D50 with the 18-55 lens worth it?

[rdog]

Looking to buy my wife the D50 with the supplied 18-55 lens. Currently has a Canon a75....not happy with the quality of the pictures. My question is, is it worth it to get the D50 with the 18-55 lens. Read else where that the 18-55 and the 28-80 lens are junk. Looking to get higher quality and sharper pictures.

Thanks!

[Catori123]

i bought the kit in august and am very happy with it. im still learning how to use the camera tho, so for my needs the lens is fine.

i suppose it depends on what you want it to do - better quality will be more expensive. its supposed to be better quality than the lens supplied with the canon 350d tho.

[George Riehm]

Looking to buy my wife the D50 with the supplied 18-55 lens. Currently has a Canon a75....not happy with the quality of the pictures. My question is, is it worth it to get the D50 with the 18-55 lens. Read else where that the 18-55 and the 28-80 lens are junk. Looking to get higher quality and sharper pictures.

Thanks!

That combo will probably work fine through the learning curve. The 18-55 will have a wider field of view, but shorter telephoto reach than the A75. Try to keep the aperture between f/6.3 and f/16 for best results.

As an alternative she (and you) might be happier with the Sigma 18-125 DC instead. Better sharpness, and much better utility. D50 body = $509 + Sigma 18-125 DC = $230.

Total = $739. About $120 more than the kit.

Prices from Norman camera and sigmaforless.com.

P.S. The Sigma 18-125 DC is not a panacea, but in my opinion it is a much better lens than the Nikkor 18-55 DX.

Many (but not all) of the pictures in my gallery were taken with the Sigma 18-125.

http://d70fan.smugmug.com/

[Jason25]

I never really disliked my 28-80, until I got my 18-70 DX that is. The 28-80 is fine for film, but not nearly wide enough for digital. The 18-55 should be fine to start with, but there are other (and better) options.

[Payne]

It's also a very good alternative, this lens is very fast wide open = f2.8 and very sharp at all focal range. Check this link out:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_1770 _2845/index.htm

[rdog]

Thank you to all for the quick replies and advice. Sounds like the 18-55 is good for starters but an upgrade to a sigma in the future is a must. This is a birthday gift so a lens upgrade would be a nice Mother's day gift in May.

Thank you again for your help!

[K1W1]

The 18-55 kit lens is certainly not "junk" as you describe. It's a good lens for all round use only really limited by being a bit short at the telephoto end. If you are coming for a P&S Canon it will be a good lens to learn the camera and DSLR photography with.

[rdog]

K1W1,

Thanks for the advice...didn't mean to slam the 18-55...just read some neg. remarks on another forum. Also, I like your idea on using PDA protective paper for the LCD screen....very smart!

[K1W1]

And I'm not trying to be overly defensive about the lens either.
You just need to remember that there are many people involved with photography who have fairly entrenched opinions about what is good and what is not. In a lot of cases their opinions reflect that days when SLR photography was something that only "pros" could afford.
I hope you enjoy whatever camera and lenes you end up with.

[Vich]

The source of many complaints is often the photographer. For example; if your lens suffers from slow focus, you may need to "pre-focus" a little slower rather than just pressing the button all the way. And as George says, don't go below f6.3 or so and you won't reveal the weaknesses of a cheap lens - and go home with some stellar results. It's when you get more demanding that the better lenses become more of a necessity. Coming from the A75, the kit lens with any DSLR should give some very pleasing results.

One thing; lenses can be out of calibration. If it always focuses 6 inches behind where it should then the results will not be very satisfying. Most manufacturers are good about fixing this if you ask.

[DonSchap]

The first time I went to use my 18-55mm for anything substantial, I was mortified with the limited flexibility it truly had. I had wound up getting the "kit lens" for the Canon 20D simply because, at the time, I could not find the body for a reasonable (IMO) cost, by itself. (I actually bought the kit for less than I could the body alone for! :rolleyes: )

Do not get me wrong here. I gave the lens a fighting chance, but quickly realized that I needed some serious range for a "snatch and grab" type of scenario, which most of mine are. I usually do not have the time to swap lenses for most shooting, but I do require some depth of field. The Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 (14.9 oz.) ($300) was my first choice and one I have not regretted. It simply stretched my focal range from one end to the other, without having me dance all over an auditorium or event. It was light enough to easily compare with other lenses of the type:


Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 (14.3 oz.) ($380).
Tokina 24-200mm f/3.5-5.6 (24 oz) ($300) was a stumpy heavyweight, and
Canon 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM ran me off at 17oz, its lack of ultra-wide angle and the higher price tag. ($350)


Admittedly, having a f/2.8 Ultra-wide/Super telephoto with IS would be the ultimate enjoyment, but that kind of glass... if it existed, would require some serious investment and probably a small truck to mount it on. As it stands, the EF 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS USM is a serious handful and antishake technology is hard to argue against when you are fully zoomed out with something that... beefy (3.7 lbs). :eek:

My point... consider the type of shooting you are planning for your immediate future. You going to ball games? Get a 200mm. You going to concerts? Get a 200mm. You photographing Fido? Use the kit lens. Unfortunately, 105mm leaves me short. If I settle for a portrait at about 25 feet, fine... but when they exceed that distance... a little twist more and I'm there... with 200! :p

300mm is not even worth mentioning, as the perceivable difference is unremarkable between 200mm and 300mm. If you need 300mm... take three steps forward with 200mm! LOL :D

[K1W1]

The first time I went to use my 18-55mm for anything substantial, I was mortified with the limited flexibility it truly had. I had wound up getting the "kit lens" for the Canon 20D simply because, at the time, I could not find the body for a reasonable (IMO) cost, by itself.

I'm sorry I'm confused here.
This is a Nikon forum. What the heck are you talking about?

[Prospero]

I'm sorry I'm confused here.
This is a Nikon forum. What the heck are you talking about?

The camera is different, but nevertheless, the points he makes are true. If you know you'll need a lot more range than the kitlens can offer or if you are often shooting in lowlight conditions the kitlens may not satisfy you.
On the other hand, the kitlens is not that expansive. There are lots of place where they sell the kit at really low prices. Anyway, it's not like you lose a lot of money when you go for the kit and later find out that you would rather have another lens.
I bought my D-50 with the kit lens. Now, a month or two later, I am going to sell it (if anybody is willing to buy it that is ;)), and upgrade to the Sigma 17-70 and the 70-300. However, I have never regretted getting the kit rather than a body only D-50. First of all, at the time that I bought it I had no money to buy expensive lenses. Secondly, the kit-lens is good enough to get to know your camera and figure out if it would be enough for you or what kind of lenses you want in the future.

[rdog]

Got the D50 for my wife with 18-55 lens. In a word.....WOW! Out of the box the first set of pictures were great. Printed them out on a Canon MPS730 and a Canon IP5000 with the Photo Pro paper. I'll be upgrading the lens for her in the future but this is a great outfit to get started with.

Thanks to all for the inout and advice.

[K1W1]

Got the D50 for my wife with 18-55 lens. In a word.....WOW! Out of the box the first set of pictures were great. Printed them out on a Canon MPS730 and a Canon IP5000 with the Photo Pro paper. I'll be upgrading the lens for her in the future but this is a great outfit to get started with.

Thanks to all for the inout and advice.

Have you tried shooting in RAW and playing with Nikon Edit or a trial version of Nikon Capture yet?
Congratulations.

[rdog]

I tried one picture in RAW with the auto enhance from the software. Cleaned up the picture nicely and trued up the colors. Other than that, still getting the hang of the basics. Any suggestings on the software included and the free trial software as well? Also, thinking about backing out the 18-55 kitlens for one with more zoom. George had recommended the sigma 18-125. What about the 18-200?

[George Riehm]

I tried one picture in RAW with the auto enhance from the software. Cleaned up the picture nicely and trued up the colors. Other than that, still getting the hang of the basics. Any suggestings on the software included and the free trial software as well? Also, thinking about backing out the 18-55 kitlens for one with more zoom. George had recommended the sigma 18-125. What about the 18-200?

If you are going to shoot RAW, you will need Nikon Capture to get the most from Nikon RAW images.

From the side-by-side images I've seen, personal experience with the 18-125, and the test/reviews from photozone.de the 18-125 is a better choice from an optical quality point of view compared to the 18-200.

At 200mm you are getting a 1/3 stop less (f/6.3) than if you bought the 18-125 and the Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro (both f/5.6 at full tele) and good image quality at an extended 200mm to 270mm. Total cost of the 2 lens solution is about 25% more at $414 vs. about $304 for the 18-200 (from sigmaforless).

From an image quality standpoint the 2 lens solution will net consistantly better images from about 22mm to 250mm, a little wider aperture, and 30% more focal length.

