Nikon Lens Choice

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by hinnc@yahoo.com, May 18, 2006.

  1. Guest

    I know little enough about photography to be dangerous and I'm thinking
    on purchasing a Nikon D50, The D200 has features I would probably
    never use and I figured I'd invest more in a good lens or two.

    I have seen mixed reviews on the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18 - 200 mm
    f/3.5-5.6G DX ED VR, Based on the reviews it seems that the tradeoff
    is at near and far distances the image quality may suffer but its a
    good all around lens. Many claim its the only lens they now they use.
    Some reviews say its the best thing since sliced bread while others
    question what all the hoopla is about.

    My questions is this: Do you think money would be better spent on
    getting two lenses - one for everyday shots and a zoom for sports and
    my kids soccer games - or is the 18-200 listed above a good choice?
    The two lens strategy being; use the lens for the specifc job and it
    will do the job well, or the ones lens strategy; use a sngle lens that
    may do pretty good all around but you may be trading off less to carry
    for image quality.

    I also wonder of the vibration reduction would be extremely valuable.

    Any opinions would be valued. Thanks!
     
    , May 18, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Roy G Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I know little enough about photography to be dangerous and I'm thinking
    > on purchasing a Nikon D50, The D200 has features I would probably
    > never use and I figured I'd invest more in a good lens or two.
    >
    > I have seen mixed reviews on the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18 - 200 mm
    > f/3.5-5.6G DX ED VR, Based on the reviews it seems that the tradeoff
    > is at near and far distances the image quality may suffer but its a
    > good all around lens. Many claim its the only lens they now they use.
    > Some reviews say its the best thing since sliced bread while others
    > question what all the hoopla is about.
    >
    > My questions is this: Do you think money would be better spent on
    > getting two lenses - one for everyday shots and a zoom for sports and
    > my kids soccer games - or is the 18-200 listed above a good choice?
    > The two lens strategy being; use the lens for the specifc job and it
    > will do the job well, or the ones lens strategy; use a sngle lens that
    > may do pretty good all around but you may be trading off less to carry
    > for image quality.
    >
    > I also wonder of the vibration reduction would be extremely valuable.
    >
    > Any opinions would be valued. Thanks!


    Hi.

    I would not like to advise on the purchase of 1 or 2 lenses, that is a
    dilemma which everyone must answer for themselves.

    You do not have a great choice in the 200 to 300 range, if you go for 2
    lenses, unless you go for an 18 to 70 DX and a 2nd hand 70 or 80 to 200 D

    The Current Dx 55 to 200 is rubbish.

    The Current 70 to 300s are both Ok, but no more than Ok.

    The 70 to 200 f2.8 VR is excellent but at a stupid price.
    The 80 to 200 f2.8 is also good but is still expensive, although it seems
    to be getting discounted.

    For a longer focus lens, VR is excellent, and really does make a huge
    difference, but the current range of real Nikons, (as against things with
    Nikon labels), are all in the expensive category.

    Roy G
     
    Roy G, May 18, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ASAAR Guest

    On 18 May 2006 15:05:42 -0700, wrote:

    > My questions is this: Do you think money would be better spent on
    > getting two lenses - one for everyday shots and a zoom for sports and
    > my kids soccer games - or is the 18-200 listed above a good choice?
    > The two lens strategy being; use the lens for the specifc job and it
    > will do the job well, or the ones lens strategy; use a sngle lens that
    > may do pretty good all around but you may be trading off less to carry
    > for image quality.
    >
    > I also wonder of the vibration reduction would be extremely valuable.


    It might be valuable for some types of handheld photography when
    use of a tripod wouldn't be possible. But much less valuable for
    sports photography, where you generally want to use fast shutter
    speeds to stop soccer players and other fast moving objects. The VR
    works by making it possible to use slower shutter speeds. A camera
    having a sensor allowing a couple of stops worth of higher usable
    ISOs would provide the benefits of VR without the disadvantages.
    Also, if most of the sports shots would be taken near the 200mm end
    of the f/3.5-5.6G DX ED VR lens, the aperture would be smaller,
    negating some of the VR's benefit, since the required shutter speed
    would have to be made even slower, and VR doesn't eliminate camera
    motion, it just reduces it.
     
    ASAAR, May 18, 2006
    #3
  4. [BnH] Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > My questions is this: Do you think money would be better spent on
    > getting two lenses - one for everyday shots and a zoom for sports and
    > my kids soccer games - or is the 18-200 listed above a good choice?
    > The two lens strategy being; use the lens for the specifc job and it
    > will do the job well, or the ones lens strategy; use a sngle lens that
    > may do pretty good all around but you may be trading off less to carry
    > for image quality.


