Few general DSLR and Lens Questions

[David_S]

I'm just about ready to take the plunge from digital to DSLR I've been shooting digital for a few years starting with an Olympus C2100UZ and now a Panasonic FZ20. I suppose from the previous two you can tell I like my zoom. I've pretty much decided on the D50 after reading reviews, comparing shots and doing the touchy feely at the dealer yesterday. My problem is I need the zoom similar to what I have on the FZ20 as I love to shoot outdoors, landscapes and nature shots. I also like macro and need the ability to shoot indoor family gatherings. Is there a lens that would get me by for now and do all of this. I'm thinking maybe the Sigma 18-125mm or the Tamron 18-200mm and wondered if anyone has experience with both to compare? Also with no IS would a person really be able to use these lenses at full zoom without a tripod? I'm leaning toward the body and a third party lens verses the kit. I know most of this has been covered but I haven't been able to find much info on the Tamron. TIA

DS

[erichlund]

I'm just about ready to take the plunge from digital to DSLR I've been shooting digital for a few years starting with an Olympus C2100UZ and now a Panasonic FZ20. I suppose from the previous two you can tell I like my zoom. I've pretty much decided on the D50 after reading reviews, comparing shots and doing the touchy feely at the dealer yesterday. My problem is I need the zoom similar to what I have on the FZ20 as I love to shoot outdoors, landscapes and nature shots. I also like macro and need the ability to shoot indoor family gatherings. Is there a lens that would get me by for now and do all of this. I'm thinking maybe the Sigma 18-125mm or the Tamron 18-200mm and wondered if anyone has experience with both to compare? Also with no IS would a person really be able to use these lenses at full zoom without a tripod? I'm leaning toward the body and a third party lens verses the kit. I know most of this has been covered but I haven't been able to find much info on the Tamron. TIA

DS
The FZ20 has a 35mm lens range of 36-432, which is very large. It's also f2.8 throughout that range. If Nikon or a third party made such a lens for the dSLR, it would cost thousands (many) and would be HUGE (spelled HEAVY). I suspect, there would still be people beating down their door to get it. ;)

Fortunately, you don't have to have a single lens to cover this full range at such a wide aperture. Your D50 has a 1.5 crop factor, so to get the equivalent range you need to have lenses from 24-288. Most of us like 18 as a wide starting point and there are a lot of 300mm zooms on the other end, so lets put together a package of lenses that cover this range.

There are four sizes that start at 18, 18-55, 18-70, 18-125 and 18-200. There are probably others that I am not familiar with, but these are the currently popular sizes. All of these are consumer grade glass (Even the Nikkor with VR). I only know the Nikkor pro quality with any passing familiarity, but the Nikkor 17-55 DX F2.8 is an outstanding lens. It's also very expensive. If you have to ask...well, you know.

However, none of these lenses gets you above the 288 to cover the range you had. So now you have to consider something to get you out to 300mm. There are several options here, across several brands (again). The most common are the 70-300 lenses. It seems every manufacturer builds one or more of these. Sigmas version with APO and Macro in the name seems to be the crowd favorite. I've not used any of them, so I cannot say. Sigma also makes 100-300 and 120-300 zooms. The latter is an f2.8 lens, designed for APS size sensor. I don't know if it is any good, but they usually don't make a constant f2.8 that large without putting some decent technology into it.

The bottom line is, you have lots of options. I'll leave it to you to find some options to fill the potential gaps between the short and long lenses. If you are a mail order buyer, good luck. If you buy from a camera shop, try the different lenses before you buy. Covering this range with high quality lenses won't be cheap.

As for whether you need a tripod, even if you go to a VR lens set, you will need a tripod. VR is for when you cannot use a tripod. It doesn't help with action, only static photos. VR reduces the affect of vibration. You can nearly eliminate it with a tripod. So, yes, you need a tripod. Of course, the more light you have, the faster the shutter speed, and you can get acceptable results without a tripod, as long as acceptable doesn't require the absolute best image quality.

[coldrain]

f2.8 on the Panasonic is not directly comparable to f2.8 on a DSLR, and the high ISO and its good noise performance make a 5.6 lens just as useful.

I think you should not try to look for just one lens, you are just trying to compromise too much, and do right past the big advantage of a DSLR, that you can change lenses.

You should go for the Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro lens (APO + DG are the things to look for, lots of different types of this lens can be found).
It will give you a range of 105-450mm (taking the 1.5x crop factor into account). If you combine that with the kit lens from the D50 (18-55mm -> 27-82.5mm) or D70s kitlens (18-70 -> 27-105mm) you will have quite a cheap setup with a big range. If you take care with how to hold the camera, making photos with the 300mm end without IS will not be a problem. Only when light is less than ideal you will need support.
Of course, IS can be a help, but it is not a necessity.

This combination will give you a range bigger than your FZ20 offers, and an 1:2 macro mode to boot (with the 70-300 lens). Since you seem to not want to spend too much, this seems like a very good combination to start with. And throw in a 50mm f1.8 lens, for lower light conditions and portrait lens stuff.

