PDA

View Full Version : A question for the camera experts



jmig
December 11th, 2009, 08:13
I currently have a Nikon D-40, which I really enjoy with two lens. I have the 18-55 lens that came with the camera and a 55-200 VR. My one annoyance is that I often find my self swapping lenses.

I looked at a Nikon Nikon 18-200 VR lens that has gotten wonderful reviews. It would be a one lens fits all approach for me. However the lens is quite expensive. What would I do with the other very good serviceable lenses afterward.

My question is this, would it be better to buy this lens or buy a D-90 body for just about the same amount of money? I could mount one lens on each camera and just swap cameras between the wide angle and zoom shots.

Any advice appreciated.

grumpos
December 11th, 2009, 09:46
I'd suggest going for the second body. the consensus on the forums that I hang out at is that the 18-200 is no great performer. The lens will give you good results, but shorter zooms will give you better.

kilo delta
December 11th, 2009, 09:49
If swapping lenses bothers you,John, I'd go with the 18-200mmVR lens. A fantastic lens by all accounts. I tend to carry a few lenses in a camera bag when I'm out and about, though, as it'll only take a few seconds to swap them.

luckydog
December 11th, 2009, 10:02
2nd body, no question.
Plus it's always good to have back-up.

MaddogK
December 11th, 2009, 10:05
Umm, I'm no expert but I'd say save your money and put on the 55-200mm lens, and take a step back before you shoot. Why does anyone NEED an 18mm lens unless your taking pics of bugs and such.

Ferry_vO
December 11th, 2009, 10:14
18 mm on a digital SLR is comparable to the old 28 mm (when using film) so it's slightly wide angle. Shooting bugs requires a good zoom lens or even better a macro lens.
I use two lenses, but I do not have to swap that often. For airshows or visits to the zoo I leave the 70-300 on, for general use I use my 17-85; I do have my camera cleaned by a professional once a year though to remove the dust and dirt from the sensor.
In general more zoom means less image quality, but then again, carrying around two cameras with lenses isn't something I would want to do all day long either, which is why I don't mind swapping every now and then.

6297J
December 11th, 2009, 10:20
2nd Body, absolutely. I'd love a second D300.

I bought the 18-200 when it first came out and didn't know any better and I sold it again fairly quickly after taking it on holiday. My copy was quite poor.

The problem is the D90 is so much better than the D40 that you'll soon want to ditch it and get another D90 - it's never ending :mixedsmi:

Kiwikat
December 11th, 2009, 10:34
I don't know anything about the Nikon lenses, but I think you would be better off investing in some better glass before you got a better body. For the price of the D90 you could get a pretty nice lens.

I'm in a similar situation with my Canon gear. I wouldn't buy a 50D or 7D now. I'm saving up for some better glass, probably the 100mm L macro or a nice Tokina UWA.

Swapping lenses is what a DSLR is about. :medals:

Unless your body fails or you need the extra ISO for sports or something, theres no real point to upgrading it. Spend your dollars on glass. Besides, to take advantage of most Prosumer cameras, you need better glass than the kit lenses.

Kiwikat
December 11th, 2009, 10:39
Umm, I'm no expert but I'd say save your money and put on the 55-200mm lens, and take a step back before you shoot. Why does anyone NEED an 18mm lens unless your taking pics of bugs and such.

What lol...

18mm is wide angle, good for landscapes and buildings.

For bugs that 200 would be better! Most medium telephotos have a higher magnification than general purpose zooms. :mixedsmi:

kilo delta
December 11th, 2009, 10:41
2nd Body, absolutely. I'd love a second D300.

I bought the 18-200 when it first came out and didn't know any better and I sold it again fairly quickly after taking it on holiday. My copy was quite poor.

The problem is the D90 is so much better than the D40 that you'll soon want to ditch it and get another D90 - it's never ending :mixedsmi:

I love my D300 too (which shares the same sensor as the D90). I've never owned an 18-200mm though have heard that they are generally a great all-in-one solution. My favourite lens are the 50mm f1.8 and the Nikon 80-200mm f2.8.:)

Henry
December 11th, 2009, 10:46
in the old film days i would have 2 bodies 1 for color and 1 for B&w
but with Digital?
my first thought was get another body
but i bet anything you would like that new body better
and not use the old one often, so you would be back to square one:isadizzy:
i have never liked big Zooms 18-200 thats a lot of glass
and often you will lose a stop or two
have you ever thought about
getting into painting instead:icon_lol:
sorry not much help
H

6297J
December 11th, 2009, 10:47
I don't know anything about the Nikon lenses, but I think you would be better off investing in some better glass before you got a better body. For the price of the D90 you could get a pretty nice lens.

