lens

[ribac]

Hi I bought D50 with 18-55mm lens.I'd like to buy other lens with more range,something basic for beginner not expensive one.Just want to replace kit lense for now.Thanks

[Bullitt]

Maybe a Sigma 70-300 for under 200.00 may fill your needs or a Sigma 18-125 or 18-200? Maybe you should have boughten only the body in the first place, but I think most of us make that mistake...:(

[rawpaw18]

ribac
Have to agree with Bullitt's recommendations Sigma 18-200 about $300,and the Sigma 18-125 about $230, both very good walkaround lenses.

Bullitt
I did buy the body and then the lenses and still....woulda coulda shoulda.
I'm beginning to think that will always be the case.
-Rich

[K1W1]

You already have the 18-55 range covered so wouldn't it be a bit silly to buy another lens that encompasses that range unless you are particularly unhappy with the current lens?
Why not look at something say 50-200 or 70-300.

[ribac]

Yeah,I should just buy a body,but too late.
I'm looking at Tamron 70-300mm lens.Something to walk around.
Like I said I'm just beginner.
Also one more question.If you guys have more lenses,do you buy filters with different threads for each lens or you are trying to keep one thread size so you can use same filter for all lenses??

[rawpaw18]

ribac
Sorry to misunderstand you, I thought you wanted to replace your kit lens.
If you are looking at adding the Tamron, you may also consider the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro Af that was mentioned previously. It gets you a lot of bang for your buck and has that macro feature for about $200.

[coldrain]

You don't need a filter on your lenses, unless you want to get the desired effect of a certain kind of filter in your photos. So, what filter for what purpose are you refering to?

[ribac]

Sorry guys to confuse you.

Actually I'm thinking of either replace kit lens and buy walkaround lens or just keep it and buy extra one.I don't want to spend a lot of money to begin with.

As for filters,I have my 3CCD camcorder where I use polarizer and CF filters.
It uses 55mm thread.
So I bought step up ring for kit lens 52-55mm so I can use filters for camcorder and D50.
So If I buy say 3 lenses with different threads size I would have to buy more filters.So I'm just wondering how you guys use filters.

[coldrain]

Best thing in my opinion is to choose a lens first, and only then determine what filters you want for it.

Since the 18-55 kit lens is quite good optically, I would choose for a 70-300 lens to accompany it. The Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 APO DG MACRO is you best affordable option.

[Jason25]

Sorry guys to confuse you.

Actually I'm thinking of either replace kit lens and buy walkaround lens or just keep it and buy extra one.I don't want to spend a lot of money to begin with.

As for filters,I have my 3CCD camcorder where I use polarizer and CF filters.
It uses 55mm thread.
So I bought step up ring for kit lens 52-55mm so I can use filters for camcorder and D50.
So If I buy say 3 lenses with different threads size I would have to buy more filters.So I'm just wondering how you guys use filters.
Many will say to buy a filter the same size as your biggest lens, then use step-up rings. That certainly is the cheapest route.

Don't forget to make sure your polarizer is a circular one, as those work best with your camera. On the other hand, it can be a pain to use if the front element of your lens rotates, as this makes adjusting the filter more difficult.

[ribac]

thank you guys.

Coldrain,I checked the Sigma 70-300 on Ebay.

There is Sigma 70-300 DL Macro.
What is difference between DL and DG ??

[Jason25]

thank you guys.

Coldrain,I checked the Sigma 70-300 on Ebay.

There is Sigma 70-300 DL Macro.
What is difference between DL and DG ??
If I'm not mistaken, the DL is an older, non-APO model. Someone correct me if I'm wrong!

[nef]

I'm kind of in the same boat except that I did not get the D-50 kit lens and now I'm overwhelmed by options. Why would one buy a Sigma 18-55 instead of the kit? If I just want one lens, should I get an 18-200? If so, should I get the Nikon or a Sigma? Big cost difference, and the latter doesn't seem to have VR. I'd love some input.

I'm leaning toward just buying the kit lens and then determining what else I need (and hopefully there will be lower prices at that time).

[Jason25]

I'm kind of in the same boat except that I did not get the D-50 kit lens and now I'm overwhelmed by options. Why would one buy a Sigma 18-55 instead of the kit? If I just want one lens, should I get an 18-200? If so, should I get the Nikon or a Sigma? Big cost difference, and the latter doesn't seem to have VR. I'd love some input.

