New to DSLR, bought a Nikon D60 a few months ago, came with the "kit" lensees, 18-55 and 55-200, and both seem to either be not close enough, or not "right" for the situation at hand. So, my question is, can I have it all, is there that 'one" lense that will work all the time, such as the 24-105 or 18-200? And, if so, why wouldnt I just buy the bigger of the two, 18-200 and have the best of both, assuming optics are the same? Advice, saying you moron, you should do____, and all are appreciated as this is foreign territory to me.
Telephoto zoom-can I have it all?
- Thread starter Spenser
- Start date
mountainpete
Spamicus Eliminatus
I have the 18-200 and consider it an ideal travel lens. It is very versitile and reliable. The VR is also excellent. If you were to carry only one lens, I think that lens is the very best choice.
However, I do find that it's performance degrades at each end of the spectrum. Images are softer and just don't have the same crispness to them, although it's not a huge difference and can be easly worked through with some post processing.
Pete
However, I do find that it's performance degrades at each end of the spectrum. Images are softer and just don't have the same crispness to them, although it's not a huge difference and can be easly worked through with some post processing.
Pete
DiploStrat
Expedition Leader
The eternal question
Photo nuts usually tell you that you need a range of "pro" lenses with no overlap. I'm with Mountain Pete - the goal is to minimize lens changes in the field; not to have the "perfect" lens.
Soooo, I own:
-- 18-200VR
-- 24-70/2.8
-- 70-300VR
-- Sigma 50-500
The 24-70 has the highest image quality, but I keep wishing it went longer for "head hunting" candids in the market, etc. The 70-300VR is a nice, light, long lens - long enough for everything except critters. The 50-500 is my critter lens - I might replace with the new, stabilized 150-500.
So what was my first lens and the lens that I use over 50% of the time? 18-200VR. Does nothing perfectly - does everything well. Your two kit lenses are probably both better, but only you can determine if the pain of changing makes buying a new lens worth it.
You can judge my results at: www.pbase.com/diplostrat
N.B. Most of my images have the lens correctly identified, but images have differing amounts of compression - older images are heavily compressed.
Photo nuts usually tell you that you need a range of "pro" lenses with no overlap. I'm with Mountain Pete - the goal is to minimize lens changes in the field; not to have the "perfect" lens.
Soooo, I own:
-- 18-200VR
-- 24-70/2.8
-- 70-300VR
-- Sigma 50-500
The 24-70 has the highest image quality, but I keep wishing it went longer for "head hunting" candids in the market, etc. The 70-300VR is a nice, light, long lens - long enough for everything except critters. The 50-500 is my critter lens - I might replace with the new, stabilized 150-500.
So what was my first lens and the lens that I use over 50% of the time? 18-200VR. Does nothing perfectly - does everything well. Your two kit lenses are probably both better, but only you can determine if the pain of changing makes buying a new lens worth it.
You can judge my results at: www.pbase.com/diplostrat
N.B. Most of my images have the lens correctly identified, but images have differing amounts of compression - older images are heavily compressed.
Gentlemen-thank you both for your quick input. I guess that I am looking for this lens to be a swiss army knife so that I can grab the camera, throw it in the car or my bag and be covered for most of the shots that I want to take throughout the course of the day. It sounds like the 18-200 would be that lens, and that you were err on that side of longer telephoto rather than the 15?-105, especially since the optics and stops are pretty much the same. I did pick up the new Popular Photography and Outdoor Photographer today, both of which test these zoom lenses, and appear to lean toward Sigma and Tamron in the test over factory glass.
I have also just thought that I could do the 24-105, and keep a multiplier in the bottom of the camera case for those weird long shots? or does this add more complications than needed? Any other ideas?
I have also just thought that I could do the 24-105, and keep a multiplier in the bottom of the camera case for those weird long shots? or does this add more complications than needed? Any other ideas?
Last edited:
Lost Canadian
Expedition Leader
Really think about choosing a lens or lenses that will best suit your shooting styles or preference. I also have the 18-200 VR but I find it to be somewhat of a limited lens. It's a great walk around lens for photojournalistic style photography, where the content of the image is more important than the technical aspects. But if you like shooting wildlife or landscape, skip the 18-200, there are just far too many concessions with it. I find post processing shots taken with the 18-200 to be a bit of give and take. You can try and sharpen them but if you push too hard you end up with artifacts. My experience has taught me that it's best to start with a sharp lens and only use post sharpening to make the image pop a little.
15-105mm??? Never heard of it.
15-105mm??? Never heard of it.
Last edited:
Lost Canadian
Expedition Leader
Nikon 24-105?? Are you thinking of Canon's wonderful 24-105 L?Spenser said:
Lost Canadian
Expedition Leader
Yeah, but having one lens with the inherent ability to change perspectives from wide expanse to compressed, is handy. You can't do that with your legs no matter how far you walk.hks3sgte said:
DiploStrat
Expedition Leader
Bipedal Zoom?
Works OK at the short/wide end of the range. Foot zoom is useless at the long end, especially if you have to use your feets to run away from your subject. (Some of us take pictures of things that really scare us.)
Works OK at the short/wide end of the range. Foot zoom is useless at the long end, especially if you have to use your feets to run away from your subject. (Some of us take pictures of things that really scare us.)
spressomon
Expedition Leader
Another vote for the 18-200VR lense. Given its affordability and versatility it's the best choice for your "Swiss Army Knife" approach to camera lenses.
I use this lense on my D300 a majority of the time even though I carry several other lenses with me I find changing lenses on overland trips, parties, etc. just doesn't happen very often.
It's downsides are manageable and IMO are off-set by its overall versatility...
I use this lense on my D300 a majority of the time even though I carry several other lenses with me I find changing lenses on overland trips, parties, etc. just doesn't happen very often.
It's downsides are manageable and IMO are off-set by its overall versatility...
OK-the glass purchase ended up going terribly wrong. Bought a friends 40D so that he could upgrade, so now I have the Canon with the 28-135 lens. So, if anyone is interested in the D60 package, with camera armor and 4 gb card will be for sale later today. Not sure how I get myself into these situations but....
hks3sgte
César Gómez
Spenser said:
Now that you have a Canon, there's this ghastly thing:
http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/Prod...ID=&BC=CE&BCC=1&CC=7&CCC=2&BCL=&GBC=&GCC=&KW=