Do i need a different lens?

[westy79]

As i have mentioned in previous threads im off to NY and Vegas for my honeymoon. With the Nikon D40 being my first DSLR im excited about taking it but im worried that the stock lens will not achieve the best results, as its only got a focal range of 55mm. Im still self conscious using a DSLR and dont want to keep changing lenses every 5 mins. Is there a good all round lens where i can have alot more zoom yet still take images close by without starting at a range of say 70mm.

I know i could take shots at 55mm and crop the images but surely i will lose alot of quality

Im sorry again for my lack of knowledge but can anyone describe the lens numbers, ie 18mm or 55mm.

Again your help is really appreciated as always

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

What lens do you actually have?
18-55 VR ?

Yes there are other lenses but you have to make decisions like focal length, zoom ratio, optical quality and price. These things all trade off against each other.

If you're really scared of chaning lenses people often go for the Nikkor 18-200VR. It's mid priced, pretty good optically, very wide range (11x zoom ratio). I wouldn't recommend it though unless you really don't want to change lenses.

A second lens that covers a different focal length will give you maximum image quality for the price. At least thats the decision I've made, you may be different.

You did buy a dSLR to learn about photography, that means you can make decisions about convenience vs image quality tradeoffs. Point and shoot users just have to live with what came with the camera.;)

[Aldor88]

The 55-200VR or the Sigma 70-300 could be good choises if your looking for a cheap lens. If you only want to use one lens then theres the Nikon 18-200VR and Sigma 18-200OS HSM.

[toriaj]

If you want a zoom lens, the 55-200 or 70-300 are your best options. The 18-200 is convenient, but sacrifices quality. Granted, you probably won't notice the quality degradation until you have a lot more experience.

[herc182]

The 55-200VR or the Sigma 70-300 could be good choises if your looking for a cheap lens. If you only want to use one lens then theres the Nikon 18-200VR and Sigma 18-200OS HSM.

I second the 55-200VR nikon. excellent optically for the price. Good contrast too.

Bottom line is that if you are asking about an all in one, chances are very high that you will not notice the "imperfections" in the lens that other users on this forum will notice.

You are a novice so get an 18-200 lens (nikon, tamron, sigma all do one).
and you still have the "perks" of a DSLR in low shutter lag, high ISO performance, better quality sensor amongst a few more (i.e. dont think you are carrying around a glorified p and s).

Get a all rounder then as your needs develop, you can sell it and buy a lens you will enjoy most (be it a macro, wide angle, or telephoto)

[ooverdrive]

Im sorry again for my lack of knowledge but can anyone describe the lens numbers, ie 18mm or 55mm.

Again your help is really appreciated as always
Both denoted the focal length 18mm is wide and 55mm is the telephoto end,a lens with a 18-200mm is versatile,also there are fixed lenses called primes like 35mm,50mm,100mm,180mm..these are sharper than zooms in general

[TheWengler]

The best way to figure out what those numbers mean is to look through the camera and see for yourself. If you want to compare that to focal lengths you don't have then you can use this too from Tamron...Focal Length Comparison Tool (http://www.tamroneurope.com/flc.htm)

I don't know if you need a longer focal length or not. It depends on what you're planning on shooting. I only have one lens and it only goes to 45mm. That doesn't bother me too much though since I take most of my shots at the wide end. I wouldn't buy a compromise lens though.

[fionndruinne]

Don't get hung up on expensive, high-quality lenses right now. As you gain experience you will come to learn what to get, based on the kind of shooting you do, your habits and idiosyncrasies, etc. If you want to improve, to work your way up the skills ladder, I'd recommend sticking with your kit lens for a while.

If you really need more telephoto, though, go for the 55-200mm VR. Anything else is going to cost at least twice as much, and personally I'd save that money for a real nice lens upgrade once you know what it is you need.

[jcon]

I agree with the last post. Going by some of the other threads you have started, I would strongly suggest saving your money and spend your time learning more about digital photography and learning how to better use the tools you currently own. You CAN get excellent results with what you have.

