Decision made - it's a D80, now, what about the Lens?

[phillip_minnis]

I'd like to sincerely thank everyone who responded to my question yesterday,

concerning whether I should buy a D200 or a D80. I've read through the answers,

carefully, along with some reviews on the internet, and I've come to the

conclusion that for where I'm at on my journey as a photographer, the D80 is

best for me.

 

Up until today, I was committed to purchasing a Nikkor 18-200mm VR lens.

However, I can get out of it. :) After reading more reviews, I'm having some

doubts about going ahead with the purchase. My ambition is to continue

uploading images onto stock photography sites, as well as to produce a couple of

calendars for Christmas. So, I need to be sure that the quality will be there

in the images. The stock photography sites will not tolerate any artefacting, so

this is something that I must try to prevent.

 

Will this lens produce quality images? On some sites I've read raving reviews,

whilst, on others, it comes across as a rather amateurish lens. As well as this

lens, I was going to purchase a Sigma 10-20mm to allow me to shoot some

wide-angle shots.

 

Due to the fact that I have to keep within a budget, I cannot afford a lens such

as the 70-200mm.

 

Would the AF-S VR Zoom 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF ED give me sharper images? If so,

what other lens should I purchase to fill below the 70mm?

 

I'd be very glad of some advice on this matter.

 

Cheers

 

Phil

[Ed_Ingold]

The 18-200/3.5-5.6 is probably not a bad choice for you. While it is an amateur lens in terms of build quality and speed, it is sharp and covers the most commonly used range of focal lengths well. It is a "Swiss Army Knife" type of lens, with compromises in order to achieve an 11:1 zoom range.

 

18mm is actually pretty wide - comparable to a 24mm lens on a film camera. Anything wider would be considered "ultrawide", and have fewer, more speciallized applications. Wide angle lenses are best used to exaggerate close-by subjects, rather than "getting it all" in one shot.

 

A cheaper alternative would be the 18-70 kit lens. This too is a capable performer in its price range. Actually, you would spend a lot more to get a noticeable improvement (e.g, the 17-55/2.8). In either case, the lenses are slow (aperture wise), which limits their usefulness in dim light. The obvious solution would be the 17-55/2.8, which is not only faster, but sharper with very little distortion. Nikon pulls out the stops when designing the f/2.8 zoom lenses. This range would cover 80 percent of what most people do for events, weddings and landscapes.

 

If you want sharper images, get a solid tripod and learn how to use it. Camera shake will obviate any differences between lenses, and Nikon lenses tend to be sharp with high contrast, even in lower price brackets.

[sam_thompson2]

I would just get the 18-200. Use it and if you don't like you can probably sell it for as much as you paid for it.

 

Depending on what kind of artifacts you are talking about. A lot of it can be cleaned up using post processing techniques and if it is compression artifacts then that is more of a function of the camera's in camera jpeg or raw compression than it is a function of the which lens you are using. One thing to note is that the D80 doesn't have a lossless uncompressed raw feature that the D200. Which may or may not be a problem depending on how picky you are.

 

The good match for the 70-300vr lens would be the 18-70 lens.

[elliot1]

"Would the AF-S VR Zoom 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF ED give me sharper images? "

 

No.

 

For the most part, all Nikon lenses produce about the same image quality. Many of the 'pro' lenses have faster apertures and may focus faster, but image quality is virtually the same. If you were outside on a sunny day and took a picture with the 18-200 and the identical shot with the 17-55 or 70-200, the pictures would be virtually identical.

 

If you don't need the VR feature and/or want to save money, get the 18-135. I just bough it and find the image quality identical to my 18-200. I will be posting some side-by-side test shots in the next week or so. Otherwise stick with the 18-200 - you will be thrilled with it.

 

"The stock photography sites will not tolerate any artefacting"

 

I don't believe 'artefacting' has to do with the lens you use but rather an issue of file quality.

 

My best advice - buy the 18-200. If you don't like it, send it back or sell it and buy something else.

 

I don't quite understand what an 'amateurish lens' is. They certainly cannot be referring to image quality. I have yet to read about anyone wearing out a lens. My 'pro' 70-200 had a major failure while my inexpensive Nikon lenses have never failed. And those 'cheap' mounts don't show any signs of wear.

[nickwhite]

Congratulations on your choice, I don't think you will regret it; the extra money will be far better spent on lenses as others have said.