Of course convenience is also important, but you will find that the 18-125 covers a lot of ground in this area as well. Test results for your reference:

18-125: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_18125_3556/index.htm

18-200: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_18200_3563/index.htm

70-300 APO DG: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_70300_456/index.htm

[K1W1]

There is a trial version (30 day) of Nikon Capture that you can download but remember that a brand new version has been announced and should be available soon (May?) so it might be better to wait and learn once. The free Nikon View / Nikon Edit package is actually very good for most basic RAW adjustments. Another option is RAW Shooter Essentials which is also free. It's slightly crippled when compared to the version you pay for Raw Shooter Premium but the work flow in particular is excellent.

[George Riehm]

I went through RSE, RSPremium, and Capture One. All resulted in a lot more work/time to achieve results close to NC4.

NC4 is slow, but IMO gives a better rendering of camera settings than 3rd party processors.

Here is the information on NX:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-7891-8227

It appears that there will be a credit for current NC4.4 owners.

[K1W1]

I tend to agree with you George but I have been impressed with the latest update of RSP 2006 (about one month ago). It is substantially improved on the version that was released late last year.
I find it very quick and esy to use when I am trying to process lots of images that are of no huge importance (like slideshows of my childens sports to burn to CD's for their team mates).
If I was trying to create a piece of photographic art I would definitely use Capture (and probably hire a professional photographer as well :-) ). For day to day stuff RSP is very good.

[rdog]

Been having a blast with the D50 with the kit lens. We are going to Mexico next week and want to get a lens to capture the trip. I like taking landscape shots as well as close ups of plant life, birds and other animals. I feel that the 18-55 lens will cover most of our needs except for some of the bird and animal shots. Looking at the Sigma 70-200 or 70-300 as well as the Nikon in the same lengths. Any suggestions? Budget is <300

Would also like to use the zoom lens for outdoor sports like little league and kids scoccer.

thanks!

[rdog]

I meant 55-200 and 70-300

thanks!

[coldrain]

The Sigma 70-300 APO DG version is your best bet. The Nikon 70-300 G is nt a very good lens, and the D version is not better than that Sigma, but more expensive. The Sigma also offers a nice 1:2 macro mode, getting you closer to things than your kitlens. The 55-200 lenses are all engineered down to a price. The Nikon 55-200 works great at 55mm, but at 200mm is goes down hill quite fast. The Sigma 55-200 is not much better, neither is the Tamron version. So, go for the 70-300 APO DG, it gives you an extra 100mm at the tele end and it will give some good results for the money.

[jasm]

I am trying to use this lens and although i am aware of wide range limitations things are improving i think! last25 images here http://www.pbase.com/jascm/start taken with this lens i suspect since i am committed to keep it i am hoping for some comment i barely got on dpreview.
jasm

[K1W1]

The Sigma 70-300 APO DG version is your best bet. The Nikon 70-300 G is nt a very good lens,

Actually the Nikkor 70-300G lens produces pretty good images - if there is plenty of light. It's just that lens snobs, many of who have never actually tried using the lens look down their noises at it because of it's light weight construction and inexpensive price.
I actually own both the 70-300G lens and the Sigma 70-300 APO DG. If I were heading off the somewhere sunny like Mexico and were going to be doing a lot of independant travelling (read - walking) I would probably take the 70-300G lens simply on the basis that the images it produces are perfectly acceptable and it's considerably lighter than the Sigma APO. On the other hand if I were going to be travelling by car with a tripod and weight wasn't an issue the Sigma would go with me.

[George Riehm]

I am trying to use this lens and although i am aware of wide range limitations things are improving i think! last25 images here http://www.pbase.com/jascm/start taken with this lens i suspect since i am committed to keep it i am hoping for some comment i barely got on dpreview.
jasm

Did you tell the readers on dprieview where the images where (i,e, last 25)? If not that might be the reason for lack of response. It would have been even better had you grouped these into a separate gallery.

I debated whether to answer this request. I'm not here to harsh your buzz, and you have made it clear that you plan on sticking with the 28-300. I'm sure that Sigma appreciates your loyalty and commitment to help clear their inventory of these old film lenses.

Most of the images in your 28-300 gallery site are... ok. But like most shots using lenses in this older genre of full-frame 10X zooms, they are pretty much snapshots. That's not a bad thing, and there are a few images in your gallery that stand out, but in my opinion, most are just not as good as they could have been, with a lower ratio zoom, in the same general price range.

