Better Lens kit for D50, 18-55 or 28-80

[britkev]

The Canon & Olympus lenses ain't gonna perform too well on a D50

The Nikkon 18-70 is on my shopping list - I plan on picking up a used example from one of the multitude of D70 owners who are upgrading to the 18-200 VR.

I am aware of it's limitations, and will be buying it for it's wide-angle abilities, not telephoto. Yes there is some vignetting, but as someone else pointed out on here recently, it's not likely to be a real-world problem unless you happen to take nothing but photographs of white walls in bright sunshine

[coldrain]

It also has much more than average barrel distortion at 18mm, more than the 18-55 from Nikon.

[Jason25]

The Canon & Olympus lenses ain't gonna perform too well on a D50

The Nikkon 18-70 is on my shopping list - I plan on picking up a used example from one of the multitude of D70 owners who are upgrading to the 18-200 VR.

I am aware of it's limitations, and will be buying it for it's wide-angle abilities, not telephoto. Yes there is some vignetting, but as someone else pointed out on here recently, it's not likely to be a real-world problem unless you happen to take nothing but photographs of white walls in bright sunshine

Same here. I bought it mostly for wide shooting indoors with my SB-600. The AF-S is a plus as well for shooting people, like my 18 month old It will suffice on the wide end for my landscapes until I buy an ultra-wide, which will probably be the Tokina 12-24. I may eventually get the 18-200 VR to replace it, but we'll see. $700+ is a ton of cash for a walkaround lens. Capture will fix any vignetting I may get with the 18-70, and barrel distortion isn't much of an issue for me for what I shoot.

[Arch Stanton]

Would it be better to buy the 18-55 kit or just the body with the Sigma 18-50 and save a little (around $20)?

Which lens is better, the Nikon 18-55 or the Sigma 18-50?

[coldrain]

Would it be better to buy the 18-55 kit or just the body with the Sigma 18-50 and save a little (around $20)?

Which lens is better, the Nikon 18-55 or the Sigma 18-50?

There are two Sigma 18-50 lenses. A cheap one and a more expensive one. The expensive one (18-50mm f2.8 EX DC) is the better lens in that it has a bigger max. aperture. The cheaper Sigma is best left alone.
But the 18-55 kit lens actually is very good.. so unless you want to spend more on the expensive Sigma, the Nikon 18-55 is a good choice.

[Arch Stanton]

Forgot to specify, I meant the cheap one.

What do you think of the Nikon 70-300 as an additional lens? This would leave a small hole from 55-70 or is 55-200 better?

Or, is it ok to get one "do-it-all" lens instead like the Sigma or Tamron 18-200?

[coldrain]

The Nikon 18-55mm kit lens is a good lens. It is cheaply built but its optical performance is good. The cheap Sigma is not better, so choose the Nikon.

Nikon has two 70-300mm lenses. The cheap 70-300mm f/4-5.6G AF Zoom-Nikkor, and the more expensive 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ED AF Zoom-Nikkor.

The G version is notvery good, the ED version has a much better reputation.
The Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG Macro is a cheaper but also very good lens of this ilk. It offers an 1:2 macro mode as nice extra.

Personally I would not care about the 55-70 gap that falls between the 18-55 kit lens and a 70-300 lens. The extra 200-300mm range is much more worth while than that 55-70 area gap, and nothing a step or two can not bridge.

I would not choose the 55-200, at 200 it loses quite a bit of contrast and such.

All in all I would choose the Nikon 18-55 kit and Sigma 70-300 APO DG, they offer a wide range for a very low price, with quite impressive image quality for the price. The 18-200 lenses are preferrable if you do want just an all in one lens, but the performance will lag the other two lenses a little bit, and the focal range misses the extra 200-300 (andyou also miss that nice 1:2 macro mode).

[britkev]

Forgot to specify, I meant the cheap one.

What do you think of the Nikon 70-300 as an additional lens? This would leave a small hole from 55-70 or is 55-200 better?

Or, is it ok to get one "do-it-all" lens instead like the Sigma or Tamron 18-200?

I have the "cheap and nasty" 70-300 Nikon you mention, simply because it is the only lens in anything like it's length available so cheaply. I've only had it a just over a week and it has been either too cold or too dreary here for me to give it a proper workout, however my early experiments suggest that I can live with the limitations ( it is a bit soft, particularly on the long end... and it is "slow" to autofocus - although after my Coolpix 8700 ...) for a year or so while I save up for something better.

Is it a great lens? Of course not.

Is it a great lens for $130 bucks: absolutely!!

[D70FAN]

I have the "cheap and nasty" 70-300 Nikon you mention, simply because it is the only lens in anything like it's length available so cheaply. I've only had it a just over a week and it has been either too cold or too dreary here for me to give it a proper workout, however my early experiments suggest that I can live with the limitations ( it is a bit soft, particularly on the long end... and it is "slow" to autofocus - although after my Coolpix 8700 ...) for a year or so while I save up for something better.

Is it a great lens? Of course not.

Is it a great lens for $130 bucks: absolutely!!

Note: for $184 you can get the Sigma 70-300 APO. I have a Nikkor 70-300 G. It's a paperweight...

[britkev]

Note: for $184 you can get the Sigma 70-300 APO. I have a Nikkor 70-300 G. It's a paperweight...

You pays your money and take your choice: I have the Nikon and 54 bucks in my 80-400VR fund already