eric_arnold

hi jim,

it depends on what zoom you're talking about. none of the nikon kit lenses (18-55,18-70, 18-135, 18-200) are good low-light performers, nor are they very speedy. so you may want to just get the camera body.

 

there are actually some nice zooms out there with excellent optics --namely the tamron sp series, the sigma ex series (the 18-50 f/2.8 is as sharp as the $1200 nikkor 17-55, according to pop photography's tests), and the tokina at-x series -- which should work in all but extreme low-light situations, where you need a wider aperture. right now the best deal is probably the tamrom sp 17-35 f/2.8-4, which originally retailed for $600 but is now less than 1/2 that (mainly because there's more demand for tamron's 17-50 f/2.8).

 

as for compromises in image quality, i recently shot an event with both the nikkor 50 f/1.8 and the tamron 28-75 f/2.8, using available-light, and it was hard to see any noticeable difference.

 

still, if you wanna stay with primes, the 35 f/2 sounds like it would work for you, but (and this is a big but) you dont say what dslr you're getting. that could really make a difference because if you get a d40, you wont be able to AF with any non AF-S nikkor, and only sigma currently makes a HSM-enabled prime (the 30 f/1.4). if you want to use older nikkor and 3rd party lenses, i'd recommend staying away from the d40 and maybe looking into a d50 or a d70, if you can't pop for a d80/200.

the d40 might work for you, it's about $600 with 18-55 lens. remember to factor in the cost of memory cards, flash, bag, filters, etc. you also might have to rethink your budget to get what you want. $700 is not a lot to break into DSLR shooting. unlike many entry-level users, who have no idea what they want to do but just want a better camera, you have an idea of what you'll be shooting, which is good. unfortunately, getting a good macro/portrait DSLR kit within your budget constraints is almost impossible.

 

the downside of the d40 is that it wont AF unless your lenses have a built-in motor. this limits your options to (currently) nikkor af-s or sigma hsm lenses. that could be kind of a big deal for you, since macro is something you want to do. normally i'd recommend the tamron 90, the sigma 105, or the tokina 100 as macro/protrait lenses (all are f/2.8, which you need for good bokeh, and all cost around $400-$500 new). with the d40, you'd be steered into the nikkor 105 vr for macro/portrait, which is about $750 new.

 

another alternative might be the d50, which has been discontinued but you may still be able to get one. this came out after the d70 but before the d40, it has less lens-compatibility issues -- you can use non af-s nikkors as well as offerings from tamron, sigma, and tokina -- and is, like all the nikon d-series (except the d100), a reliable performer even at high ISOs.

 

if you got a d50 with a 2.8 macro/portrait lens, you'd probably spend closer to $1000 than $700, but you'd meet your requirements. i'd probably also spend $120 for the nikkor 50 1.8 (a good snapshot/portrait lens but not ideal for macro) and a wide-mid or mid-zoom like the 18-55 (under $150) just for casual shooting and wide-angle shots. fyi, the nikkor 60 is supposed to be a great macro lens, but not so good for portraits.

 

and if you got a d50, you could also look into a faux-macro lens like the sigma 18-50 or tamron 28-75, which offer 1:3 macro -- you can always add close-up filters -- as well as wide 2.8 apertures, pro-quality optics, and low cost ($340 for the tamron, $400 for the sigma).

 

all in all, it's gonna be hard to do everything you want to do on a one body-on lens kit within your budget. this might sound strange, but it might be worth it to research the glass you want (both now and down the line), and base your body decision around that.

hi,

i have the 18-70 and the tamron 28-75, the older brother of the tam 17-50. i, too, was underwhelmed by the 18-70, although it is sharp and covers a useful range. but since i got the tamron, i rarely use it anymore, except when i think i will need the 18-27 range. the tamron is sharper than the 18-70 wide open, with excellent low-light performance. i'm keeping the 18-70 for now, but i wouldn't hesitate to upgrade to the tamron if i were you. it's certainly a better value than the nikkor equivalent.

i dunno john, i kinda like the 10mm shot -- it makes a boring scene look interesting. imagine what it could do for an interesting scene.

 

if you want a flatter image, consider the tokina 12-24 which is a rectilinear w/a.

i dunno, i can kinda see fred's point.

for just $300 you can get a canon s3, which gives you 12x zoom, IS, and video mode with a FASTER aperture at the wide end than the nikkor 18-200. if all you're taking is snapshots and vacation pics, you'll save a considerable amount of money and get comparable performance (actually better possibly, since you can zoom out to 432mm film equiv. vs, the 18-200's 300mm).