You can always get a D200, or more likely it's replacement, at a later date and use the D80 as your backup.

I didn't comment on the 18-200 before because you seemed to have committed to it, I have no direct knowledge of that lens but would view a 10x+ zoom range with suspicion (I come from an era when ANY zoom lens quality was doubtful!).

I fully endorse the 18-70, ridiculously cheap for a good performer if you get it in the kit with the D80. Also the Sigma 10-20 is excellent. I use both these lenses and the 80-400vr which I like but seems to come in for criticism on these pages. If you wanted to fill the 20-70 gap with a prime, how about 60mm micro or the excellent Sigma 50mm macro - both give close-up to 1:1 and double as excellent portrait lenses.

Again I fully agree with the Tripod suggestion, and how about flash? - I hope you have a friendly bank manager.

Nick.

[dcraton]

I do have a lot of pro lenses as this is my profession and I do use D80's. However, if you are one a budget, what Elliot said is very true. My fun lenses are the 18-70mm, 55-200mm (non VR), and 50mm/1.8. All three lenses produce stunning results notably when processed through good software such as Bibble Pro or DxO. Also, as I do a lot of product shots for manufacturers, a flash is an absolute. So, you may want to consider a nice lens (or lenses) you can afford at a focal length (zoom, I assume) you are comfortable with and add a SB-600 or SB-800 flash if you can. However, I do have a SB-400 and use it as well; it just will not perform past 25'. All of my flashes have diffusers. Good luck.

[Peter_in_PA]

The 18-200 will likely serve you very well! I've compared it at 50mm to the excellend 50mm

f1.8 and the differences are subtle if you stop down two or three stops and have good light. I

love mine. I'd get a 50mm f1.8 too.

[bruce_margolis]

Phillip, the first lens I purchased with my D80 was the 18-200VR and I have had no regrets. VR throughout the entire range and an excellent lens to build around.

 

Every lens -- even pro lenses -- has a downside. The weak links in the 18-200 are some distortion at the wide end and weakness in low light at the long end.

 

I don't know what focal length you use for your stock photography but if you only photograph in a narrow focal range, this may not be the lens for you. OTOH, if you want a versatile lens, this one is hard to beat.

[heartyfisher]

18-200vr sigh.. love it to bits and hate it to bits.. Mine stays on my camera all the time. wide open its a wee bit soft I also have the 18-70 and some reviews of that lens is not too nice but mine is really exceptional so I was a bit disappointed with the 18-200 at first. but like a previous poster said .. if you stop it down 1.5 stops its quite nice. but then its preety dark.

 

"Great lens to build a system around"

After using it for about 8 months now I still like it a lot vr from 18-200 is just too much!. But its weak in several areas. Bokeh is terrible. Not bright at all when you consider you have to stop down to get good sharpness. so do complement it with the 50mm1.8 or in my case I am looking at the sigma 50-150f2.8 for event photography and portraiture. or the tamron 28-75f2.8 if you like wider.

 

one thing I learnt about myself when while using the 18-200 is the focal lengths I "see". This is done by looking at all the photos I have taken and creating a "profile" of my photography. this has helped me make my lense buying decisions.

 

Good luck!

TW

[dan park]

For the price of an 18-200 you could probably get your hands on an 18-55, 50 f1.8(used) and the terrific though limited 35-70 f2.8(used). Or you could get the 18-70(used) and a 50 f1.8(used) and the 55-200. The common theme is the 50mm, as I think this lens is an essential part of anyones kit.

 

Wide/Prime kit could be a tokina 12-24 a 35f2 and a 50f1.4. This is my standard kit with the 35 and 50 being of the old pre-ai type (converted) both bought for less than 150 total. These of course would work better (meter) on a D200.

 

The beauty of Nikon is that with the right body and some minor modifications to certain lenses your choses of lenses span almost 40 years. My two most used lenses are from the late 60's and they still feel and work great today. I will with any luck pass them down to my son's for their enjoyment too.

[pete_su]

I use the 18-70 for almost everything I shoot. It is very very good IMHO.

[leonard_evens]

18 mm is not equivalent to 24 mm in 35 mm format. It is equivalent approximately to 27 mm in that format. The multiplier is slightly larger than 1.5.