If down the road you wish to add to your set up with a longer range zoom, then so be it and youll be more knowledgeable then.

Practice doesnt cost a thing except time!


Oh and also, if I remember correctly, you said you wanted to take some landscape or cityscape pictures on your honeymoon.... you dont want a long zoom for that.

[tim11]

If you have to consider an affordable walk around lens, don't overlook the Nikkor 18-105 VR. It's doesn't cost an arm or a leg either.

[Rooz]

i didnt think we even resolved the issue from the last thread you made.

[westy79]

thanks again for the advice, wish i could post some answers instead of keep asking annoying questions!!!!!! To be honest i find the kit lens great and im still learning everyday, my only reason really for asking about a longer zoom was purely for close up shots of say the Statue of Liberty where i will be quite away away. I really dont want to confuse myself which i find is happening now.

At least my evening photography course is only a month away!!

[westy79]

Thanks for the helpful link Lukas

[TNB]

As i have mentioned in previous threads im off to NY and Vegas for my honeymoon . . . as its only got a focal range of 55mm . . . and dont want to keep changing lenses every 5 mins.

One of my most used lenses is the 17-55mm. Personally, one of the main reasons I purchased a dSLR was so I had options--the ability to change lenses. And most of the time when I am carrying around my dSLR, I am also carrying around three lenses, i.e. 10.5mm, 17-55mm, and 70-200mm. I realize that those particular lenses are probably out of your current budget, but my point is simply that the focal range of the 17-55mm works well and you pretty much have that covered. At least that focal range works for me anyway unless I want that fisheye effect or am shooting sports.

I do have an older lens that didn't cost an arm and a leg, but I don't even think I've used it since purchasing the 17-55mm F/2.8. That lens is the Nikkor 24-120 F/3.5-5.6 VR. It's not as fast as the other lenses since it is not F/2.8 throughout, it's not as wide since it starts at 24mm, and it is both slower and doesn't have the range of the 70-200mm. Of course, the 24-120mm lens is less expensive since it is more limited.


...my only reason really for asking about a longer zoom was purely for close up shots of say the Statue of Liberty where i will be quite away away. I really dont want to confuse myself which i find is happening now.
Unless things have changed, you can take the NY tour and get very, very close to the Statute of Liberty. If not, you can visit the mini-version in Las Vegas during your trip. LOL.

By the way, some of the local properties don't allow tripods. And if you don't have an off camera flash, i.e. SB600 etc. that may also be something to consider in the long run.

[Tony_V]

...I really dont want to confuse myself which i find is happening now.

With a DSLR the good news is you have plenty of choices and the bad news is you have plenty of choices. Always remember, If you ask 10 photographers a question, you may get 11 different answers....

So


Don't get hung up on expensive, high-quality lenses right now. As you gain experience you will come to learn what to get, based on the kind of shooting you do, your habits and idiosyncrasies, etc. If you want to improve, to work your way up the skills ladder, I'd recommend sticking with your kit lens for a while.

If you really need more telephoto, though, go for the 55-200mm VR. Anything else is going to cost at least twice as much, and personally I'd save that money for a real nice lens upgrade once you know what it is you need.

I agree with fionndruinne 100% here except I would remove the "high-quality" part of the first sentence. IMHO you are not going to beat the image quality of the 55-200 VR without spending quite a bit more.

Also remember bigger lenses weigh more. I love my D300, vertical battery grip and 70-200VR but it weighs as much as a bag of rocks. For what you are planning on doing with the lens, you will appreciate the lighter weight.