 

basically, the 18-200 is a versatile consumer-grade lens with a mountain of hype on it that may have overinflated its actual value; most reviews say the 18-70 is sharper and the 70-300 VR has better performance. is it worth it? that's up to you and depends a lot on how you shoot and what your budget is. it's not a pro lens and is fairly slow, especially at the long end, so therefore it's really best as a one-lens solution for those who don't like to switch out often.

 

point being, if that's what you use it for, there are other, less expensive options that will do the same thing. there are many $300-$400 P&S cameras that will take crisper shots at low ISOs than DSLRs. where DSLRS really shine is high ISO/low-light/burst performance, in which case you need a f/2.8 or better to take advantage of. i dont think anyone can argue the 18-200 is that lens.

 

that's not to say it's no good, but i think its limitations are becoming more apparent now that the hype is starting to give way to the sobering reality that it's not that fast and not completely sharp across the whole range. go to the nikonians board, for example, and you'll see a lot more of these babies being put up for sale than a month or two ago.

keep the 80-200 and the 300 2.8 and get a teleconverter to get you out longer.

the nikkor 18-200 isn't any faster than the tamron, but it does have VR, which will allow you to shoot at slower shutter speeds. that's probably the top all-in-one lens, but it does have its limitations. any seriously long exposure will require a tripod anyway, and for what you'd save on the 18-250 vs. 18-200, you could get a decent tripod, the nikkor 50/1.8, and maybe even a sb-400 or sb-600 flash.

 

still, as a beginner, i suspect the 18-250 will be fine if you don't want to pony up the cash for the 18-200. also sigma has just announced an 18-200 with optical stabilization at a lower price point than the nikon. the boon to the nikon, of course, is that it might be a tad faster to autofocus than the 3rd party lenses due to nikon's proprietary metering system. optically, it might be a tad sharper too. if you're willing to look at a 2-lens kit, though, you can get the nikkor 18-55 and 55-200 vr for about $400, which are still pretty lightweight.

do we love lens suggestions? yes we do!

ok, let's take a look-see... budget is $600, you say? that cuts out the 18-200 vr, which can't be had for under $750. however, you don't really need that unless you don't want to change lenses. and despite all the hype, it's not any faster than the lenses you already have.

 

other alternatives? let's start with the nikkors. with your budget, the pro nikkor zooms, like the 17-55 and the 70-200 vr, are out. most of the the remaining consumer lenses (18-135, 24-120, 28-105, 18-70) won't really give you much better optical quality than the 18-55, and they're just as slow.

 

so let's look for something faster. it's kind of a no-brainer to pick up the 50/1.8 for under $120. it's small, lightweight, super-sharp, with excellent low-light performance.

 

that leaves you about $480. you've got some choices here. take a long look at the 85/1.8, which is about $400. this will give you a fast, high-performance portrait lens and low-light champion. you could also expand into the macro world with the 60/2.8, also about $400. i'd also take a look at the wide primes -- the 35/2 ($320) and the 28/2.8 ($235). all of these will complement the lenses you already have. the 24-85 you mention is only a 2.8 at the widest focal length and f/4 at the long end, so it's only somewhat faster than what you have now. one fast nikkor solution that covers an acceptable zoom range is the 35-70/2.8 ($480). you'll lose the wide end, but then that'll give you a reason to still keep your 18-55.

 

luckily for you, there are some fast mid-zoom non-nikon alternatives which won't break the bank for "serious amateurs." namely the sigma 18-50/2.8, the tamron 17-55/2.8 and the tamron 28-75/2.8. i have the 28-75 and it's great, but the others are supposed to be really good too -- close to or equivalent optical quality as the more expensive nikkors, but lesser build quality (which you should be able to live with). the 28-75 can be had for under $350, which makes it a serious bargain considering the results it produces. the others are around $400. also, tokina has just announced a 16-50/2.8 which is a bit pricier, but gives you a spacious 2mm extra at the wide end.

 

i'd probably get a fast wide-mid zoom before i got a longer fast zoom or fast tele prime, since you'll most likely use that range more. but think about your future expansion when choosing. if you go with the 16-50 tokina, 17-55 tamron, or 18-50 sigma, down the line it makes sense to get the sigma 50-150 or tokina 50-135. if you get the tamron 28-75, you can then save your pennies for a 70-200/2.8. see where i'm going with this? eventually, you can have a complete focal range, say, 16-135/18-150, or 28-200, at f/2.8, with no overlaps = more efficient.