    Sport and every walk around lens are 2 world apart.
    For sports you want long range and fast lens [f/2.8] to freeze any movement
    in minimal lighting condition.
    whilst VR lens is good for reducing shake in minimal lighting condition [not
    necessarily freeze the object]

    whilst kids soccer games are mostly on sunny days, your 18-200 might do the
    job.
    crank the ISO up to ISO 400 and you should get fast shutter speed even on
    f/5.6 of that lens.

    and while you are not shooting sport, the VR on the 18-200 as my friend say
    "a masterpiece of Nikon engineering" :)

    =bob=
     
    [BnH], May 19, 2006
    #4
  5. Bill Guest

    wrote:

    >I know little enough about photography to be dangerous and I'm thinking
    >on purchasing a Nikon D50, The D200 has features I would probably
    >never use and I figured I'd invest more in a good lens or two.


    That's ok, the D50 is a very capable camera and will perform nearly as
    well as the D70 or D200 for capturing images. Most of the differences
    are in features, design, and controls, so the D50 will work nicely.

    >I have seen mixed reviews on the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18 - 200 mm
    >f/3.5-5.6G DX ED VR, Based on the reviews it seems that the tradeoff
    >is at near and far distances the image quality may suffer but its a
    >good all around lens. Many claim its the only lens they now they use.
    >Some reviews say its the best thing since sliced bread while others
    >question what all the hoopla is about.


    I think you've already come to the same conclusion as I have. The 18-200
    is pretty good for what it is - a super zoom.

    It does have some problems with distortion at the wide end, and softness
    at the long end, but it is a single lense with a massive zoom range. I
    understand it's one of the better choices in that category, and it has
    VR as well.

    Having said that, I much prefer 2-3 lenses to cover the same zoom range
    because optical performance can be much better.

    >My questions is this: Do you think money would be better spent on
    >getting two lenses - one for everyday shots and a zoom for sports and
    >my kids soccer games - or is the 18-200 listed above a good choice?
    >The two lens strategy being; use the lens for the specifc job and it
    >will do the job well, or the ones lens strategy; use a sngle lens that
    >may do pretty good all around but you may be trading off less to carry
    >for image quality.


    First off, sports shooting is not well suited to lenses that are not
    sharp when wide open. To "freeze" the subject in motion, you need a
    shutter speed of 1/250 or higher, and using a zoom that can only get
    sharp images at f/8 may yield poor results unless it's a bright sunny
    day. On a cloudy day, you may have to crank up the ISO to get good
    shutter speeds, and that tends to produce more noise in your images
    (it's all a trade-off).

    For less active subjects, you can try 1/125 and see how that works for
    you.

    There's a reason you see sports photographers with big lenses - the big
    f/2.8 aperture helps to capture more light and lets them shoot at higher
    shutter values to freeze the action. These big and expensive lenses are
    sharp wide open, so it's not a problem.

    Having said all that, if you want to take 4x6 snaphots of the kids
    playing sports, the 18-200 VR or even 70-300 ED might be good enough.
    But if you want to make 8x10 or larger prints, you'll likely not be too
    impressed with the image sharpness from the above lenses when used wide
    open.

    Unfortunately Nikon doesn't have a really good mid-priced telephoto
    zoom. You get the fair 70-300 ED or fantastic 70-200 AFS VR at 5x the
    price. I'd like to see them come out with a 70-200 non-VR lense that can
    compete against the Canon 70-200 f/4 L. That would balance out the Nikon
    line a bit more.

    >I also wonder of the vibration reduction would be extremely valuable.


    The VR can be very helpful if you're moving or shooting handheld on long
    telephoto shots. It's less helpful if you're shooting sports. But you
    can turn the feature off.
     
    Bill, May 19, 2006
    #5
  6. Paul Rubin Guest

    Bill <> writes:
    > Unfortunately Nikon doesn't have a really good mid-priced telephoto
    > zoom. You get the fair 70-300 ED or fantastic 70-200 AFS VR at 5x the
    > price. I'd like to see them come out with a 70-200 non-VR lense that can
    > compete against the Canon 70-200 f/4 L. That would balance out the Nikon
    > line a bit more.


    Try the 80-200/2.8D.
     
