the dreaded lens question

[josephbraun]

<p>from the subject matter you have described, i don't see why you would need such a wide lens. </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Dave Lee writes [<span style="color: #333333; font-family: georgia; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px;">Robert, the Sigma 18-200mm has an integral motor, which aids focusing in low light.<span style="color: #000000; font-family: Verdana; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal;">] Nope. No motor in the world will help your camera when there is not enough light because the lens is smaller than 5.6. Don't buy a lens that is smaller than 6.3. Don't do it.</span></span></p>

<p><span style="color: #333333; font-family: georgia; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px;"></span><br /> The 18-200 is a wonderful lens, the distortion is not a big deal in real photos, and used correctly, takes wonderful photos. I'll ask this again (I'm so tired of being the first person who asks this)... HOW are you using your photos. If you are only viewing on screen and printing 4 x 6s, anything will do. If you are printing up to 8 x 10 and take photos well... you will see no difference in virtually all photos you take and print, even if, with your D80, you crop up to 50%, which leads me to recommend you look at the slightly better 16-85 VR.</p>

<p><br /> You will want a dedicated macro lens to get closer, but don't fret it, that's a separate lens no matter what you get.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Oh, and the new editing feature does, indeed... ROCK!</p>

[rick_helmke1]

If you want to spend the money get the 70-200/2.8 VR. Personally I think the whole VR thing in any brand is overrated. The 80-200/2.8 would save weight, batteries and money and is a great lens. Given what you already have I'd go with that and pick one of the micro-nikkors next.

 

Rick H.

[shuo_zhao]

<p>>> "Personally I think the whole VR thing in any brand is overrated."<br>

If you want to shoot a relatively static scene under poor lighting, perhaps at longer shutter speeds due to a stopped down aperture to allow greater DOF, the VR can do wonders at conpensating for camera shake. At 200mm, the camera shake really gets aggrevated, even if you're steady.</p>

[mark f]

I''m going to push back a bit on the one lens requirement. In my opinion, everyone should have the sub-$100 50mm prime lens that most or all manufactures offer. They are usually offer the smallest and nearly the best optifcs of their entire line, My EOS 50mm is the one of the best lenses I use (85mm f1.8 is a bit nicer). If you need the range, go ahead and get the long lens. Make sure you buy a tripod also. Tough to hold long hand held lenses wven with VR.The lens quality is anly as good as the tripod underneath it.

[mt4x4]

<p>I have an 80-200 ED AF 2.8. Its a great lens, although it focuses pretty slow. I picked mine up, refurbished with a warranty for $399. I'm strongly considering a 70-200 2.8 though for a couple of reasons. 1) the 80-200 I have can't use a normal tripod collar (there is one ring for focus and zoom, which leaves no place for a tripod collar to attach), and the autofocus is really slow. I'm not sure how much better the AF-S version is (I'm guessing it is considerable) but I don't see any reason not to spend the extra dollars on the 70-200 because from what I have read it is one of Nikon's best lenses.<br /> <br /> As far as the 80-200 weighing less than the 70-200 goes.. that might depend on which 80-200, but mine is a heavy sucker, heavier than the 70-200 I have played with.<br>

 </p><div></div>

[philip_maus]

<p>Kira - I know this isn't the most popular choice nowadays, but why not consider a couple of used primes for the price of your VR zoom? I'll bet you could pick up either a 28 or 35/2.8 + 50/1.8 for maybe less than the price of the 18-200 VR. You'll have coverage from slightly wide or normal to short tele, which are good general purpose focal lengths, and which will probably cover 75-80% of what you'll do, and you'll still have your kit lens for those times when you just need a zoom lens. Primes have fast apertures to make up for the lack of VR for low light shooting and you can also focus pretty close with any of these lenses if you don't have a macro for 1:1 image size. Image quality of most prime lenses will (far) outpace all but the most sophisticated professional zooms. Prime lenses, read: limitation of working focal length, will do great things for your eyes as well, and can set you up on the fast track to improving your compositional and "seeing" skills. Most people stick to zooms anymore for their all-purpose, stay on the camera, walking around lenses, but many haven't given a good quality, single focal length prime enough time in front of the shutter to really appreciate it's significant advantages over zoom lenses. Try sticking a 50mm lens on your camera (and leaving it there) for a month or two and see what happens, you might be pleasantly surprised! Just something to think about; good luck with whatever you choose.</p>

<p> </p>

[tsypkin]

<p>I have been quite happy with my 18-200 mm VR. Here are two examples. Of course, my requirements to lens quality are very modest.</p><div></div>

