PDA

View Full Version : D300 and 18-135



DigitalJ
07-16-2008, 07:59 AM
I am looking to purchase a DSLR in early September. Have been waiting for the mythical D90 but its yet to appear. So its either the D80, D200 or D300. Don't know if I want to purchase the older cameras and always wonder if I wouln't be better off with newer technology. Primarily would be used for wedding and events. Would the D300 & 18-135 lens make sense in this case until I can afford a better lens? I would also get an SB600 flash with this setup. Thanks.

josef
07-16-2008, 09:07 AM
not a bad idea.. I had that lens (18-135) with the D80 and it is a very sharp lens.. Good useful range, too.

I was in the same dilemma recently and I went with the D300 and 50 1.8 route.. and I just ordered the 18-200 after a few months of saving. The 18-200 will be arriving tomorrow :D

I enjoyed just using the 50 1.8 for a while. It makes you move a lot more to get the right shot. (this can be good & bad in some situations though..)

Daubs
07-16-2008, 10:48 AM
Got my D80 with the 18-135mm in kit. Quickly eBayed that lens and opted for others. I would skip it all together and go right to the 18-200mm VR. Longer reach and VR make ita much better option for me.

Love the 300!

DigitalJ
07-16-2008, 02:37 PM
Thanks guys. I know the 18-135 is not as good as the 18-200VR, however with the D300 its $1850 as oppose to $2250 with 18-200VR. Not sure I can afford that.

Classic96
07-16-2008, 03:41 PM
If I were you, I'd be more worried about the glass than the body. It would seem at your level of experience (and budget) you would be better off with a cheaper body and some nicer glass and/or a flash. A D80 is more than enough camera for almost all of us here. You can get one with a grip for under $1000 these days and then pick up a lens(es) and a flash. The 18-200 is nice but has it's short comings like any all purpose setup. Look used and you can find some great Nikon lenses at the $400-1000 price point still bringing your total less than the D300 and 18-135 combo.

Rasidel Slika
07-16-2008, 04:13 PM
Thanks guys. I know the 18-135 is not as good as the 18-200VR, however with the D300 its $1850 as oppose to $2250 with 18-200VR. Not sure I can afford that.
I haven't' researched it but I'm guessing the 18-135 is sharper than the 18-200! "good" = relative!

Rooz
07-16-2008, 04:52 PM
the 18-55VR is cheaper, almost as sharp, has VR, and has better optical qualities overall.

K1W1
07-16-2008, 05:22 PM
the 18-55VR is cheaper, almost as sharp, has VR, and has better optical qualities overall.

and you can team it with the 55-200VR at some later stage for a very nice inexpensive package.

DigitalJ
07-16-2008, 09:05 PM
I know the 18-55VR is within reach but I was looking to get more range from the get go. I am in the video production business have gone through quite a few video cameras before and one lesson I learned was that its always better to get the tool that would best suit the job. Considering that the D300 is reputed to be way better in lower light situations, I would lean towards that. I was planning on getting a 17-50 F2.8 lens a little later so would prefer to get a longer zoom now. If the 18-135 is really that bad then I would am prepared to take advice on alternatives.

achuang
07-16-2008, 09:19 PM
This is a tough choice because the D300's ISO performance is perfect for weddings and events, although glass does have a large role to play. And flash can compensate for a slower lens if used properly. This depends on your budget and how quickly you can buy the next lens. If you didn't have to wait too long to buy a better lens then I'd go for the D300. If your budget is limited then buy the D80 with a better lens than the 18-135.

Rooz
07-16-2008, 10:54 PM
I know the 18-55VR is within reach but I was looking to get more range from the get go. I am in the video production business have gone through quite a few video cameras before and one lesson I learned was that its always better to get the tool that would best suit the job. Considering that the D300 is reputed to be way better in lower light situations, I would lean towards that. I was planning on getting a 17-50 F2.8 lens a little later so would prefer to get a longer zoom now. If the 18-135 is really that bad then I would am prepared to take advice on alternatives.

i didnt say it wsa "that bad". i dont think its a bad lens at all. i owned one. i just think there are better alternatives out there right now. personally i'd be even considering the just biting the bullet, stretching your budget and going for the 16-85VR. much better optical quality than either the 18-55VR or the 18-135.

putting the 18-135 on a d300 is a bit like putting white walls on a ferrari.

DigitalJ
07-17-2008, 05:58 PM
Ok I will consider getting the 18-55 VR with the D300 and SB600. I may even investigate the posibility of the 18-200 VR as that is the top recomendation. Don't know if I want to pay that much for the 16-85, however how is the barrel distortion on the 16-85 vs the 18-200?

Rooz
07-17-2008, 06:09 PM
there is less distortion, it is optically much better than the 18-200. basically, you get better image quality for less range flexibility.

so basically...
cheap: 18-55VR
range/ flexibility: 18-200VR
midrange quality: 16-85VR

alternately you could go for a faster aperture lens like the simga 18-50/2.8 or tamron 17-50/2.8. but having owned both, i dont personally recommend them unless you REALLY need the faster f-stop and can't afford the nikkor 2.8 lens.

imho, the 16-85, while expensive, is the best lens of all the above to marry to a d300.

DigitalJ
07-17-2008, 06:51 PM
Well I have until September to make up my mind and I don't mind hearing some more recomendations or confirmations. Thanks a lot.