[David_S]

I guess I'm not really trying for just one lens but more like one lens that will get me buy on "most " type of shooting until I can afford another. Does anyone know anything about the 28-80mm f3.3-5.6G AF Nikkor Zoom Lens that I've been seeing advertised with the D50. It seems like it probably isn't as useful as the standard kit 18-55 kit lens for closer shots but I found a place where I can get the D50 with the 28-80mm lens delivered to my door for $540.00 which seems like a pretty good deal. I'm wondering if I could get by with that and maybe an inexpensive fixed lens for indoor shooting and save my change for a good zoom lens:confused:

[goletitout]

No, don´t take the 28-80. It´s badly crafted and it starts at 28mm (42mm effective on the D50...not wide any more). The 18-55 would be a lot more useful, or the 18-70 which I´m very happy with (27-105 effective focal length on D50). George will probably recommend the Sigma 18-125 instead. But I would skip it and buy two lenses: Nikkor 18-70 and Sigma 70-300 APO. So you would cover all the range you will ever need. And even if you don´t want to spend much money, as I already said, you should rather spend 50$ or so more (compared to the 28-80) and take the 18-55.

[grace_m]

Any major differences between the Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro and the Tamron 70-300 D Macro? (http://vistek.ca/details/details.aspx?WebCode=204971&CategoryID=CameraLenses)

Reason is the Sigma is about $50 Cdn more, and that will go a long way in getting an extra SD card for my D50.

Basically I want the telephoto reach, with my 18-55 D50 kit lens, plus the 1:2 macro ain't too bad. Although I would LOVE to get a Tamron 90mm Macro.. just not for $600 Cdn.

thanks!

[coldrain]

Yes, the Tamron is quite a bit less in image quality. CA, and not as sharp.

[jamison55]

I can't believe no one's mentioned the Nikon 18-200 VR. Though it will "only" get you out to 300mm equiv, it features the VR system, which is very helpful at longer focal lengths (or even static subjects at shorter lengths)... I suspect that coming from a stabilized superzoom, you're probably used to having the aid of the VR at longer focal lengths, and trying to shoot without it may prove frustrating.

[coldrain]

I can't believe no one's mentioned the Nikon 18-200 VR. Though it will "only" get you out to 300mm equiv, it features the VR system, which is very helpful at longer focal lengths (or even static subjects at shorter lengths)... I suspect that coming from a stabilized superzoom, you're probably used to having the aid of the VR at longer focal lengths, and trying to shoot without it may prove frustrating.
Two reasons for it not being mentioned, the range and price.

[George Riehm]

No, don´t take the 28-80. It´s badly crafted and it starts at 28mm (42mm effective on the D50...not wide any more). The 18-55 would be a lot more useful, or the 18-70 which I´m very happy with (27-105 effective focal length on D50). George will probably recommend the Sigma 18-125 instead. But I would skip it and buy two lenses: Nikkor 18-70 and Sigma 70-300 APO. So you would cover all the range you will ever need. And even if you don´t want to spend much money, as I already said, you should rather spend 50$ or so more (compared to the 28-80) and take the 18-55.

I would only recommend the 18-125 on the basis of cost vs. sharpness, but with the caveat of vignetting at the extremes. It's a lens that you have to learn how to shoot. Once you do it works great, but I still forget occasionally and get those dark corners. Most times NC4 can take care of it.

Again, a very nice range, and sharp accross the board, for $270. In combo with a 35mm f/2 and 50mm f/1.8 a good lightweight kit. Just becasue it works for me doesn't mean it will work for you. If I had my druthers I would be shooting a Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 DX and 70-200 f/2.8 D VR.

[David_S]

I can't believe no one's mentioned the Nikon 18-200 VR. Though it will "only" get you out to 300mm equiv, it features the VR system, which is very helpful at longer focal lengths (or even static subjects at shorter lengths)... I suspect that coming from a stabilized superzoom, you're probably used to having the aid of the VR at longer focal lengths, and trying to shoot without it may prove frustrating.


I've considered it because of the stabilization. I'm just having trouble fitting it into the budget. I'm starting to think maybe just the body, a decent 18-200mm and a fixed lens for indoor shooting. I know the 18-55mm kit lens is decent but why not apply the savings from the body only toward a longer range lens? If I get a longer range the 18-55 kit lens will probably sit on the shelf no?

[erichlund]

I've considered it because of the stabilization. I'm just having trouble fitting it into the budget. I'm starting to think maybe just the body, a decent 18-200mm and a fixed lens for indoor shooting. I know the 18-55mm kit lens is decent but why not apply the savings from the body only toward a longer range lens? If I get a longer range the 18-55 kit lens will probably sit on the shelf no?
Well, if you are really thinking about the Nikkor 18-200VR, then I'd recommend the body and the Nikkor 35mm, f2. On the APS sensor, the 35mm is your normal lens, it's only the very slightest amount slower than the 50mm f1.8, and it has better color than that lens. Then learn to use the camera with a normal lens and save for the 18-200VR. It is a bit more expensive than the 50mm, but possibly not a budget breaker, and I'd always suggest buying the best glass you can afford rather than getting something cheaper that's more flexible, but may leave you disappointed in the long run.