I'm sure that your decision was based on cost, max zoom range, and convenience. From that point of view, and used as a snapshot lens, it may work for you. While they are a little shorter, on the tele end, the Sigma 18-125 DC or 18-200 DC may have been a little better choice for high ratio zooms, and more practical on a dSLR, but if 28mm works ok, then... well ok.

[George Riehm]

Actually the Nikkor 70-300G lens produces pretty good images - if there is plenty of light. It's just that lens snobs, many of who have never actually tried using the lens look down their noises at it because of it's light weight construction and inexpensive price.
I actually own both the 70-300G lens and the Sigma 70-300 APO DG. If I were heading off the somewhere sunny like Mexico and were going to be doing a lot of independant travelling (read - walking) I would probably take the 70-300G lens simply on the basis that the images it produces are perfectly acceptable and it's considerably lighter than the Sigma APO. On the other hand if I were going to be travelling by car with a tripod and weight wasn't an issue the Sigma would go with me.

I am one of the owners of a 70-300G that wishes the money were back in my bank account. I don't look down my snobish nose at it... but it has been sitting on my desk as a paperweight for about 2 years to remind me never to do that again. Occasionally, I mount it to the D70 just to see if the Nikon fairy stopped by and fixed it. So far... nadda.

I would sell it, but I would truely feel guilty. And I would give it away, but like I said it's a good reminder of what not to do again. Saddest of all I paid $170 for it new, and the best I can get on e-bay is maybe $100, but I don't want to generate negative feedback there either, or disturb an otherwise decent (at this point) Karma.

When I head out on a trip, flying, driving, or hiking, I take the best lenses I have. Weight is not a factor when good image quality is at stake.

In conclusion: All I can say is that you must have purchased the only good copy of this lens that Nikon ever made. The rest of us have nice $100+ paperweights with Nikon painted on the side.;)

To Nikon: Will trade for a D...

[rdog]

George,

Is your responce on the 70-300G due to the performance of the lens or the 70-300 length not being useful? Coldrain gives the Sigma 70-300 APO DG a good review so I'm leaning toward that but am wondering if I should look at the 55-200 length. I would like a lens that can give me good close ups/macros but can also get good action shots of kids level sports. The kitlens is good but I am already wanting more.

Thanks!

[jasm]

Sigma describe this lens as new and optimised for digital photography.
jasm

[K1W1]

I would sell it, but I would truely feel guilty.

You did offer to give it to me at one stage but when I replied and accepted your offer you never followed through with the deal.
:)

[jasm]

Did you tell the readers on dprieview where the images where (i,e, last 25)? If not that might be the reason for lack of response. It would have been even better had you grouped these into a separate gallery.

I debated whether to answer this request. I'm not here to harsh your buzz, and you have made it clear that you plan on sticking with the 28-300. I'm sure that Sigma appreciates your loyalty and commitment to help clear their inventory of these old film lenses.

Most of the images in your 28-300 gallery site are... ok. But like most shots using lenses in this older genre of full-frame 10X zooms, they are pretty much snapshots. That's not a bad thing, and there are a few images in your gallery that stand out, but in my opinion, most are just not as good as they could have been, with a lower ratio zoom, in the same general price range.

I'm sure that your decision was based on cost, max zoom range, and convenience. From that point of view, and used as a snapshot lens, it may work for you. While they are a little shorter, on the tele end, the Sigma 18-125 DC or 18-200 DC may have been a little better choice for high ratio zooms, and more practical on a dSLR, but if 28mm works ok, then... well ok.
How about Sigma then are they lying about new lens 2sld ,4 aspherical glass optimised for digital photography, critique of images is good but just an opinion.if you can show me this is old film lens i will sue Sigma under UK Sale of goods ACT 1970 WITH SUBSEQUENT ADDITIONS.
JASM
jasm

[enehawaii]

I recently got the D50 as a gift, it came with the 28-80 G lens. Not a good lens. Picked up the Nikon AF-S DX 18-70mm f3.5-4.5G ED-IF. Very nice lens for the price. Here are some shots with this lens.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v600/vega1170/flower.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v600/vega1170/tree.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v600/vega1170/tower.jpg

[George Riehm]

How about Sigma then are they lying about new lens 2sld ,4 aspherical glass optimised for digital photography, critique of images is good but just an opinion.if you can show me this is old film lens i will sue Sigma under UK Sale of goods ACT 1970 WITH SUBSEQUENT ADDITIONS.
JASM
jasm

I guess I need to read the new labels... as there is also an identical (older) version of this lens without the DG label. Sigma apparently updated this lens to a DG version, as they have been doing with several of their older full-frame lenses recently The DG update should help reduce CA and flare. So bully for Sigma on that front, and call your lawyer off the case. Sigma has declared this a "digitally optimized" DG lens, and so be it. I guess the old non-DG inventory is actually gone as S4L no longer seems to have stock.