    Paul Rubin, May 19, 2006
    #6
  7. Don Wiss Guest

    On Thu, 18 May 2006 20:37:15 -0400, Bill <> wrote:

    > wrote:
    >
    >>I know little enough about photography to be dangerous and I'm thinking
    >>on purchasing a Nikon D50, The D200 has features I would probably
    >>never use and I figured I'd invest more in a good lens or two.

    >
    >That's ok, the D50 is a very capable camera and will perform nearly as
    >well as the D70 or D200 for capturing images. Most of the differences
    >are in features, design, and controls, so the D50 will work nicely.


    Does the D50 and D70 have as good a continuous mode as the D200? Useful
    when taking sports pictures.

    Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms).
     
    Don Wiss, May 19, 2006
    #7
  8. writes:

    > I know little enough about photography to be dangerous and I'm thinking
    > on purchasing a Nikon D50, The D200 has features I would probably
    > never use and I figured I'd invest more in a good lens or two.


    This is not a stupid idea.

    > I have seen mixed reviews on the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18 - 200 mm
    > f/3.5-5.6G DX ED VR, Based on the reviews it seems that the tradeoff
    > is at near and far distances the image quality may suffer but its a
    > good all around lens. Many claim its the only lens they now they use.
    > Some reviews say its the best thing since sliced bread while others
    > question what all the hoopla is about.
    >
    > My questions is this: Do you think money would be better spent on
    > getting two lenses - one for everyday shots and a zoom for sports and
    > my kids soccer games - or is the 18-200 listed above a good choice?
    > The two lens strategy being; use the lens for the specifc job and it
    > will do the job well, or the ones lens strategy; use a sngle lens that
    > may do pretty good all around but you may be trading off less to carry
    > for image quality.


    Well, I *am* starting to wonder a little; the 18-200 is by most
    accounts a pretty decent lens for its extreme range, but it's
    certainly not a lens I'd think of skimping on other things to be able
    to afford; it's the lens you buy when you can't afford pro-grade
    lenses.

    > I also wonder of the vibration reduction would be extremely valuable.


    Never owned one, but many people speak highly of it for some kinds of
    work.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <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/>
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, May 19, 2006
    #8
  9. Bill Guest

    Paul Rubin <http://> wrote:

    >Bill <> writes:
    >> Unfortunately Nikon doesn't have a really good mid-priced telephoto
    >> zoom. You get the fair 70-300 ED or fantastic 70-200 AFS VR at 5x the
    >> price. I'd like to see them come out with a 70-200 non-VR lense that can
    >> compete against the Canon 70-200 f/4 L. That would balance out the Nikon
    >> line a bit more.

    >
    >Try the 80-200/2.8D.


    I'm sorry...I thought I said "really good mid-priced".

    By mid-priced, I meant in the middle of top and bottom pricing, so
    around the $700-900 range.

    And while that lense fits the price range, it is horribly slow focusing
    on sports action for an f/2.8 lense, so it does not fit my description
    of being a" really good mid-priced" lense, one that could challenge the
    Canon I mentioned above.

    Don't get me wrong...I have nothing against Nikon, but they simply do
    not have a lense to match.
     
    Bill, May 19, 2006
    #9
  10. Bill Guest

    Don Wiss wrote:

    >>>I know little enough about photography to be dangerous and I'm thinking
    >>>on purchasing a Nikon D50, The D200 has features I would probably
    >>>never use and I figured I'd invest more in a good lens or two.

    >>
    >>That's ok, the D50 is a very capable camera and will perform nearly as
    >>well as the D70 or D200 for capturing images. Most of the differences
    >>are in features, design, and controls, so the D50 will work nicely.

    >
    >Does the D50 and D70 have as good a continuous mode as the D200? Useful
    >when taking sports pictures.


    No...

    But since you're saving hundreds of dollars...why would you expect it be
    as good?

    It's close though...close enough that unless you're a dedicated sports
    shooter with a $2000 zoom lense, it won't matter. And if you have that
    $2000 lense, you wouldn't ask this question since you would already be
    looking at the D200 or D2x or whatever higher end model.

    I don't mean to be rude...well actually yes I do...why are you wasting
    everyones time with silly questions? I really hate it when people ask
    blatantly obvious questions, just for the hell of it.

    Don't get me wrong...I don't mind if someone asks because they want to
    learn - most are here to educate and/or learn. But when people post
    questions that are obvious, I just can't abide them...
     