I'm leaning toward just buying the kit lens and then determining what else I need (and hopefully there will be lower prices at that time).
I honestly don't know why someone would buy the Sigma 18-55 instead of the kit lens. Doesn't seem like much of a point! The Sigma 18-50, on the other hand, is a whole different story.

If you just want one lens, an 18-200 is fine. The Nikon would be my first choice, but for half the price, the Sigma is fine for some people as well. AF-S and VR are wonderful features though :)

[Esoterra]

I'm too lazy to read all of the posts on this thread, but I saw a question about matching filters to different lenses. If you go with the Cokin filter system you dont have to worry about different lens sizes as it is compatible with all. However, I only use a Graduated Neutral Density filter (for those sunny days where exposing the sky and foreground is challenging) and a sunset filter. Any other desired effects I can get thru plugins like Nik Color Efex Pro for Adobe Photoshop.

[Bullitt]

If I switch out my 18-50 f2.8 Sigma for an 18-125 or 18-200 Sigma, will the quality of the shots be just as good without f2.8? I need more range and not sure which way to go here, 50mm is just too short most times...

[rawpaw18]

If I switch out my 18-50 f2.8 Sigma for an 18-125 or 18-200 Sigma, will the quality of the shots be just as good without f2.8? I need more range and not sure which way to go here, 50mm is just too short most times...

You probably already have, but check you data, how do you shoot? Mostly at 50mm and 3.5 or more? Then you may want to switch, but if you shoot at 2.8 regularly then you know what you have to do...ADD a lens, I would always like the option of being able to have 2.8 if I need to. My 18-70 is sometimes too short, you always want what you do not have.

[George Riehm]

You probably already have, but check you data, how do you shoot? Mostly at 50mm and 3.5 or more? Then you may want to switch, but if you shoot at 2.8 regularly then you know what you have to do...ADD a lens, I would always like the option of being able to have 2.8 if I need to. My 18-70 is sometimes too short, you always want what you do not have.

Rawpaw, it's more than low-light shooting. Like the 18-50 f/2.8 my 24-70 f/2.8 is much sharper at f/4 than my 18-125 at f/8. I have found this to be true of the 70-200 f/2.8 as well, so I have resigned myself to carying 2 (fairly heavy) lenses, and monopod, as my future kit, as (to me) the image quality is worth the compromise.

I only wish that I could take about half of my 13,000 images over with the 24-70... Or had used that lens in the beginning.

[coldrain]

If I'm not mistaken, the DL is an older, non-APO model. Someone correct me if I'm wrong!
Ok, I will correct you. Sigma has a DL (cheap) and an APO (less cheap, better optically) version. It has nothing to do with older or newer. The older lenses lack the "DG" part in the name.

There are even older versions, hence the "II" in the name of some.

[rawpaw18]

Rawpaw, it's more than low-light shooting. Like the 18-50 f/2.8 my 24-70 f/2.8 is much sharper at f/4 than my 18-125 at f/8. I have found this to be true of the 70-200 f/2.8 as well, so I have resigned myself to carying 2 (fairly heavy) lenses, and monopod, as my future kit, as (to me) the image quality is worth the compromise.

I only wish that I could take about half of my 13,000 images over with the 24-70... Or had used that lens in the beginning.

George,
Thanks for the additional info. I did not know the image quality difference between the lenses. I knew you had recently got the Sigma 24-70 but I didn't know you got the 70-200 f/2.8 too, that is next on my list, but 3 pounds! WOW! Is yours the new release from Sigma with the macro? I have not found that one for sale yet.
-Rich

[Bullitt]

I use f2.8 lots and certainly do not want to lose picture quality so maybe moving to a 24-70 f2.8 may give me that little extra length I wish I had...
I know a 70-200mm f2.8 is trying to lure me in like a big fish but that's quite a bit of money right now, but one has to look at this for the long term. Are we ever 100% happy with the equipment we have, I doubt it, there's always something new coming to the market... Thx for the info...

[Bullitt]

Wow George :eek: , that's a lot of images you have (13,000)... I thought a few hundred was lots but I guess they do add up over time...