing it on architecture and landscapes. Neither is the strong suit of this lens. There's too much barrel distortion wide open. And the resolution isn't quite good enough for sweeping vistas, at least not with my D2H. But for people photography it's a versatile focal range, fast enough for most available light conditions and even fast enough if you don't mind using flash when necessary.

 

Also, construction quality is comparable to the 24-120 VR. The 18-70DX is a bit lighter and more compact but doesn't feel cheap or flimsy.

 

In retrospect I probably should have bought just the 17-55/2.8DX instead of both the 18-70DX and 24-120 VR. I'd rather have the extra focal length but considering how I use my D2H (mostly PJ type shooting), the 18-70 focal range is just about right.

 

However, if you can squeeze the fast, more expensive f/2.8 zoom into the budget you probably won't regret it, even if it means having to wait a while to get another lens.

[bill_chiarchiaro]

Lex,

 

<p>

<i>

There's too much barrel distortion wide open.

</i>

</p>

 

<p>

I assume you mean when the zoom setting is at the wide end (short focal length), rather than when the aperture is wide open. According to third-order optics theory, distortion does not depend on the aperture.

</p>

 

<p>

Have you noticed the 18--70's distortion varying with aperture? That would be an interesting real-world departure from third-order theory.

</p>

 

<p>

--Bill

</p>

[marcofrancardi]

This gives me the chance to bring to your attention what Ken Rockwell says about the costly 17-55/2.8 and the 18-200.

According to him, not much of a difference, apart the obvious:

"Distortion is more than I'd expect for such an expensive, limited range zoom. At 17mm it's not much less than the 18 - 200 VR"... and more.

I'd like to know your point of view.

[ShunCheung]

Marco, the 17-55mm/f2.8 DX is a lot better than the 18-200 DX at f2.8. :-)

 

I have compared my 17-55 against the 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S. At 17mm, the 17-55 has a little more distortion than the 17-35, which has almost none. I have only seen the 18-200 through a viewfinder since that was a "pre-production" model in early December, 2005 and I was not allowed to shoot image samples with it. I know that is not an entirely fair comparison, but at least in the viewfinder, the 18-200 DX has pretty serious barrel distortion at 18mm.

 

The 18-70 DX has very serious barrel distortion at 18mm. I have posted samples from 2004 when that lens was first introduced. However, unless you shoot architecture, etc. that has straight leines near the edge of the frame, I wouldn't worry about even fairly serious distortion. It is unlikely that you'll notice any difference in the final image.

[Robert DeCandido PhD]

Hi Mike,

 

My recommendation would be to buy the D200 (body only) and then buy a used lens...many of the kit lenses (particularly the 18-70mm) for the D200/D70/s appear for sale here (photo.net) and elsewhere for 20-40% less that what you would pay for the same lens new, as part of the kit "deal." Personally, I would also look at third party alternatives such as Tokina as well.

 

rdc/nyc

[michaelkh]

One way or another, the 18-70 is probably worth having if you can get it very cheaply -

but consider getting it secondhand if there is a better bundle with a body-only D200. I'm

still not sure about the 18-200. The Ken Rockwell review is very encouraging but clearly

not definitive.

 

My experience with one of the most recent low-end nikon AF-S zooms has been positive -

I have the 24-85 G lens, and its sharpness is sometimes quite astonishing. I keep reading

that Nikon makes better cheap lenses than other manufacturers; I've come to believe this

fanboyism has some basis in truth.

[ottocrat]

I'm following this discussion with interest. I'm really in a quandary. Currently I have the 18-70 DX and the Nikkor 70-240 f/4.5-5.6 covering those focal lengths, and I'm very tempted to trade them both in for the 18-200 VR DX. The upsides are clear: one less lens to carry around (I always lug my Sigma 10-20, my 105mm Micro Nikkor and my 50mm f/1.8 so could really do with rationalising my kit bag) and the VR advantage. I'm trying to identify the downsides. These are all consumer lenses, I can't see that I'd be making a huge sacrifice optically. Obviously I miss out on a bit of length at the extreme. And if in the future Nikon go FF then I'll miss the 70-240 but of course it gives me an excuse to buy something better... Finally, I guess the 18-200 is a bit more bulky than the 18-70 as an 'always on' lens (haven't actually seen one in the 'flesh' yet)...