Digital optimization or not, this is still a re-hash of the non-DG lens. Again, it's not a bad thing, and also, again, if you are happy with the results, then don't ask for a critique.

Like all lens manufacturers Sigma makes some really great lenses, some good to ok lenses, and some junk. Again, this one looks to be "ok". I wouldn't buy it, but that's a personal choice.

My comments were not a personal assessment of your photographic skills and abilities, but of the lens' capability to project an image.

[George Riehm]

George,

Is your responce on the 70-300G due to the performance of the lens or the 70-300 length not being useful? Coldrain gives the Sigma 70-300 APO DG a good review so I'm leaning toward that but am wondering if I should look at the 55-200 length. I would like a lens that can give me good close ups/macros but can also get good action shots of kids level sports. The kitlens is good but I am already wanting more.

Thanks!

The 70-300G is a poorer performer compared to the Sigma APO DG. Hence it's prominance on my desk rather than on my camera. Recently, I have been finding more uses for this range and the Nikkor I have is very hit and miss, so for $184 the Sigma may find its way back in my collection. It depends on whether I need it in addition to the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. My guess is probably not.

Stick with the Sigma APO DG as the best value (now with macro) of the bunch in the long zoom consumer lens catagory.

[George Riehm]

You did offer to give it to me at one stage but when I replied and accepted your offer you never followed through with the deal.
:)

Sorry I may have forgotten that exchange. Like I said I decided to keep the lens as a reminder. Let me check back, and I'll let you know.

P.S. Thanks for the leg-pull. The memory isn't what it used to be. What would you do with 2?

Good one.

[K1W1]

Sorry I may have forgotten that exchange. Like I said I decided to keep the lens as a reminder. Let me check back, and I'll let you know.

P.S. Thanks for the leg-pull. The memory isn't what it used to be. What would you do with 2?

Good one.

Only a leg pull. As I have already said I got a 70-300G for free with my D50 so I can't use two on the same camera body anyway.
I've had some chances to use the Sigma 70-300 DG (that's the Digitally Optimised one :) ) over the last week and it is definately superior to the Nikkor 70-300G but I still stand by my original suggestion that if I were travelling to a sunny place and weight was an issue and I only really wanted holiday photos then I would most likely take the Nikkor over the Sigma.

[britkev]

I'd agree that for it's price and weight the 70-300G is not as horrible as some people would have you believe. I bought mine as a stopgap to give me the reach I want until I can afford something better, but I can see me keeping it to take on sunny days when I don't want to haul 4 pounds of glass around with me...

I even got a couple of acceptable snaps out of it at a concert a couple of weeks ago... shot from the second mezzanine, 300mm handheld at 1/125 wide open (f/5.6), ISO 1600 - I know this is not a great photograph by any stretch of the imagination but for a ~$100 lens in nearly impossible conditions this shot was so much better than anything I could reasonably have expected:

[George Riehm]

Only a leg pull. As I have already said I got a 70-300G for free with my D50 so I can't use two on the same camera body anyway.
I've had some chances to use the Sigma 70-300 DG (that's the Digitally Optimised one :) ) over the last week and it is definately superior to the Nikkor 70-300G but I still stand by my original suggestion that if I were travelling to a sunny place and weight was an issue and I only really wanted holiday photos then I would most likely take the Nikkor over the Sigma.

But if you connect 2 together... 600mm right?

I thought that one leg was longer yesterday...;)

I guess I quit taking holiday photos a while back. Maybe a little obsessive, but I want every image I take to be as good as it can possibly be (considering my budget). Weight is never the issue for me. Which is why I bought a monopod.

Anyway have fun with the Nikkor.

[rdog]

Thanks to everyone for the replies and feed back. I am going to get the Sigma 70-300 APO DG on Monday. Sigmaforless has a good price and the shipping is fair as well.

Thanks again!