 

of course, if low-light performance and fast glass isn't that important to you, also take a look at the tokina 12-24 (about $500 and worth every penny), which is great for landscape shots.

the 70-300 ed is a capable lens, the $500 vr version is supposed to be even better. you can get good results with the cheaper g lens, even. for tracking birds, af-s and a fast shutter speed are essential, but any lens with a fast af should do it. i tested out a cheap sigma 55-200 at lake merritt in oakland on some geese. the camera tracked the motion well, the af was fast, and i was able to handhold due to lightweight. i ended up returning the lens for the somewhat bulkier 70-300 ed, but the shots came out clear and sharp -- i even got the footprint trail as the bird took off from the water.

you could save yourself some time and go directly to the 3rd party 2.8 zooms -- you'll eventually replace your 18-70 with one anyway -- from sigma and tamron. you might still be able to get one of those and a nikkor 50 1.8 for under $500, or you could get, say, the 28-75 tamron 2.8 for under $400 and the nikkor 70-300 g for about $140, which would give you speed and range. if you're not gonna be shooting sports, action, or low-light, also look at the 55-200 vr and 18-55 combo -- that plus the 50 1.8 will run around $500, which gives you a lot of versatility while still keeping the weight light.

hi jean,

watch out for camera addict. check their reviews on resellerratings.com before you purchase. normally, adorama and b&h have the best combinations of low prices and customer service, which is important when buying expensive photo gear.

 

obviously a d200 with an 18-200 would be a desirable combination, but for what you're doing --taking vacation shots -- you would probably get just as good results from, say, your 18-55 and the 55-200 vr IMO. rarely does one need to shoot touristy landmarks at 5 fps. get the 55-200 now -- add the 12-24 tokina if you really want to get impressive landscape shots -- and you can upgrade lenses or body down the line. with the 18-55/55-200 combo you'd have a lightweight, portable solution to most shooting situations, plus you'd cover the 18-200 range with no overlap. and the $500-$700 you'd save could go toward your next glass purchase -- a prime macro, fast zoom, or mid-telephoto, perhaps?

hmm, this problem seems to have been correctly diagnosed.

i'd just like to add that a similar thing happened to me, when i was using my sb-600 flash w/ d80. the camera, which has been otherwise reliable in seven months of moderate use) wouldn't focus. then i took the flash off and it worked ok. i changed the flash batteries but the same thing happened. it turned out the hotshoe connector was dusty or something, i blew on both the camera and flash hotshoe and then they both worked after that. moral of the story is always check for a simple explanation before developing worst-case scenarios. moral of randy's story is dont drop your lens.

for the price of the nikkor 17-55, you could get the tamron or the sigma --a coin flip according to most folks -- PLUS the sigma 10-20 or the tokina 12-24, PLUS a fast prime. but getting back to your question, you should test em both if you can and see which one you like better.

hi brian,

before you get all crazy with NAS, figure out what you like to shoot. then choose the lens(es) that best fit that need. take a while to get to know your glass as you get to know your d80.

 

what you have now is actually not a bad starter kit, covering a range of 42-450 mm film equiv. you might want to keep it until you can afford some pro glass, like the nikkor 17-55 and the 70-200. replacing the 28-80 with the 18-70 doesn't make that much sense; both are about the same speed -- the 28-80 is actually a little faster at the wide end but slower at the long end. IMO, if you're gonna replace your kit lens, get a high performance, good value 2.8 like the tamron 28-75 or 17-50 or the sigma 18-50.

 

if you do keep this kit, my suggestions for now would be to get something faster and something wider. primes might be a good idea, since you already have two zooms. definitely pick up the 50 1.8 for low-light and portraits -- it's super sharp and super cheap.

 

for wide you might like the sigma 10-20 or the tokina 12-24, unless you think it's worth an extra $500 to get the nikkor. you could also look at the sigma 20 1.8, the nikkor 24 2.8, or the nikkor 20 2.8 if you're so inclined, the trade off would be sharpness for range and flexibility.

