 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / April 2006Next question: D50 lenses
OK, it looks like I'm going to be going for the Nikon D50. I can get the 2 lens kit (18-55mm and 55-200mm) for $820 delivered....or I could get the D50 body only + the 18-70mm lens that normally comes with the D70s for about $870. So my dilemma is do I go with the lower quality kit lenses with the D50 and have lots of range, or with a better quality lens but limit my telephoto options? Is the difference in lens quality really noticeable? Or bearing in mind that this is my first DSLR, will I not notice any problems with the standard D50 kit lenses?  Signature-Take out Ron to reply- My games blog: http://bloggisgames.blogspot.com GT4 pics slideshow: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dr_boggis/sets/162932/show/ >OK, it looks like I'm going to be going for the Nikon D50. I can get the >2 lens kit (18-55mm and 55-200mm) for $820 delivered....or I could get [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >and have lots of range, or with a better quality lens but limit my >telephoto options? Or spend more money and buy the 18-200, and just have one lens to start. I say to start, because having an SLR means you will desire more lenses. Like the 12-24, then the 105VR macro, then... And you have to remember that for the 35mm equivalent you mutilply these numbers by 1.5. So that 18-70 will act like a 27-105. Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms). Dr. Boggis wrote (in article <boggissimoron-EB8537.17230918042006@nntp.aioe.org>): > OK, it looks like I'm going to be going for the Nikon D50. I can get the > 2 lens kit (18-55mm and 55-200mm) for $820 delivered....or I could get > the D50 body only + the 18-70mm lens that normally comes with the D70s > for about $870. Kit lenses by and large suck. There are some exceptions, like the D200 bundle w/the 18-200 VR which isn't a bad choice. I haven't looked for or seen a combo of the D50 with that lens though. For a starter lens, I can't think of one that would better on its own than that to cover a wide range of subjects. > So my dilemma is do I go with the lower quality kit lenses with the D50 > and have lots of range, or with a better quality lens but limit my > telephoto options? Lower quality lenses are almost always a mistake. Buy the best glass you can afford, and buy fewer lenses if need be at the time. > Is the difference in lens quality really noticeable? Absolutely. Far more noticeable than the difference between camera bodies. > Or bearing in mind > that this is my first DSLR, will I not notice any problems with the > standard D50 kit lenses? I'd look for a bundle, or buy the body only and the 18-200 separate, and blow off those other kit lenses. You'll be much happier in the long run. SignatureRandy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) "The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw > OK, it looks like I'm going to be going for the Nikon D50. I can get > the 2 lens kit (18-55mm and 55-200mm) for $820 delivered....or I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > D50 and have lots of range, or with a better quality lens but limit my > telephoto options? The 18-70 is much better than the 18-55. It's more than just picture quality. I have the 18-70 and my wife has the 18-55. I have not tried the 55-200. As kit lenses go, the 18-70 is a good one but if you can swing the price (and find a store that has one) go with the 18-200VR as others have suggested. -Mike > The 18-70 is much better than the 18-55. It's more than just picture > quality. I have the 18-70 and my wife has the 18-55. I have not tried > the 55-200. As kit lenses go, the 18-70 is a good one but if you can > swing the price (and find a store that has one) go with the > 18-200VR as others have suggested. Good luck finding the damn thing though. EBay sells it at a hyper premium. Most shops will special order it, but it is usually 2+ months out. I think Amazon claims about 1 month. I got on the list and took myself off after about 21 days ... I can't see paying $799 for the lens when it will eventually be available for < $649 once the supply catches up. My local camera shop already offers it for $699 special order, but it is 2+ months out with them as well. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 >> OK, it looks like I'm going to be going for the Nikon D50. I can get >> the 2 lens kit (18-55mm and 55-200mm) for $820 delivered....or I [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > -Mike Anyone have a lead on where I can find the 18-200mm VR Nikon lens? Every store I've tried, both locally and online, has it backordered. I'm ready to buy one, but can't find one in stock. Who knows where I could get one? TIA >Anyone have a lead on where I can find the 18-200mm VR Nikon lens? Every >store I've tried, both locally and online, has it backordered. I'm ready to >buy one, but can't find one in stock. Who knows where I could get one? TIA One more place you can try is phoning Unique Photo. I got mine from them the day I ordered it (but I had a connection). They are open on Saturday (for a short day), so you don't have to wait. The number is on their website: www.uniquephoto.com. Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms). > OK, it looks like I'm going to be going for the Nikon D50. I can get the > 2 lens kit (18-55mm and 55-200mm) for $820 delivered....or I could get [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > that this is my first DSLR, will I not notice any problems with the > standard D50 kit lenses? The 18-70 is the better lens by far. Not only is it 2/3 stops faster at the long end and constructed much better, it has a reputation as one of the best "kit" lenses out there from any manufacturer. Get a longer lens later, but stay away from the 55-200 at any time. It has the reputation of being a bit of a "dog" at best. If you want the wider range right away, go for the body and the 18-200 VR as mentioned by another poster. Hard to find, but a good lens as reported by the users. Bob >OK, it looks like I'm going to be going for the Nikon D50. I can get the >2 lens kit (18-55mm and 55-200mm) for $820 delivered....or I could get [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >that this is my first DSLR, will I not notice any problems with the >standard D50 kit lenses? The difference is noticeable. How much that affects your personal taste in image sharpness, contrast, focus speed, zoom range on a walk around lense, and weight, are all subjective factors that only you can truly answer. If you doubt you'll ever buy any other lenses, and you only care about printing 4x6 or 5x7 photos from vacations, family events, etc., go for the 2-lense kit and be done with it. But if you want higher performance, I'd say go for the 18-70 lense. After seeing the results and performance of the 18-70 to the 18-55 kit lenses, I feel the difference is well worth the money - but I lean towards the optical performance end of the spectrum. And you can always buy a decent telephoto lense later on for more reach. Nikon's 18-70mm lens is the way to go, it is well built and of extremely high optical quality considering it is a 'kit' lens. Learn how to use it to take great photos, while you're doing that, you can save up for an 18-200 VR or a decent macro lens. I would definitely avoid the 18-55mm lens, it is short on contrast and nowehere near as sharp as the 18-70mm option. > OK, it looks like I'm going to be going for the Nikon D50. I can get the > 2 lens kit (18-55mm and 55-200mm) for $820 delivered....or I could get [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > that this is my first DSLR, will I not notice any problems with the > standard D50 kit lenses? > Nikon's 18-70mm lens is the way to go, it is well built and of > extremely high optical quality considering it is a 'kit' lens. Learn > how to use it to take great photos, while you're doing that, you can > save up for an 18-200 VR or a decent macro lens. I've been pleasantly surprised by the 18-70. I just came off the first weekend of using it heavily, and it performed excellently. It's light, presumably suggesting more plastic and less metal in the construction, but I try to avoid dropping even my metal-structure lenses on the ground anyway :-). Note that it's an AF-S ED lens (in addition to the rest of the alphabet soup it sports). Those tend to be premium-lens features. It focuses very fast and silently, and I find the images sharp, contrasty, and generally nice. I'd generally describe it as considerably *better* than you would expect given the objective specifications. It's somewhat slow (aperture), but that's clearly written in the specs, no surprise. (I picked up a used one on ebay at a good price when I was finally ready to admit that 28-70 just wasn't an adequate walkaround lens for a 1.5x crop factor camera, and when I got a D200 and SB-800 (so I had working TTL flash exposure again, finally; I'm back to where I was in 1987, hooray!!!)). SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/> > OK, it looks like I'm going to be going for the Nikon D50. I can get the > 2 lens kit (18-55mm and 55-200mm) for $820 delivered....or I could get > the D50 body only + the 18-70mm lens that normally comes with the D70s > for about $870. > So my dilemma is do I go with the lower quality kit lenses with the D50 > and have lots of range, or with a better quality lens but limit my > telephoto options? > Is the difference in lens quality really noticeable? Or bearing in mind > that this is my first DSLR, will I not notice any problems with the > standard D50 kit lenses? Yes, lens quality really is noticeable. As an alternative to cheap zooms it might be worth getting a Nikon 50/1.8 D AF, a top class lens for about $100. Andrew. > OK, it looks like I'm going to be going for the Nikon D50. I can get the > 2 lens kit (18-55mm and 55-200mm) for $820 delivered....or I could get [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > that this is my first DSLR, will I not notice any problems with the > standard D50 kit lenses? Thanks for all the responses. I don't have the cash for the 18-200VR lens at the moment, but I think I'll go with the 18-70 rather than the 2-lens kit. I'm sure I will want to buy more lenses as I get more experienced, so I can add a bigger zoom, macro etc later. Cheers! Signature-Take out Ron to reply- My games blog: http://bloggisgames.blogspot.com GT4 pics slideshow: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dr_boggis/sets/162932/show/ > OK, it looks like I'm going to be going for the Nikon D50. I can get the > 2 lens kit (18-55mm and 55-200mm) for $820 delivered....or I could get > the D50 body only + the 18-70mm lens that normally comes with the D70s > for about $870. Get the 18-70mm lens. My experience with it has been excellent. I think the lens creates nice sharp images. I haven't really noticed any distortion issues at all (you can see it a little down at about 18mm). It is a much better lens than the 18-55. The 55-200, from what I have read, is not true AF-S, and in fact, is a cheap AF-S knock off [still produced by Nikon ... crazy]. In any event, I think you would find the 70-300 ED or G to be an option to match the 18-70 that is no worse than the 55-200 is. > So my dilemma is do I go with the lower quality kit lenses with the D50 > and have lots of range, or with a better quality lens but limit my > telephoto options? For the $50 difference, I think the decision is clear to me. You could get the 70-300G if you want for less than $100. So, you are talking about $150 difference to get more range [albiet it is of lesser quality above 200mm on the 70-300] and a much better lens from 18-70 for a total of about $150 difference. > Is the difference in lens quality really noticeable? Or bearing in mind > that this is my first DSLR, will I not notice any problems with the > standard D50 kit lenses? I can't say that I have used the 18-55. However, I have read reviews and looked at the specs. Why not find a local shop and go check it out in person before you order it. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 > > Is the difference in lens quality really noticeable? Or bearing in mind > > that this is my first DSLR, will I not notice any problems with the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > looked at the specs. Why not find a local shop and go check it out in person > before you order it. I'm planning to do this at the weekend, to make sure I like the feel of the D50 and to get some more advice. Signature-Take out Ron to reply- My games blog: http://bloggisgames.blogspot.com GT4 pics slideshow: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dr_boggis/sets/162932/show/ > OK, it looks like I'm going to be going for the Nikon D50. I can get the > 2 lens kit (18-55mm and 55-200mm) for $820 delivered....or I could get [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > that this is my first DSLR, will I not notice any problems with the > standard D50 kit lenses? Get the two-lens kit & a fast prime. > So my dilemma is do I go with the lower quality kit lenses with the > D50 > and have lots of range, or with a better quality lens but limit my > telephoto options? Frankly, I'd be looking for a way of getting the 18-70 *and* a telephoto zoom. Sure, the pictures you'll get with the 18-70 will be better than those you'd get with the 18-55, but the ones you'll miss without the 55-200 or some other telephoto zoom are by definition not as good as the ones you'd get with it. It doesn't cost much more than $100 to get a working telephoto zoom. You can always upgrade later. Think of it as renting a lens for $10/month for the year just so you have *something* in the telephoto range. But then, for the kind of pcitures I take (concerts, landscape), I really depend on that range. Others can probably do fine without it. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ >>So my dilemma is do I go with the lower quality kit lenses with the >>D50 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > renting a lens for $10/month for the year just so you have *something* > in the telephoto range. That was kind of my thinking in proposing the 2-lens kit plus a fast prime. One would be able to experience, learn & compare. > But then, for the kind of pcitures I take > (concerts, landscape), I really depend on that range. Others can > probably do fine without it. > That was kind of my thinking in proposing the 2-lens kit plus a fast > prime. One would be able to experience, learn & compare. Excuse my inexperience, but what do people mean by "prime"? Is that any non-zoom lens, or one with a particular max aperture across the whole zoom range, or what? Signature-Take out Ron to reply- My games blog: http://bloggisgames.blogspot.com GT4 pics slideshow: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dr_boggis/sets/162932/show/ > Excuse my inexperience, but what do people mean by "prime"? Is that any > non-zoom lens, or one with a particular max aperture across the whole > zoom range, or what? It's a word that is misused to mean "fixed focal length". That is not what it means, but nowadays, with incorrect usage spreading across the net like a prairie fire, you can count on it meaning that 99% of the time you see it. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > > Excuse my inexperience, but what do people mean by "prime"? Is that any > > non-zoom lens, or one with a particular max aperture across the whole [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > it means, but nowadays, with incorrect usage spreading across the net like > a prairie fire, you can count on it meaning that 99% of the time you see it. OK, thanks. Signature-Take out Ron to reply- My games blog: http://bloggisgames.blogspot.com GT4 pics slideshow: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dr_boggis/sets/162932/show/ >> That was kind of my thinking in proposing the 2-lens kit plus a fast >> prime. One would be able to experience, learn & compare. > >Excuse my inexperience, but what do people mean by "prime"? Is that any >non-zoom lens, or one with a particular max aperture across the whole >zoom range, or what? I believe the original definition has blurred a bit over the years, but most of the time these days the term "prime lense" refers to a fixed focal range, such as a 50mm f/1.8 lense. An 18-55mm f/4.5-5.6 would be a zoom lense with a variable focal range. > That was kind of my thinking in proposing the 2-lens kit plus a fast > prime. One would be able to experience, learn & compare. And as a Pentax user, this is pretty much exactly the sort of combination that makes the basis of my own kit. If I had had the option of something like the Nikkor 18-70, I'd have gone for it - both because of the reputation of that lens, and in hopes that the extra reach at the telephoto end would reduce the need for lens changes. But not at the expense of the real telephoto zoom or the prime. Luckily, one can pick up old manual primes that work fine on Pentax for next to nothing. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ > OK, it looks like I'm going to be going for the Nikon D50. I can get the > 2 lens kit (18-55mm and 55-200mm) for $820 delivered....or I could get [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > that this is my first DSLR, will I not notice any problems with the > standard D50 kit lenses? As a D50 user with (so far) the kit 18-55 lens All I can say is that I am very happy to 'get on the ladder' at this price point. Once funds permit I'll be dabbling in other glass but for getting going the D50 + 18-55 is several orders of excellence against anything else I could have got for the money. If I could have streched to the 2 lens kit I would have done. To my mind i'd rather have the "cheap" but "not as good" flexibility and build on that. Doc > As a D50 user with (so far) the kit 18-55 lens All I can say is that I > am very happy to 'get on the ladder' at this price point. Once funds [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > mind i'd rather have the "cheap" but "not as good" flexibility and > build on that. Smart move IMO. I certainly don't disagree with all of the other comments, but if you cannot take good pictures with the 18-55 kit lens, a better lens will not help. Once you're happy with the pictures you're taking, you'll know where this lens crimps your style and have some basis to select your next faster, longer or wider, fixed focal length or zoom lens. -hank |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.