Tony

[fionndruinne]

Meh. Fionndruinne (a.k.a. Andrew) has had it with consumer-grade zoom lenses, is why he puts "high-quality" in his post. In retrospect, he probably should be clearer since a DSLR newbie isn't going to be thinking about anything resembling say a 70-200mm f/2.8 :P

[westy79]

I have been using the D40 for a few days now with the 18-55mm kit lens and i feel alot more at ease with the camera, i stll cheat and use the sports mode, macro mode etc but its going to take time to learn. Im going to stick with the kit lens for now. I have cropped a few images and they do lose the quality sometimes bit i am restricted to the length of zoom.I really just want to learn apertures, exposures and shutter speeds for now

[swpars]

Meh. Fionndruinne (a.k.a. Andrew) has had it with consumer-grade zoom lenses, is why he puts "high-quality" in his post. In retrospect, he probably should be clearer since a DSLR newbie isn't going to be thinking about anything resembling say a 70-200mm f/2.8 :P

What's wrong with the 55-200 VR? My copy is sharp even at f5.6 and 200mm, and the image stabilization allows me to get very decent shots at 1/30th and 200mm.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/swpars/3420273006/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/swpars/2769648892/in/set-72157606488895849/

70-300 VR is FX and has better AF and stabilization, but you'll have to spend 5x as much new in the Nikon lens world (a new 80-200 f2.8 AF-D is over $1000 USD now) to really step up to the next level from the 55-200 VR. 70-300 VR is still a consumer zoom, albeit somewhat more capable.

[fionndruinne]

The 55-200mm VR may be passably sharp, but its contrast is unmistakably "consumer-grade". Sharpness isn't everything.

[Thronsen]

If you dont want to pay for a tour boat to Liberty Island, Staten Island Ferry costs like nothing and gets reasonably close to the Statue of Liberty. And during the middle of the day there usually isnt a line, just hop on.

[D70FAN]

I've been shooting a Sigma 18-125 for nearly 5 years, and have had great results, have printed and framed several for people and even scored a magazine cover... I haven't tried the newest OS version yet, but if it's as good as the original... it's my next lens.

On that same note I pack a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 and the very excellent (and unbelievably cheap) Nikkor 55-200 VR. The 24-70 takes the place of the 35mm f/2.0, 50mm f/1.8, and 60mm f1.8.

You don't need to spend a ton on lenses to get great quality and cover 95% of shooting situations.

My $.02 worth.:)

[swpars]

The 55-200mm VR may be passably sharp, but its contrast is unmistakably "consumer-grade". Sharpness isn't everything.

Can you show an example to illustrate your point?

I find the 55-200 VR very contrasty for what it is. At f5.6-f8, it's really not too far off the 50mm f1.8 when that prime is shot around f4.

[fionndruinne]

Look, we can go back and forth about lenses, but there is a certain all-around excellence (call it contrast, clarity, color rendition, whatever - I'm not an expert on these things) to images I've seen from something like the new 50mm f/1.4, the 85mm f/1.4 (even the f/1.8 model) and even the $100 nifty fifty that I don't think I've seen from the 55-200mm, the 70-300mm, the 18-55mm or any of their ilk. I just think they're not up to the same brand of snuff. If you get good images from it, though, that's great.

[K1W1]

Isn't there a saying that goes something like "quality is in the eye of the beholder"?

My 55-200VR is a great lens and has served me well for two years or so and maybe 9 or 10000 shots but it's a $300 lens and great for $300. Do I expect that it would stack better than Rich's 70-200VR which would cost me $3000? Of course not. Can I realistically justify spending $3000 to get the image quality improvements that the 70-200VR will give me? No. Will I spend the $3000 anyway? Probably at some stage and if I do I will convince myself that it was money well spent, other people may well look at my photos and not notice any difference so we go back to the first sentence in this post.

[rawpaw18]

Why you dragging me into this? :)
Your soccer season is coming up soon,
and you don't plan on taking the field with
that shiny new D300 and NO 70-200vr, do you?

[RichNY]

Why you dragging me into this? :)
Your soccer season is coming up soon,
and you don't plan on taking the field with
that shiny new D300 and NO 70-200vr, do you?

You might want to take the path I did and get the 200 f/2 and 400 f/2.8 before the 70-200. When I eventually purchased the 70-200 it seemed really small, light, and inexpensive ;)

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

Wish I had your spending habits Rich. I can't bring myself to part with the cash.

[btuner]

I still don't understand why Nikon doesn't make a damn non VR version of the 70-200mm 2.8?!? Canon has 4 "pro" 70-200mm lenses, nikon has one!