 

The fact is, I've been really happy with the 18-70 and I wouldn't want to trade it in for something that would be in any way inferior. In the experience of those who have been using both, is the 18-200 inferior to the 18-70 in any serious way?

[ottocrat]

(Sorry, correction to my previous post, should of course be the 75-240 f4.5-5.6, not 70-240...)

[patricks]

Hey, I started on a AE-1 way back when and I'm now using a D200 so perhaps I can add a few cents ;-)

 

I had the 17-55/2.8 to use on my D70 and D200, however, I recently sold it and bought back a 18-70 DX "kit" lens. The weight and size of that lens was the deciding factor, and quite frankly, the performance of the 18-70 is simply good enough for most, if not all, occations.

 

If I could do it again, perhaps I'd go directly for th 18-200 VR, but it was so brand new that I wanted to get some more feedback on that lens before taking the plunge. And now I cannot find one for sale anymore...

 

Canon's kit lenses are horrible, you would have to go with at least a 17-85 IS for around $600 to get something that would be worth using on a 20D. And prices on the 20D are dropping as a 30D will be announced at PMA in February.

 

I'd say, if you could swing the cost, a D200 w/ the 18-200 VR, then add a 50/1.8 D as a natural light short tele portrait lens + a 2GB Sandisk Extreme II card and you would be all there.

[lex_jenkins]

Bill: Yeh, wide end, not wide open. That's what I get for posting in the middle of the night and not proofing what I wrote.

 

Barrel distortion on my 18-70DX clears up by 24mm.

[milton]

Just want to offer my feeling about 18-200. However my opinion may not as valuable as I am new to DSLR myself.

 

I got the 18-200 lens before Christmas and liked it ever since. When attached on the D50, the whole thing feels very well balanced. I like the handling better than that of the 18-70 since it is easier to adjust the focal length at the wide end. I think I can get quite accurate focus by manual focusing when the focal length is set to 200 as well.

 

In terms of image quality, I tested my copy wide open under different focal lengths on the first day I got it. To me, the images are quite sharp, but there is obvious distortion in the wide end and noticeable light fall-off at corners. I now uploaded all the photos into my test folder so that you can judge them yourself and may be let me know what you think as well.

 

A complain that I have to this lens is the zoom creep problem. The zoom ring also feels quite a bit wobbly, which I am not sure if it is related to the zoom creep problem. I am going to send the lens for service. Hope they will fix the problem.

[edwin_mendoza]

For your first project, get the D200 with the 18-200vr. I have taken some pic recently with this lens that you can see by cliking my name. I bought as a travel lens in order to avoid the weight of my 70-200vr and 17-55 2.8. Try it, you will like it.

[fropa]

Thanks for all the responses. I looked in the classifieds here and on eBay but didn't see many of the kit lenses for sale. A place called Cameta Camera is selling a bunch of the 18-70mm, but they are Factory Demos. Does anybody know anything about this person? I probably will not buy for a couple of months which gives me time to keep looking and for the supply to try and catch-up with demand. Robert DeCandido, PhD suggested looking at Tokina lenses; I also see several Sigma and Tamron lenses for sale. Are all of these decent alternative lens companies?

[geoff_cheshire]

Cameta is a (primarily Nikon) retailer that sells on eBay. I ordered an 18-70 to go with my soon-to-arrive (hurry up UPS!) D50. They seem to be selling for right around $200 ($190 - $210 final bid). I can follow-up once the lens arrives. It supposedly comes with a 1yr warranty.

 

From my searches, Cameta has a mostly (but not entirely) positive reputation here on PN.

[yorick...]

Patrick said above :<br>

<i>I'd say, if you could swing the cost, a D200 w/ the 18-200 VR, then add a 50/1.8 D as a

natural light short tele portrait lens + a 2GB Sandisk Extreme II card and you would be all

there.</i><br>

And I agree totally. I believe it is the reasonnable (and still afordable) way to resolve the

equation you are talking about.<br>

BTW, The 50/1.8 D is a <b>great</b> lens. the card a bit

big if you don't shoot RAW. 1 Go can do the job, no prob, with a normal JPG compression.

[mark_francis]

I just purchased a Nikon 18-200 from Camera Wholesalers for 799.00 plus 20.00 shipping. Only by phone. Very professional.

[jeff_landsberg]

I would go with the 18-200mm over the 18-70mm lens. It is a super lens. have been out pricing the D200 kits and have found in some cases they cost more that if purchased separately.