I'm in a similar situation with my Canon gear. I wouldn't buy a 50D or 7D now. I'm saving up for some better glass, probably the 100mm L macro or a nice Tokina UWA.

Swapping lenses is what a DSLR is about. :medals:

Unless your body fails or you need the extra ISO for sports or something, theres no real point to upgrading it. Spend your dollars on glass. Besides, to take advantage of most Prosumer cameras, you need better glass than the kit lenses.


The D90 body only is $899 - you'd be very hard pressed to find a quality lens for that beyond 50mm, Nikon or otherwise. But I agree, anything beyond a D90 is overkill for the kit lenses.

Kiwikat
December 11th, 2009, 10:48
The D90 body only is $899 - you'd be very hard pressed to find a quality lens for that beyond 50mm, Nikon or otherwise. But I agree, anything beyond a D90 is overkill for the kit lenses.

I guess Nikon is more expensive than Canon. :mixedsmi: :173go1:

:naturesm:



For 900 bucks you could get a like new 24-105 L, or a 70-200 L, or a 17-40 L, or a 17-55 f/2.8, or a 10-22 UWA, or.... I'm glad I shoot Canon.

6297J
December 11th, 2009, 10:50
I love my D300 too (which shares the same sensor as the D90). I've never owned an 18-200mm though have heard that they are generally a great all-in-one solution. My favourite lens are the 50mm f1.8 and the Nikon 80-200mm f2.8.:)

My favourites are the 50mm f1.4, the 300mm f2.8 and my beloved 60mm macro. I am hoping Nikon will update the 85mm f1.4 soon.

You should take a look at the Nikon Cafe forums if you are a Nikon fan.

6297J
December 11th, 2009, 10:52
I guess Nikon is more expensive than Canon. :mixedsmi: :173go1:





Indeed. I guess like anything in life, you get what you pay for :kilroy: :icon_lol:

Kiwikat
December 11th, 2009, 10:54
Indeed. I guess like anything in life, you get what you pay for :kilroy: :icon_lol:

I'll let you off the hook on that one. We're all friends here.




:173go1:

MaddogK
December 11th, 2009, 10:56
What lol...

18mm is wide angle, good for landscapes and buildings.

For bugs that 200 would be better! Most medium telephotos have a higher magnification than general purpose zooms. :mixedsmi:

heh, I don't shoot bugs, but i remember the world looking 'fisheye' thru a 28mm and it was great for flowers when I was less that a foot away taking pics, assumed 18mm would be even better for extreme closeups. Besides the light loss thru a 200 would make it useless for bugs unless your in broad daylight.

Anyhow my 28 hasn't been out of the bag in years, and my 50 almost never comes off my body unless I need serious zoom, then on goes a 100-300, and I carry a doubler in case I need a bit more. Am still working up the courage to go digital, but it's hard for me to stomach the price off all the new glass I gotta buy.

Henry
December 11th, 2009, 10:57
I'll let you off the hook on that one. We're all friends here.




:173go1:
LOL
id hate to moderate that argument
H

OBIO
December 11th, 2009, 10:57
I don't have a digital SLR...just a point and shoot 7 mega-pixel tote about. But I do have two veteran Canon AE-1s that I love. Having two bodies with film cameras in a must.....one loaded with high speed film for action, the other with slower speed film for low light conditions or one loaded with color and the other with black and white. That is not an issue with digital, since one good DSLR can be set up for high speed, slower speed, color, black and white, sepia, etc.

Swapping lenses with a SLR is part of the fun, the magic...swapping lenses elevates even a bumbling idiot to a position higher than those with simple point and shoots....it makes us look like serious photographers, like intrepid National Geographic photo journalists...even if the pictures all come out looking like blurry ultrasound images of unborn toads....the people standing next to you at the air show or zoo or wedding, they don't know that we have no clue how to actually use all those lenses and filters and that neat little air puffer thing for blowing dust off our equipment...all they see is a guy with a REAL camera, a bag full of lenses and we are suddenly Earnest Hemingways of photography.

Both of my AE-1s are equipped with 50 mm lenses for general purpose stuff, but I have a number of lenses in the 80 to 135 mm range in 52 and 62mm diameters (I have found lenses in the 100 to 135mm focal length the best choice for portrait work as they give the best overall proportion to the victim....er, SUBJECT...of the picture). I have a few lenses in the 200 to 300mm range, a 400mm, and an 800mm. I also have a couple rarely used wide angle lenses..including a very very very odd looking fish eye lense...which unfortunately has not been used in so long that it has sprouted some fungi between the optics and isn't worth the cost of having it de-fungi'd as I have only used it once or twice in the last 5 to 6 years. I avoid lenses that have really wide focal ranges...such as 70 to 300mm....I have found that I get better results using lenses with narrower focal ranges, such as 200 to 300mm...but then again, I am basing this on my experience with film.