 

the tamron 90, tokina 100, sigma 105, or nikkor 105 vr (all 2.8s) would add 1:1 macro capabilities as well as medium tele for portraits. also check out the nikkor 85 1.8, which doesn't have macro or IF, but is faster than the 3rd-party offerings at roughly the same price.

 

that's a smattering of what's out there in lens land --a place you're soon to go. me personally, i can vouch for the tokina 12-24, the tamron 28-75, and the nikkor 50 1.8 as essential items in a good bag o' glass.

 

the choices might seem bewildering at first, but the good news is you should be able to get some great shots with the d80 and your 2-lens kit now while you research (and test-drive) lenses for later.

get a d80! like keanu in "the matrix," it's the one!

don't sell the 12-24! at least not before you have a chance to go hands-on with the 16-50. just curious why wouldn't you dump the sigma? sounds like you're not tickled with it?

here's my two cents: the 18-200 is a $650 msrp lens that should have retailed at about $500, in which case it would have been reasonable as a one-lens solution. instead, high demand and low supply pushed it up as much as $1000, hype which any non-pro lens would have trouble justifying, especially one with a slowwwww aperture at the long end of 5.6.

 

if you already have the 55-200 vr, it doesn't make sense to trade it and your 18-70 for the 18-200 vr, since with any superzoom, images will not be as sharp across the entire focal range as with a shorter zoom or prime. plus you don't really gain anything, except not having to change lenses. and if that's your only lens, if it breaks, you have no backup.

 

if you love the 55-200 vr, by all means, hold on to it.

 

but if you think maybe you need more reach, the perfect compliment to the 18-70 is the 70-300 vr. 200mm is easily hand-holdable, especially with a lightweight dx lens, but 300 mm is not, so in that situation it makes sense to have vr. you probably wouldn't have to use vr at a shorter focal length, i.e. 18-70, very often anyway.

 

still, none of those lenses are speed demons, and vr will only go so far. it might help you shoot at a lower shutter speed occasionally, or in some low-light situations with static subjects, but there's nothing you can do about that narrow aperture. and if you're trying to track a moving subject, vr is fairly useless.

 

if i were you, if i was going to trade in the 18-70 for anything, it would be a 2.8 like the tamron 17-50 and the sigma 18-50. or you could upgrade to the $1500 17-55 nikkor 2.8, although pop photography actually rated the sigma as sharper. you might also want to consider getting a faster telephoto. it's probably worth it to save your pennies for pro glass like the nikkor 70-200 vr, the tokina 50-135 or the sigma 50-150 all of which have constant apertures and are much faster than the 18-200 or the 55-200.

are you kidding? the d80 is a better camera than the d40x, particularly because the d40x, like the d40, only has 3-pt autofocus while the d80 has 11. also, you can only use lenses with internal (af-s/hsm) motors on the d40/d40x, so you'd be limited in your lens selection beyond that 30mm prime. however, if size/weight are your primary concerns, the d40x should do quite well in that regard if you don't mind loss of functionality in critical areas like AF and FPS or the lack of a second dial (which, as a pro shooter, you probably would).

 

the d80 isn't particularly light, but its closest to the d200 in terms of features. and as someone else pointed out, there's no battery grip available for the d40--although using a grip kinda negates the lightweight/less bulk option.

 

if you already have the d2x and the d200, i'd go with the d80 since it's not such a precipitous drop, feature-wise from what you're used to. the d40x is just a megapixel-stuffed d40 designed more for entry-level newbies than pros looking for backup bodies. if you can't live without 10 mp, go for the d80. btw, my d80 feels quite inobtrusive minus the grip and fitted with the 50 1.8, perfect for available-light candids, so i'd expect a d80/sigma 30 prime combo to be about the same, maybe a tad heavier.

simple: buy the nikon 55-200 vr version at a chain store; return it the next day if you don't decide to keep it. at $249 retail, it won't kill your pocketbook like the 18-200. you might also want to consider the 70-300 vr, which is twice as much but gives you more reach.

why oly?

two reasons: fast (f/2.0) apertures on their "super hi-grade" lenses -- at a premium cost; and 2x mag factor -- for telephoto uses such as wildlife, the sigma 50-500 (available in 4/3rds mount) becomes a whopping 100-1000mm zoom.

 

oly's still developing its line, and panasonic/leica don't offer much variation currently, while so far only sigma makes 3rd party glass. but in a couple of years, the 4/3rds format selection should be much better than it is now, maybe even enough to intrigue a canonite or nikonian who wants longer reach and faster apertures.