[XaiLo]

I still don't understand why Nikon doesn't make a damn non VR version of the 70-200mm 2.8?!? Canon has 4 "pro" 70-200mm lenses, nikon has one!

There is the 80-200mm which is close in optics to the 70-200mm so Nikon should at least get credit for two.

Edit: And for the money the 70-300 is no slouch at all. From what I've seen it covers the 70-200 range quite nicely with room to spare plus VR!!!

[btuner]

There is the 80-200mm which is close in optics to the 70-200mm so Nikon should at least get credit for two.

yeah, I have the 80-200mm

[XaiLo]

yeah, I have the 80-200mm


lol see you did even have to go get one :p lol I didn't even notice your sig lol.

[swpars]

I still don't understand why Nikon doesn't make a damn non VR version of the 70-200mm 2.8?!? Canon has 4 "pro" 70-200mm lenses, nikon has one!

Nikon has the 80-200 AF-D in the midrange zoom spot between the 70-300 VR and the 70-200 VR.

[Rooz]

the reason canon have 4 types is cos they offer f4 versions.

[K1W1]

I keep looking at the 80-200 f2.8 and wondering whether it would be a good upgrade from me from the 55-200. The 70-200VR is realistically out of the price range and the VR is not overly useful for what I would use it for (sports) anyway. You see mixed reports about the lens and I'm not really confident enough about it to just go and buy one.

[Rooz]

there is nothing mixed about it imo, its optically superb and built like a tank. the issue to me is that there's no VR and its quite heavy; so if you;re not shooting it at or above 1/250s you wont get consistently good shots.

if you;re shooting in really good light, jump on it. if not then give it a miss.

[K1W1]

For sports I'm always going to be above 1/250 sec anyway (usually at least 1/400) and I have a monopod I hardly ever use. I might see if I can rent one.

Can you use a TC with them? I assume that you can.

[swpars]

You can use a teleconverter with an 80-200 AF-D, but if you want AF it won't be a Nikon teleconverter. 3rd party TC's like the Tamron 1.4x and Kenko Pro 1.4x (which are pretty much the same TC, just sold under two different names) have a "driveshaft extension" for the screw drive AF.

[btuner]

you can get pretty dang good results below 1/250th

1/60th @ 200mm F/4 (shoulda been at 2.8)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3356/3326858211_37216ab26c.jpg

[Rooz]

For sports I'm always going to be above 1/250 sec anyway (usually at least 1/400) and I have a monopod I hardly ever use. I might see if I can rent one.

Can you use a TC with them? I assume that you can.

yes, but not the nikon tc-e series, they wont fit. i dont think the tc-e series even fits the af-s version, but i may be wrong. a soligor converter, (what i should have bought), will work a treat though. i still look around for a used one aswell, they're not easy to find in good nic and when you do find em they;re bloody pricey.


you can get pretty dang good results below 1/250th

1/60th @ 200mm F/4 (shoulda been at 2.8)



agreed, you can get great results and that one is a great example. but you cant expect to get that quality consistently. this is the reason alot of mixed reviews are out there about it cos people assume a 2.8 lens in low light is gonna be kick ass, but they're using it while shooting at 1/100s and wonder why the keeper rate is so low. its got nothing to do with the quality of the optic.

[K1W1]

you can get pretty dang good results below 1/250th


Brandon how fast does it focus? Being a screw drive it will obviously be slower than an AF-S but can it keep up with fast moving sports?

[btuner]

Brandon how fast does it focus? Being a screw drive it will obviously be slower than an AF-S but can it keep up with fast moving sports?

I haven't had a problem with mine. I shoot alot of auto racing and it serves me well, Ive borrowed a friends 70-200mm on one occasion and didn't see what the HUGE price difference was :confused: aside from the updated looks and VR which didn't seem to have a large effect. The only problem is with my camera(d200) which has horrible noise above iso 640, If I had a D300/700/3 then I could just bump the iso to make up for the lack of VR