Basically I just spent 15 minutes typing this post...and really did not help you one bit.

OBIO

Kiwikat
December 11th, 2009, 10:58
Besides the light loss thru a 200 would make it useless for bugs unless your is broad daylight.

That's why almost all macro lenses are f/2.8. Most serious flash photographers use ring flashes anyways. I'll have to make do with my 430exII speedlight.

Heeeenry can we please have a Photography subforum? :engel016:

6297J
December 11th, 2009, 11:06
That's why almost all macro lenses are f/2.8. Most serious flash photographers use ring flashes anyways. I'll have to make do with my 430exII speedlight.

Heeeenry can we please have a Photography subforum? :engel016:

Except ring flash gives a very flat and even light which looks unnatural on wildlife. It's ideal for forensic and product photography though. I use a flash bracket and a soft diffuser to give natural looking light on insects.


I think a photography subforum would be very popular :applause:

OBIO
December 11th, 2009, 11:26
Most serious flash photographers use ring flashes anyways.

If serious photogs use ring flashes, what kind of photog uses Zippos and MagLights?:isadizzy:

OBIO

kilo delta
December 11th, 2009, 11:45
+1 on the Photography forum :ernae:

djscoo
December 11th, 2009, 11:46
+1 on the Photography forum :ernae:
add my vote!

Kiwikat
December 11th, 2009, 11:53
Thanks for the support guys. Hopefully the mods will see the interest! :ernae:

Cratermaker
December 11th, 2009, 11:54
Add another +1 on the photography forum.

I sometimes use a wide angle lens when I can't physically distance myself from the subject enough to get it all in frame. This has been a life saver in some aircraft museums. :engel016:

Now the problem is, the wide angle at the end of 18 - 200 introduces considerably more distortion than say a 10-22. But it IS gonna cost ya... Another issue the really large range zooms is they are going to have soft spots at some focal lengths. One review I read on a really wide range lens summed up as that type of lens being a "series of compromises". But I can see them being a godsend when you need to travel light! Personally, I wouldn't get one just to avoid changing lenses.

grumpos
December 11th, 2009, 12:16
Add another +1 on the photography forum.

I sometimes use a wide angle lens when I can't physically distance myself from the subject enough to get it all in frame. This has been a life saver in some aircraft museums. :engel016:


Yep. same with me. Personally, I would put any extra photography cash into a wide angle with a large aperture. It would increase photo opportunities more than the 18-200.

jmig
December 11th, 2009, 12:37
:isadizzy: Thanks guys.... I think. :)

I appreciate all of the comments. They are all interesting. Well, maybe Henry's was useless. :icon_lol: But being a professional, he can spout off uselss information and still seem on top of things.

First of all, I don't NEED a new lens or camera body. What I have has worked nicely. Now, WANT....:monkies:

As OBIO said in his marvelous post, lots of lenses and swapping them does make one look cool. However, I find myself too often having to swap lenses. I am never in a nice safe location. I am always afraid of dropping one or losing the lens caps. then you have to be sure and put the unused lens in a safe place. Finally after what seems like 5 mins. you can take the picture.

I will never sell one of my photos to National Geographic. I take pictures for myself and my wife. She uses them to make scrap books of our travels. I look at them and am reminded of the nice time we had and the beauty we saw. I am a general purpose picture taker. One minute I will be taking a picture of an interesting person, the next an old unique building. Or, I may be outdoors, like last weekend, and taking pictures of mountains and native flora.

I do not need another body to carry around (although that would make me totally cool) my D-40 is fine for my purposes. I do like the LED shooting feature of the D-90 but I have lived without it this long. I am leaning toward the 18-200 lens.

Carrying one heavier lens to me seems easier than two or three lenses and a bag. I do know I will wait a few days before doing anything. No need to spend that kind of money on a whim.

6297J
December 11th, 2009, 13:05
Then why not get a compact to just keep in your pocket? Something like the Lumix TZ7 which has a focal range equivilent to 25-300mm.

Cloud9Gal
December 11th, 2009, 16:02
jmig~ Great Question! I'm glad you posted it as I recently bought the exact same camera as yours. I took notes from all the replies to your post.

Thank you everyone for sharing your input & knowledge! I also benefited from it!

http://freesmileyface.net/smiley/Happy/happy-143.GIF (http://freesmileyface.net)

luckydog
December 11th, 2009, 16:11
2 things that really chap my hide:

losing a shot because I'm busy changing lenses.......

getting dust on the sensor ( a b*tch to clean).