 

in the meantime, oly appear to have addressed the shortcomings of the e-500 with the e510, although they can only hope all the folks who bought e500 2-lens kits will stay on board rather than jump ship.

sorry, but the oly short kit lens sucks. its slower than the telephoto at a shorter reach! since the low-light focusing problems on the e-500 are well-known, consider the sigma 18-50 ex, which is a 2.8 and a semi-macro. it's comparable in price to the zuiko 14-54 and gives you a constant aperture all the way through the focal range. right now, sigma is the only 3rd party manufacurer making 4/3 lenses, and this is considered one of their best, beating out lenses which cost 3x as much in some tests.

first of all, this isn't really an apt comparison, since these lenses do different things. the 18-55 is a general all-purpose close-up/portrait lens. the 50 is a fast prime that becomes a 75mm lens with an aps-c sensor. so, really, your question(s) should be, should i get the 18-55 or another lens for walkaround stuff? and should i consider the 50 1.8?

 

now i don't have the 18-55, i have the 18-70, so i cant directly comment on it. but i'm surprised with how many people love it. i personally find that range a bit short on the long end for general walkaround use -- i'd go with the 18-70 or 18-135 nikkors just for that reason. it also depends on what you shoot. for some folks --you know who you are-- the nikkors aren't fast enough; even the 18-200 vr is a relatively slow lens. but i'm guessing if you're shooting d50 and coming from the quantaray (aka sigma) telezoom, the 18-55 will seem like a godsend.

 

however, you should still get the 50 1.8. here's why: 1) price/quality ratio is the best you can get on any nikon-compatible lens, period. for the price--around $100 new-- it's the best value in the nikon line, and definitely sharper than any kit lens. 2) for low-light or candids, it's invaluable. its low profile--it looks like a sawed-off or snubnose on a dslr--turns your big freakin' camera into an inobtrusive p&s-like thing. 3) you can't overstate the value of a wider aperture. 4) every dslr user should have at least one prime in their bag. the 50 won't be as usable as, say the 30mm sigma 1.4 or the nikon 28 2.8-- with the crop factor, they equate closest to a "normal" lens -- but those are more expensive. 5) the 50 is a really fun lens to use. the lack of a zoom will improve your compositional skills and force you to think creatively instead of letting the camera do all the work, which is a good thing. for all those reasons, getting the 50--which takes creamy portraits--is really a no-brainer; however, it won't meet your needs as a primary lens. but isn't being able to use interchangeable lenses the reason you got a dslr in the first place?

haven't tried the tam 17-50 but i was so impressed with the 28-75 on my d80 i started thinking about getting that one too. apparently these two, along with the tamron 90mm macro lens, are among the best lenses available for nikon users, really fitting that niche between value-minded pros and advanced amateurs. the 90mm sp consistently gets better reviews than the nikkor 105mm vr for sharpness, the 17-50 is said to be tack-sharp as well, and the 28-75 is already a staple in many pro bags. btw, the sigma 18-50 f/2.8 macro even outperformed the nikkor 17-55 according to pop photography's tests, so the nikkor may be a bit overrated, or at least overpriced...

 

the one thing you will definitely get with the nikkor over the tamron and the sigma is better build, but then for the price, you could get three tamrons or sigmas and still have money left over for filters.

this debate also raged at nikonians...

 

basically, according to most tests and popular consensus, the tokina is just as good as the nikkor optically, although few nikkor snobs will admit they paid an extra $500 for a logo and little else. the glass is essentially the same (tokina makes glass for nikon, btw) and the build quality is better. i personally own the tokina and it's a great lens. for me, $500 is still a lot for a specialty lens, so the tokina represented the best combination of value and quality, IMO.

 

no, you don't need an internal motor for landscape shots, and the constant f/4 aperture plus the extra length give it the nod over the sigma, which i havent tried but evidently has its fans. 12mm seems wide enough for most situations, but i dunno, maybe some shooters need to say their wide-angle goes to 10 (shades of spinal tap!). a couple of other things i like about the tokina are the velvet-lined lens hood (helps attract dust away from the lens) and the mf/af switch, which allows for on the fly adjustments.

 

i don't see how anyone could be disappointed with the tokina unless they were psyching themselves out, but, hey, it's great that nikon users have three excellent choices for w/a. too bad people have to actually make that choice... if you can test all three hands-on, do it. if not, order the tokina with confidence!