PDA

View Full Version : Newby ? difference between 18-55 kitlens D50



michaelbf
11-21-2005, 06:14 AM
I see two different lenses offered on the D50. 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G vs 18-55mm F/3.5-4.5G seems like the 5.6g is more expensive... I am new obviously... :)

The are both listed as 18-55 is there a difference?

Thanks,
Michael

coldrain
11-21-2005, 07:03 AM
Where are those listed? Only the 18-55 f3.5-5.6 exists.

erichlund
11-21-2005, 07:20 AM
If I had to guess, he has it mixed up with the 18-70 f/3.5-f/4.5.
Or an 18-35, f3.5-4.5D. There is no 18-55 f3.5-4.5G made by Nikon. I don't know about 3rd party.

michaelbf
11-21-2005, 07:37 AM
Butterfly photo shows it as Nikon D50 SLR Digital Camera w/ 18-55mm F/3.5-4.5G Lens

There are several others as well... Buydig just changed it, they seem to have the best price but I was thinking it could be old stock vs new.... I was going to get the D70s but sounds like the D50 will be a great starter as I work my way up... :)

I am going to purchase from Buydig unless someone can give me a better recommedation...

Thank you for a very helpful board!!!

Michael

erichlund
11-21-2005, 08:04 AM
Butterfly photo shows it as Nikon D50 SLR Digital Camera w/ 18-55mm F/3.5-4.5G Lens

There are several others as well... Buydig just changed it, they seem to have the best price but I was thinking it could be old stock vs new.... I was going to get the D70s but sounds like the D50 will be a great starter as I work my way up... :)

I am going to purchase from Buydig unless someone can give me a better recommedation...

Thank you for a very helpful board!!!

Michael
It's hard to give a recommendation unless we know what your photography goals are. As a starter lens, the Nikkor 18-55 is not bad. The 18-70 that comes as the D70 kit lens is better. Some people prefer the Sigma 18-125. George has been please with his.

There are a number of choices in the 18-200 range if you want something that will cover a large range with some image compromises. Sigma and Tamron both have entries. I don't recall which one people are saying is the better choice, but search this site for the debate. Nikon is coming out with one that also has VR, but you can only preorder the lens at this point, and it's substantially more expensive. You will have to get in line behind me. ;) :p

Whatever you get among these, most of us would recommend you also get the 50mm f1.8. It's a very sharp lens and very bright, for those low light situations where you don't want to use flash.

Cheers,
Eric

michaelbf
11-21-2005, 09:04 AM
We take a wide variety of pictures, I actually video and the wife runs the camera but I think I an going to change that. There is a ton of great information on this board. I will digest it over the weekend. I am starting with the 18-55 on a D50. We will move from there. Thank you for the tip on the other lens!

dallas75287
11-21-2005, 09:33 PM
Erichlund or anyone, may I ask why the 18-70 is better than 18-55? And why the 50mm f1.8 is good for low light? What does these numbers mean? As you can probably tell, I'm clueless when it comes to lens. I don't own a SLR camera. I'm just researching and trying educate myself so I can make better decision when the time come to buy one. I currently own a Panasonic FZ5. Right now I've been drooling over the D50, but too advance for me at this point.

Thanks.

erichlund
11-22-2005, 11:15 AM
Erichlund or anyone, may I ask why the 18-70 is better than 18-55? And why the 50mm f1.8 is good for low light? What does these numbers mean? As you can probably tell, I'm clueless when it comes to lens. I don't own a SLR camera. I'm just researching and trying educate myself so I can make better decision when the time come to buy one. I currently own a Panasonic FZ5. Right now I've been drooling over the D50, but too advance for me at this point.

Thanks.
1. 18-70 is a wider zoom range, so it's a little more flexible as an everyday lens. With the 1.5 crop factor, it's approximately 27-105mm.
2. The build is better, at least that's what I hear.
3. The f numbers are lower at the telephoto end, giving more light gathering capability for when there's not as much light.

Pause for brief lesson: The f stop is the ratio of the diameter of the aperture to the focal length of the lens. You can file that away and just remember that the smaller the number, the more light the lens will allow to pass in a given period of time (the shutter speed). What this means in practical terms is that at a very low f-stop, like 1.8, the shutter does not need to be open very long to give a good exposure. At f32, the aperture is stopped down to a relative pinhole, and it takes much longer to get the same amount of light to ensure a proper exposure. So, if you want to hand hold the camera in dim light, you want a lens that can open up very wide. This will give you a faster shutter speed so that the photo isn't affected by little things like the photographer breathing (better than the alternative). The lenses list the wide open aperture at the widest angle and then at full telephoto. For single length lenses like the 50mm, only one f-stop is listed. Of course, all lenses can be stopped down to a smaller aperture, which is handy, because they usually don't perform as well wide open, and ... well if I go any further, then this isn't a very brief lesson.

Of course, you now know why the 50mm f1.8 is good for low light.

Hope this helps,
Cheers,
Eric

murrays
11-22-2005, 11:32 AM
This might help explain it a bit more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-stop

-murray

Quorthon
11-22-2005, 12:04 PM
Adding my 0.02$ - Another advantage (at least, the way I see it...) with low F numbers is getting shallower Depth-Of-Field, making it easier to create that beautiful blurry-background effect which is key for most aesthetic portrait shots.

The shallow DOF effect is one of the main reasons I switched to DSLR, so no wonder I'm enjoying my 50mm f/1.8 so much... ;)

Or

dallas75287
11-22-2005, 09:43 PM
Thank you all for the information. I wish I could create the blurry background with my FZ5. No luck so far. Probably will have to wait till I get dSLR camera.

erichlund
11-22-2005, 10:52 PM
Thank you all for the information. I wish I could create the blurry background with my FZ5. No luck so far. Probably will have to wait till I get dSLR camera.
This is one of the key weaknesses of the small sensor. Because the sensor is so small, the physics involved means the lens has a natural very large depth of field. It's very difficult to isolate your subject in the wide variety of cases available to larger sensor owners.

In fact, this is one of those areas where many APS owners are going into denial versus the 35mm full frame owners. As much as they try to deny it, the fact remains that a bigger sensor means a shallower depth of field is available. Of course the cost is at the other end of the spectrum. Nothing is free, and if you have a very shallow depth of field, then you have to also have a VERY small aperture to get a large depth of field desired for lots of subjects, such as landscapes. I don't fully understand the consequences, but I believe the costs of small apertures include potential for light falloff in the corners, distortion, soft focus and chromatic abherratoins. Needless to say, not all lenses are equally affected, and the amount you spend is often a good indicator of resistance to negative impacts.

Cheers,
Eric

Rex914
11-22-2005, 11:31 PM
Thank you all for the information. I wish I could create the blurry background with my FZ5. No luck so far. Probably will have to wait till I get dSLR camera.

This is worth a shot, since I know it's been done many point and shoots. Go to full telephoto, open up the aperture to the maximum, and try to isolate your subject as much as possible from the background. If you do this, you should be able to easily (can't quantify how easily though!) obtain a blurred background.

Balrog
11-23-2005, 09:21 AM
At full tele, the FZ5 gets to (iirc) 72mm, f/3.5; enough for a reasonable amount of background blurring - the problem is you'd have to be really far away to get a nice framing of your subject ( unless it was really small :) )

And yeah, APS-C will never match full frame for DOF... sad but true. Me, personally, I'm willing to give that up for the advantages of cropped sensors - in fact, for macro shots the added DOF is very welcome! :D