Henry
December 11th, 2009, 16:15
2 things that really chap my hide:

losing a shot because I'm busy changing lenses.......

getting dust on the sensor ( a b*tch to clean).
now #2 you got that right
H

Kiwikat
December 11th, 2009, 16:29
Hey guys we got our subforum:

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/forumdisplay.php?f=69

Let's hope people notice it way down there! :ernae:

MaddogK
December 11th, 2009, 16:34
2 things that really chap my hide:

losing a shot because I'm busy changing lenses.......

getting dust on the sensor ( a b*tch to clean).

BINGO !
Ya uncovered my biggest problem with the Digital camera revolution: AUTO FOCUS. And to think I want a NICE digital camera (someday), with nice lenses, only to 'gimp' the thing because I PREFER to focus it myself. I'm still holding out for a cartridge 'drop-in' for my film camera that will store the images digitally.

....come to think of it, since Sony is selling my digital book now, I have a need for a new invention in my 'to do' list.

jmig
December 11th, 2009, 16:37
Then why not get a compact to just keep in your pocket? Something like the Lumix TZ7 which has a focal range equivilent to 25-300mm.

My wife does that for us. She uses a point and shoot zoom. I can't use the same camera she uses. I would feel less than a man.
:bump:

Henry
December 11th, 2009, 16:42
BINGO !
Ya uncovered my biggest problem with the Digital camera revolution: AUTO FOCUS. And to think I want a NICE digital camera (someday), with nice lenses, only to 'gimp' the thing because I PREFER to focus it myself. I'm still holding out for a cartridge 'drop-in' for my film camera that will store the images digitally.

....come to think of it, since Sony is selling my digital book now, I have a need for a new invention in my 'to do' list.
most AF lenses will let you manually focus
and they did try for a cartridge digi insert
i thought that was a good idea
never took off though
i have been personally dealing with the"digital age"
for the past 15 years
i was one of 10 people who started wet digital printing
in the US
once that ball rolls there is no stopping it
and the world goes round
H

Henry
December 11th, 2009, 16:44
My wife does that for us. She uses a point and shoot zoom. I can't use the same camera she uses. I would feel less than a man.
:bump:
get one in gold with a big lens
and get her a pink one for Christmas
uncle Henry:icon_lol:

jmig
December 12th, 2009, 04:29
get one in gold with a big lens
and get her a pink one for Christmas
uncle Henry:icon_lol:

I already have a BIG lens, Henry :jump:
:icon_lol:

Cloud9Gal
December 12th, 2009, 04:36
get one in gold with a big lens
and get her a pink one for Christmas
uncle Henry:icon_lol:


I already have a BIG lens, Henry :jump:
:icon_lol:


Know what jmig? If you have such a BIG lens, your wife would not have to use the "point & shoot ZOOM".

http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/signs/smiley-vault-signs-117.gif (http://www.smileyvault.com/)

jmig
December 12th, 2009, 04:45
Know what jmig? If you have such a BIG lens, your wife would not have to use the "point & shoot ZOOM".

http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/signs/smiley-vault-signs-117.gif (http://www.smileyvault.com/)

No Fair C9G! :applause: I already have a wife to point and shoot me down. :pop4:

After all this is a "virtual" flying site.

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-eatdrink003.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

JorisVandenBerghe
December 12th, 2009, 06:03
You can always get the new Nikon AF-S DX 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II. There's a comparison up at digitalreview.ca of the Nikon lens and the Sigma version.

Do know that a superzoom like that one, even that kind of exceptional quality, is still less than a decent combination of a, say 16-85 and AF-S 70-300. The price is too, of course...

It's just, how much money do you want to spend on it ?

jmig
December 12th, 2009, 06:27
You can always get the new Nikon AF-S DX 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II. There's a comparison up at digitalreview.ca of the Nikon lens and the Sigma version...[snip]

Hi Joris, that is the lens I purchased. Both Thom Hogan and Ken Rockwell really like the lens. I figure they know much more than I do, so decided it was a good purchase. Only time will tell.
:icon29:

JorisVandenBerghe
December 12th, 2009, 06:28
Have fun with it :ernae:.

Panther_99FS
December 12th, 2009, 06:30
jmig,
Now that you belong to the Nikon forum :) - You know where to get your answer :mixedsmi:

Kiwikat
December 12th, 2009, 06:32
and Ken Rockwell

LMAO. :icon_lol:

So even the N!kon guys don't like him. Poor Ken...

jmig
December 12th, 2009, 07:45
LMAO. :icon_lol:

So even the N!kon guys don't like him. Poor Ken...

:confused: Am I in the dark here? I found his site very useful and informative.