Printable View
Quickie: I have the 55-200mm. My birthday is coming up and I'm considering the 18-200mm (Nikon). Good next step up or totally unnecessary?
FWIW, I'm very pleased with the quality of pics I get from my current lens as I have finally "figured it out" well enough to satisfy me. :p What do you think? And if the 18-200mm isn't a good step up, what do you suggest?
You'll definitely get a better range but I would only get it if I was intending to sell the 55-200mm. You'll get the added bonus of getting 18-55mm shots you couldn't get before, but everything else the lens offers will be unneccessary if you're already getting that from the first lens.
Personally, I would look into a 18-55mm lens instead. A pro would be that you wouldn't have to carry the heavier 18-200 when you only want closer range photos that day. A con would be having an extra lens to carry when you want all kinds of ranges that day. I went with the 18-55 & 55-200 route and am very happy with that decision. :)
ETA: For the price of a 18-200mm lens, you could probably get a 18-55mm lens and a something like a 50mm 1.8, which is LOTS of fun and allows for a lot of creativity :)
I thought about doing the 18-200, but I got the 55-200 since my camera came with the 18-55. Two lenses, but I don't mind. =] Probably cheaper that way, lol.
Unless there's something spectacular the 18-200mm lens does or has that is absolutely necessary to what you are using the lens for, then I'd say it's unnecessary. I'd tend to agree with the above comments and if you want wider angle get the 18-55mm. Otherwise you're paying huge bucks to cover 3/4 of the range you already have.
I have searched through old posts and was going to go ahead and make a new thread for this question until I found this one and since my question is sort of related to Giselle's original post, I hope she doesn't mind that I added my question here.
Without going into boring details, I've decided to purchase a Nikon D80 (or maybe a 90 if I find a REALLY good deal in the next month or so). I'm still waiting for the D80 to drop more. I'm hoping with the holidays coming up, I'll be able to find a good deal and maybe a coupon also. My question is about the lenses. Would it be better to get 2 lenses that cover 18-55 and 55-200 or just one 18-200? I think I can get either of the choices for about the same price. Right now I am using a D60 with an 18-55 lens on it. (I've just been trying this out to help me decide if I wanted to purchase a digital SLR and I think I've decided I am going to take the plunge.) I know I want to get closer than just that. I just wanted some opinions so I'll know where to focus my energies in my search for the best deal!
While I'm no expert on Nikon lenses (Canon user here). If the same holds true for Nikon then both have their pro's and cons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moesha
One lens:
Pros;
Less lens changing (less sensor dust)
Greater range of focal distances for quick shots (not being stuck with 'wrong' size lens for situation)
Cons:
Heavier/bulkier
May have a lesser quality glass if cheaper (in Canon there is a 'professional' grade glass that does cover that range and it's VERY expensive but quality is noticably sharper)
Smaller F stops (meaning not very good for low light F/5.6 and up)
Harder to hand hold shots (may need tripod more often for many shots including low light)
Two lenses:
Pros:
Lighter weight no matter which lens you have on
Higher quality glass (depends on specifics see above note)
Wider F stops (better for lower light pictures or bokeh F/4.0 and under)
Cons:
More often lens changes (greater chance of sensor dust, may also have on 'wrong' lens for shot)
More to carry with you on a photo shoot (although any photography gear nut may have at least 70 lbs of weight in a backpack at any given time)
Like I said I'm not all that familiar with Nikon specifics, however in general there shouldn't be too many differences from Canon.
In general it can be said of ANY camera manufacturer that the kit lenses STINK in quality.
Hope your dream camera and you have many happy hours of shooting.
I thank you very much for always taking the time to respond to my silly photography questions Catlady! I meant to mention that all 3 lenses I mentioned in the previous post are the Nikon VR (Vibration Reduction) lenses. And the F numbers are similiar. The higher not as good in low light ones in the F 5.6 range on all three lenses.
There's no such thing as a 'silly' photography question, that's how people learn things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moesha
VR is good, it does help alot, but in lower light situations and/or with a longer heavier lens, a tripod (or other sturdy support) is still best. If using a tripod or other support be sure to turn the VR OFF. Trust me. Just be sure to turn it back on again when you go back to hand holding the shots.
F/5.6 is an average 'speed' lens. The lower the number, the wider the opening that lets light in the lens, which means better for low light photography and bokeh effects.
Given that all things are equal on the F stop, it would depend on what type of things you're going to be using the lens(es) for whether one or two would be better for you.
If you are going to be doing much for indoor shooting I'd go with the two lens set up, because you probably won't want to be lugging a heavy long lens around taking pix of the family and pets.
But if you're going to be doing alot of daylight outdoor shooting (vacations, side trips, zoo, etc) then it's possible the one lens set up would be better so you always have the focal length you need on the camera.
If at all possible see if you can find a bargain 50mm F/1.8 fixed length lens. If Nikon is anything like Canon lenses that is a fabulous lens. I use my Canon one constantly! Excellent for low light and bokeh as well as general shooting.
http://www.google.com/products/catal...ult#ps-sellers
Just for a reference on Bokah and selective focus effects...
Here's a pix I took of Bear in the heated cat bed when I got my 50mm F1.8 lens last year for Christmas. No computer magic causing the selective focus and background blur, that's how the pix really looks at F/1.8.
http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l1...1/IMG_4366.jpg
It does go up to F/22 so your pix don't all have to look like that if you don't want.
Would this 50mm lens only be good for close-up shots and portraits? I want another lens still :p
Sorry I didn't see your question until now.:(Quote:
Originally Posted by Giselle
Don't know if I'm too late to answer the question, but I'll put it here in case someone else wonders the same thing and searches for it.
I find my 50mm 1.8 to be GREAT for portraits it's sharp crisp focus is wonderful. The experts/pro's don't agree as there is some distortion and they prefer to use nothing less than a 70mm up to even a 100 mm to keep the perspective of a person's size more natural. Although if you're not doing alot of shooting straight down on kids/pets or having someone holding something out towards the camera I don't know that most people would even see the distorton even if you pointed it out to them.
As far as for close up you can see how close I was to Bear. I'm pretty sure that was the closest I could get and still have the camera focus. I think the specs say 1 1/2 feet is the closest you can get to something and still focus on it.
To be fair though, on a DSLR a regular lens has a magnification factor of about 1.6 I think, so my 50mm film lens on a DSLR acts more like a 70mm anyways.