Set to buy a D50 (mostly) ...need lens advice

[stylecouncil]

Decided to buy a digital SLR - Primary subjects will be my kids @ gymnastics, soccer, softball... I've read reviews, talked to a friend with a rebel who took some very nice hockey shots, am tempted by the XT's faster sequence shooting, out of the box raw manipulation, higher resolution and some people's firmly held belief that Canon makes a better camera/lens ... BUT... I really preferred the feel of the D50 in my hands. I wanted to prefer the Rebel XT but there's no doubt the D50 felt sturdier, more comfortable and I think that may trump the specs. You can tell I'm not totally convinced.

OK - the question - Assuming I go ahead with this plan to buy the D50 - should I buy the kit lens? body only and then get 2 separate lenses to start, with one being a good quality zoom??? I'd really appreciate any specific advice. If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing then I'm pretty sure that in this regard I'm really quite dangerous. Thanks. Steve stylcouncl@aol.com

[timmciglobal]

Don't waste your money on the D50's kit lens, the D70's kit lens isn't bad but the D50's isn't that great.

I'd get a 28>70 Tamaron F 2.8 lens if your shooting gymnastics atleast, depends what type zoom your looking for. The new nikon 18>200 VR sounds nice, the sample shots I saw were veyr nice, should be out in month or two, I don't know the pricing but that would be the perfect "all in one" lens.

Tim

[Rex914]

The Nikon 18-200 VR costs $670. I don't know about you, but I'd pay the extra $270 (over the Sigma 18-200) for VR, a slightly faster tele end, and the Nikon name (although it also has better optics).

[stylecouncil]

Thanks - that new lens sounds interesting.
In my film days, it was fairly well accepted that a broader range rarely could match separate lenses. Is that not really true anymore? I started to do some reading and people use the word "slow" about this type of lens. What does "slow" mean in this context? Would that have anything to do with properties that would affect my ability to shoot fast moving objects, or to have a quick response time from when I trigger the shot to when the shot is taken? Again, thanks for the help. I'm sorta glad no one immediately jumped on me for going with something as subjective as the feel of the camera over specs. Steve

[Rex914]

In terms of aperture, this is a relatively slow lens, but it has image stabilization which will compensate for slow shutter speeds. IS works like magic, but there are things it can't do such as:

1) Blurring the background as well as faster lenses. This one's obvious. You arent going to get the same effect as you would with a f/2.8 zoom or a prime, but given the limitations, this lens actually does fairly well.

2) IS does squat on moving objects. For that, you'll still need fast shutter speeds.

The Sample Images

(D200, 1/8s, f/5.3, ISO100, 95mm)

http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/lens/af/dx/af-s_dx_vr_zoom18-200mmf_35-56g_if/img/Indoor_ON.jpg

(D200, 1/50s, f/9, ISO100, 200mm)

http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/lens/af/dx/af-s_dx_vr_zoom18-200mmf_35-56g_if/img/Telephoto_ON.jpg

(D200, 1/5s, f/3.5, ISO100, 18mm)

http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/lens/af/dx/af-s_dx_vr_zoom18-200mmf_35-56g_if/img/Night_ON.jpg

[onlyafterdark]

Ok, here is my question about lenses.

Im pretty sure Im going to get the d50 body (unless something better comes along that I can afford).

I was leaning towards the Tamron 28-70 but one of my friends who is really into this stuff says go with the kit lens that comes with the d70s.

I will be mainly shooting mountain biking action shots in good --> low light (it depends on the weather and how forested the area is).

Does anyone have any thoughts?

I think I will probably end up getting a prime lens as well, but that too depends on where my funds are.

[Rex914]

If you're shooting sports action (even outdoors), that's even more reason to go with a faster lens like the 28-75 f/2.8.

[stylecouncil]

I guess thats where I'm at... I'm tempted to save the $150 by not buying the kit lens and just getting the 18-200 VR as my everyday lens. I figure I can then shop around for a faster zoom (prime or otherwise) for the specialty projects. Or is there some reason why the kit lens would be worth having??? Thanks again. Steve

[Jason25]

I guess thats where I'm at... I'm tempted to save the $150 by not buying the kit lens and just getting the 18-200 VR as my everyday lens. I figure I can then shop around for a faster zoom (prime or otherwise) for the specialty projects. Or is there some reason why the kit lens would be worth having??? Thanks again. Steve
I'm interested to know this as well, since I'm thinking of doing the same thing!

[Rex914]

I guess thats where I'm at... I'm tempted to save the $150 by not buying the kit lens and just getting the 18-200 VR as my everyday lens. I figure I can then shop around for a faster zoom (prime or otherwise) for the specialty projects. Or is there some reason why the kit lens would be worth having??? Thanks again. Steve
This would be a wise choice. There's no reasson to get both the kit lens and the 18-200 VR. In addition, this lens will give you a full sampling of 90% of the focal lengths that photographers typically use, so after using it, you can figure out what you use most and allocate your funds to the best lenses for your needs.

[pcapazzi]

I'm new to the game here and am just suprised that it's suggested to buy a lens that 150% the price of the body. :eek: But I'm starting to see that's the norm... lol

Those were some nice sample shots earlier..I noticed they were taken with ISO 100 which the D50 is not capable of... would you say that's a big loss? My Canon Powershot S50 support 50-400 ISO. With the D50 starting at 200... what would be the downside of not having anything lower than that sensitivity?

Thanks - Pete

[pcapazzi]

I got a flyer for Ritz Camera that has the D50 with a Nikkor 28-80 AF lens. The price is $599 with a $50 mail-in rebate/giftcard. Bringing the price down to the usual body price of $549. I figure I have nothing to lose then.

I've seen in earlier replies that the 18-55 is not worth it... could you say if this lens is better or worse? Then again... if it's "free" I guess beggars can't be choosers.

[coldrain]

The 18-55 kit lens is definitely worth the price! Whoever says it is not has not used it. It is nice and contrasty and outperforms the 18-70 kit lens from the 70Ds in vignetting and distortion.

The 28-80 is best avoided, it is a kit lens from an older 35mm film SLR and has an awkward focal length range. Just get the D50 with 18-55 kitlens and learn to use the camera, and then see what kind of lens you would want to expand with.