[tsypkin]

<p>And here is the second one. Not National Geographic quality, of course, but seems to be quite OK for a consumer lens</p><div></div>

[tsypkin]

<p>And both photos were handheld. My name is on the photos not because I don't know how to tell LR NOT to put it there...</p>

[josephwalsh]

<p>As you can see, Kira, we dread the lens question like a lush dreads a bottle of Jack Daniels.<br>

;-)</p>

[kira_greene]

<p>@ Joe - LOL! :D<br>

@Mikhail - I have my name written for my image comments, and when I view my pictures in View NX I see it, maybe that is the case with you?<br>

I do have a tripod, and a nice one at that, I just don't want to always have to use it, so I was looking for a zoom that I could walk around with, and not have to use the tripod 100% of the time.<br>

I am feeling overwhelmed, there are just so many good options! I am back to considering the 18-200 VR, but I really really like the idea of getting several different lenses for that price.<br>

Right now I just look at my photos on my computer, and post some on my blog, and so on...but like I said, I am working towards being a pro, and my goal/dream is to be published. I don't even care if I don't get paid, well the first time LOL, but eventually I want to see my pictures in a magazine or newspaper...or book!<br>

I know not to depend on VR, so that isn't a deal breaker for me, I can live with a non-VR lens, and I have taken some night shots of holiday lights that were twenty second long exposures that have come out crisp and clear from using, well, I didn't have my tripod, so I set the camera on my car, but still.<br>

I like what people say about primes (I still have to look that up, what is a prime lens) but am attracted to a zoom lens because, like I said, sometimes I am far away and want to get in close. This happened to me at a ball game, shooting a wild hawk, shooting lake views, I couldn't 'get to' the ship that was out there, shooting other birds, and I am often frustrated by that.<br>

BUT, after considering the wisdom given here, I am definitely leaning towards a prime lens. I don't want to just stick one lens on my camera and think it will do it all, I got a DSLR for the simple reason of you can change the lens. LOL!<br>

So, I am thinking a 'cheaper' zoom, and a prime, if I can get the right prices. But, how much difference will I see between my 18-135 and a 70-300? Is it that drastic? As in, worth it to invest a 70-300, or even the 70-200 that Keith mentioned?<br>

I don't have a decent camera store near me, but I think I will make a trip to one soon. I am in Michigan, anyone know a good one (NOT ritz, the guy who works at mine is shadier than a forest!).<br>

Thanks again! You guys are great!</p>

[kira_greene]

<p>hmmm. I found this: <a href="http://www.adorama.com/NK70300AFGB.html">http://www.adorama.com/NK70300AFGB.html</a><br>

but am skeptical of how good it is. the numbers and letters don't match up exactly to any nikon lenses I can find on nikon's website.<br>

Is it worth it?</p>

[rick_helmke1]

Shuo I suspect that I am in the minority concerning VR or IS or whatever the term. Too often this feature is marketed as some kind of miracle and it just isn't. It may help here and there but I've found other techniques long ago for slow speed/low light work. For me it isn't worth the expense, the battery drain and what I percieve as a weight increase in the half dozen lenses I have used with it. OTOH autofocus still hasn't impressed me much either. My opinions, or maybe biases is a better term, are based on many years of everyday use and using several generations of technology since Ford was in office. A lot of people around here can say that though. The best part though is no matter what Kira chooses it will be a very good lens.

 

Rick H.

[ianhoke]

I have the D80 and the 70-300 G lens and find that the combination rarely works out. If you want an uber-cheap lens for memories of a safari, go for it. Rarely doe I manage to take a very crisp, sharp photo with that lens. I don't recommend it. My favorite lens so far is the 50mm 1.4, btw.

 

-Ian

[kayak203]

<p>>>like what people say about primes (,,,) but am attracted to a zoom lens because, like I said, sometimes I am far away and want to get in close.</p>

<p>Kira,  the cheap zoom is ok at the ballgame in daylight, and I have been somewhat please using it with an extension tube.<br>

But, if you are leaning toward primes, you really should consider the (big) 300 mm AF-S, and the 85 mm AF, but why stop there.  Keep your kit 18-135 mm for every day.  Have fun!</p><div></div>

[kira_greene]

<p>Ok, I am sold, I am for sure going to get a prime lens, now it is just deciding which one. :) I still yearn for a zoom though...oh well, my birthday is just five months after Christmas! Thanks, I am so glad I posted this, I never would have looked at primes if were not for the wonderful opinions here.</p>