    Bill, May 19, 2006
    #10
  11. wrote:
    >I know little enough about photography to be dangerous and I'm thinking
    >on purchasing a Nikon D50, The D200 has features I would probably
    >never use and I figured I'd invest more in a good lens or two.
    >
    >I have seen mixed reviews on the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18 - 200 mm
    >f/3.5-5.6G DX ED VR, Based on the reviews it seems that the tradeoff


    I would recommend the 18-70mm AF f/3.5-4G DX lense as a walk around.
    You might also, just because they are dirt cheap, want to pick up
    a 50mm f/1.8 too, just for any occasion when a faster lense is
    useful.

    But for sports etc., a 80-200mm AF ED f/2.8 (note that there is more than
    one version of the 80-200mm AF lense, and it is the ED one you want)
    is the way to go.

    These three lenses have distinct advantages because they are fast
    and they are sharp (even wide open or at the ends of the zoom ranges).

    Between those lenses you can do well for most general photography
    needs.

    Regardless of your choice of lenses, get a good tripod and a remote
    shutter release cable.

    >is at near and far distances the image quality may suffer but its a
    >good all around lens. Many claim its the only lens they now they use.
    >Some reviews say its the best thing since sliced bread while others
    >question what all the hoopla is about.
    >
    >My questions is this: Do you think money would be better spent on
    >getting two lenses - one for everyday shots and a zoom for sports and
    >my kids soccer games - or is the 18-200 listed above a good choice?
    >The two lens strategy being; use the lens for the specifc job and it
    >will do the job well, or the ones lens strategy; use a sngle lens that
    >may do pretty good all around but you may be trading off less to carry
    >for image quality.
    >
    >I also wonder of the vibration reduction would be extremely valuable.
    >
    >Any opinions would be valued. Thanks!


    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, May 19, 2006
    #11
  12. Roy G <> wrote:
    >
    > The 70 to 200 f2.8 VR is excellent but at a stupid price.
    > The 80 to 200 f2.8 is also good but is still expensive, although it seems
    > to be getting discounted.
    >


    There are decent off-brand choices to consider too. I just received the
    Tokina 80-200 (D) and I really like it so far. I have yet to get out and take
    any real pictures, but its build quality is nice and it appears to autofocus
    accurately and pretty fast. All the test pictures I took in my yard were
    quite sharp. I did some testing at several focal lengths and apetures and
    they all came out as I expected. Definitely a great choice, especially if you
    want to avoid the premium cost of the Nikkor equivalent. If my primary
    shooting was telephoto, I may have considered the Nikkor for its reportedly
    faster autofocus, but, alas, my typical shots tend to be fairly wide.

    > For a longer focus lens, VR is excellent, and really does make a huge
    > difference, but the current range of real Nikons, (as against things with
    > Nikon labels), are all in the expensive category.
    >


    Spend the money on a tripod and skip the VR for now.

    --
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, May 19, 2006
    #12
  13. Bill <> wrote:
    > Paul Rubin <http://> wrote:
    >
    >>Bill <> writes:
    >>> Unfortunately Nikon doesn't have a really good mid-priced telephoto
    >>> zoom. You get the fair 70-300 ED or fantastic 70-200 AFS VR at 5x the
    >>> price. I'd like to see them come out with a 70-200 non-VR lense that can
    >>> compete against the Canon 70-200 f/4 L. That would balance out the Nikon
    >>> line a bit more.

    >>
    >>Try the 80-200/2.8D.

    >
    > I'm sorry...I thought I said "really good mid-priced".
    >
    > By mid-priced, I meant in the middle of top and bottom pricing, so
    > around the $700-900 range.
    >
    > And while that lense fits the price range, it is horribly slow focusing
    > on sports action for an f/2.8 lense, so it does not fit my description
    > of being a" really good mid-priced" lense, one that could challenge the
    > Canon I mentioned above.
    >
    > Don't get me wrong...I have nothing against Nikon, but they simply do
    > not have a lense to match.


    You can get the Nikkor 80-200D for < $900.

    --
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, May 19, 2006
    #13
  14. J. Clarke Guest

    wrote:

    > I know little enough about photography to be dangerous and I'm thinking
    > on purchasing a Nikon D50, The D200 has features I would probably
    > never use and I figured I'd invest more in a good lens or two.
    >
    > I have seen mixed reviews on the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18 - 200 mm
    > f/3.5-5.6G DX ED VR, Based on the reviews it seems that the tradeoff
    > is at near and far distances the image quality may suffer but its a
    > good all around lens. Many claim its the only lens they now they use.
    > Some reviews say its the best thing since sliced bread while others
    > question what all the hoopla is about.
    >
    > My questions is this: Do you think money would be better spent on
    > getting two lenses - one for everyday shots and a zoom for sports and
    > my kids soccer games - or is the 18-200 listed above a good choice?
    > The two lens strategy being; use the lens for the specifc job and it
    > will do the job well, or the ones lens strategy; use a sngle lens that
    > may do pretty good all around but you may be trading off less to carry
    > for image quality.
    >
    > I also wonder of the vibration reduction would be extremely valuable.
    >
    > Any opinions would be valued. Thanks!