[berardi]

Just my own two cents on the matter, I'm not a huge fan of the 18-200, especially for a

more serious shooter. I'd rather have lenses that do specific things really well than a lens

that can do a semi-resonable impression of a bunch of things. It's wide angle but 18 isn't

super wide on a nikon sensor. It can be used as a portrait lens but the aperture isn't really

as wide as you'd like for that. It focuses to 1.5 feet so you can do details but it's not nearly

as good as a true macro. You're also likely to lose some optical quality by having such a

massive zoom range. Buy Capture NX if you get this lens, the "auto aberration" button

alone will be worth the price.

 

As general advice in the matter, make sure you take the time to think about the kind of

shots you take, and would like to take, and what kind of lens you need to accomplish

them. Are you going to be in a situation where you need a lot of versatility and can't be

changing lenses all the time? This could be the lens for you. Do you prefer to work with a

tripod? Don't pay for VR then. Do you want to take detail shots? Make sure you get

something macro. You mentioned wanting to do wide angle shots, maybe you should

direct more of your budget in that direction. Think about what you need, not what

someone writing a review or some jerk on a forum likes.

[dcraton]

"not what someone writing a review or some jerk on a forum likes"

Guilty as charged. Of course, had I not read some reviews and listened to some very qualified jerks on this forum, I would not have a couple of very useful lenses for my business in that we do not have a real cam pro shop here. However, good advice. Many people (including us) do use lenses for specific applications and that can be had on a budget if your wallet is not expansive. A nice wide, a nice prime, and a nice tele zoom might be in order. Have fun.

[elliot1]

The 18-200 is certainly capable of being a good, if not excellent excellent portrait lens when used by a knowledgeable 'jerk'.

[frankeleveld]

I'd suggest getting at least a good prime, such as the 50 mm f/1.8 or 85 mm f/1.8. Stunning

for portraits and very useful in low light. I've a 18-70 too which is a great lens, especially

given the cost.

[dan_k6]

Just responding to Elliot's comment regarding IQ with the 18-200 and Pro lenses. He is WRONG. The 18-200 is not as sharp as the 70-200 for one. Also, the 70-200, for me, has better color and contrast. With the 18-200 being a "swiss army" kind of lens, keep in mind that it does a lot of things pretty good but nothing exceptionally well.

 

I used to own the 18-200 but I sold it when I bought my 70-200 and 17-55 because I just didn't use it anymore. If I need a walk around lens, I'll probably by the 18-70.

 

The 18-200 does not take bad pictures. It's just that my new equipment takes better pictures. Try it out, you may feel that it satisfies your needs.

 

Thanks,

Dan

[sam_thompson2]

The reason why there is a backlash is that for a super zoom lens it is very good. It got good reviews. But people rather than comparing the results to other super zooms and point and shoot lenses. They compare it to the 70-200 vr which is one of Nikon's best lenses.

 

So you have internet whiners complaining that this lens is not the Jesus lens promised by David Pogue or Ken Rockwell.

[keith_leonin]

If you're going to pass on the 18-200 because of poor image quality, then you might as well pass on the Sigma 10-20mm.

 

I would take a different tack -- reconsider the D200, then opt for used AIS lenses -- plenty of them in the market, reasonable prices, they will meter with a D200 and image quality for a select group of lenses is superb.

 

Yes, you can use them on the D80 as well, but no in-camera metering. Yes, it's feasible, and some on this forum do it, but I personally prefer the convenience of in-camera metering.

 

KL

[corey]

I am not a fan of the 18-200, I know that the lens is a great all around lens but I am not impressed with its build. If I am going to spend that much money on a lens then I want to know that it will be there for me 10 years from know. I will say that I am a little rough on my equipment but that is what I expect from my equipment, to take some abuse. I know that there is a lot of people that buy the hummer and never take it off road. Some people buy the D2x and never let it see a cold snowy day. What is the point in that. My choice would be to get a used 80-200 2.8 or a 180 prime, a 50 1.8/1.4, the wonderful 10.5 and use them for your stock shots. Then pick up a 18-70 or the 18-135 and shoot your non money making shots with them. They are great lenses for memories.

 

Corey

[eric_arnold]

for around the price of the 18-200 you can get get a tokina 12-24, a nikkor 50/1.8, the 18-55 dx and the 70-300 g. that gives you a true wide angle for landscapes, a sharp prime for portraits and low-light stuff, a walkaround zoom, and a lightweight long zoom. not knowing anything thing else about your shooting style, that's what i'd recommend as a "most bang for your buck" starter kit.