    How soon do you want it? With the 18-200 that's the _big_ question--unless
    you luck out you are unlikely to find one in stock anywhere--right now the
    estimates I'm seeing are for the end of June.

    The price on the 18-200 is $750. The 18-55/55-200 combination goes for
    about 355 (less if you get them as the "kit" lenses with the D50) but
    neither lens is regarded as being particularly good and there's no image
    stabilization and the $400 you have left over won't get you anything
    particularly interesting, so the only reason to go that route would be to
    save money.

    If you go to the 18-70/55-200 combo then you're looking at maybe 500 for the
    combo, not a whole lot less than the 18-200, and it's questionable whether
    there is any gain in optical quality--the 18-70 is well thought of but it's
    not pro glass either.

    Neither the 18-70/55-200 nor the 18-55/55-200 combination has any real
    advantage for sports photography, so that's not an issue in choosing
    between them.

    If you are willing to spend a bit more money, the 18-70 in combination with
    the 80-200 f/2.8 ED might be a good bet--you're looking at about $1300 for
    the combination. Basically what it comes down to is that to get a
    significant improvement over the performance of the 18-200 you are going to
    have to pay almost twice as much. Whether it's worthwhile to you only you
    can answer.

    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J. Clarke, May 19, 2006
    #14
  15. Frank B Guest

    For what it is worth here is a link to my review of the Nikon 18-200VR.

    http://www.digitaldingus.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3033

    wrote:
    > I know little enough about photography to be dangerous and I'm thinking
    > on purchasing a Nikon D50, The D200 has features I would probably
    > never use and I figured I'd invest more in a good lens or two.
    >
    > I have seen mixed reviews on the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18 - 200 mm
    > f/3.5-5.6G DX ED VR, Based on the reviews it seems that the tradeoff
    > is at near and far distances the image quality may suffer but its a
    > good all around lens. Many claim its the only lens they now they use.
    > Some reviews say its the best thing since sliced bread while others
    > question what all the hoopla is about.
    >
    > My questions is this: Do you think money would be better spent on
    > getting two lenses - one for everyday shots and a zoom for sports and
    > my kids soccer games - or is the 18-200 listed above a good choice?
    > The two lens strategy being; use the lens for the specifc job and it
    > will do the job well, or the ones lens strategy; use a sngle lens that
    > may do pretty good all around but you may be trading off less to carry
    > for image quality.
    >
    > I also wonder of the vibration reduction would be extremely valuable.
    >
    > Any opinions would be valued. Thanks!
     
    Frank B, May 19, 2006
    #15
  16. JimmyG Guest

    If you think that you'll never use features on the D200, then you probably
    are just afraid to take time to learn how to use it.

    After having used my D70 for over a year, then buying a D200 , I find it
    quite an inconvenience to switch back to the D70 (Similar controls as a
    D50).

    The HUGE convenience in the D200 is having nice little buttons on the body
    that are hidden deep in the menu. Similarly, the advantage of the 18-200 is
    using a lens of generally adequate quality that precludes incessant lens
    changes. Quite a benefit! Coupled with a 12-24mm, this covers about
    everything you'll need unless you're shooting wildlife.

    If you want a faster 80-200, try a 5 year old f/2.8. I just sold one on
    Ebay for about $600 in like new condition. They're out there.

    --
    Jimmy Greene
    Santee, CA / Lake Oswego, OR
    Nikon D200, D70
     
    JimmyG, May 20, 2006
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Fred
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    576
    Phillip Remaker
    Dec 11, 2003
  2. George

    portrait lens choice for Nikon D70

    George, Sep 16, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    648
    Jeremy Nixon
    Sep 18, 2004
  3. Jeremy

    Which choice of lens kits for Nikon D70

    Jeremy, Oct 22, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    298
    Fred B.
    Oct 23, 2004
  4. R Pradeep Chandran

    Nikon lens choice for D70s

    R Pradeep Chandran, Dec 21, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    30
    Views:
    965
    _nemo_
    Jan 26, 2007
  5. Tim

    Nikon D70 wide angle lens choice

    Tim, Dec 27, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    614
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=
    Dec 28, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page