DSLRUsers.com

G'day,

I just purchased at D200 body and I am wanting some advice on what glass you think I need. I am a beginner with DSLR only having used a old MZ50 before. Basicaly I am wanting to know what you think would suit me.

I am wanting to do a bit of everything, closer work and a bit of long range stuff, especially Drag Racing.

Are the kit lenses any good to start off with, or would it be worth investing in a better lens? Is there a major quality difference? At this stage I am looking at maybe a 18-70 and a 70-300g or would I be better off just buying one lens? Budget is about $1000

Cheers
Ryan

I think it'd be a shame to stick a substandard lens on a D200!!!

The 18-70 is generally very highly regarded for a kit lens - I have one from when I bought my original D70s, and I think it's great.

The 70-300G? Much less so.

IMO there's not much sense buying cheap only to buy the good stuff later on anyway.

If you can stretch a little bit over the $1000 mark, I would suggest the 18-200VR. It'll let you get a sense of what focal lengths you really like, and the quality is pretty good. And even if you "upgrade" a little later, the 18-200 is a good lens to have around as a "do-everything" travel lens for example.

The 18-70 is a pretty decent starting point. You could also look at the 18-200VR, pretty good by all accounts. Or in the middle price-wise, the 24-120VR. There are heaps of other ways you could go though (wider, nice primes etc).

If you want a longer lens for the drags, I would recommend looking at something in the 70/80-200 f/2.8 lineups. The Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, the Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 are around that sort of $$$, and cheaper second hand. IMO you could do a lot worse than a used ~$600 push-pull Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8. The 70-300G is a lot cheaper (and it shows); in low light it will be particularly painful I'm afraid.

Hi Ryan,

I agree with LOSFP.
I have a few lenses such as 12-14 mm, 28-70 mm and 70-200 mm.
Most of the times I use 28-70 mm and 12-24 mm.
I do use the 70-200 mm also with TC17e occasionally.
I think the 18-70mm ist probably the most versatile and it is not expensive.
I'd suggest you start with the 18-70 mm.

HTH,
CD

I also think the 18-200vr is the one. It is as sharp as the 18-70 and much more versatile.

losfp wrote:IMO there's not much sense buying cheap only to buy the good stuff later on anyway

thats it in a nutshell .. pay the bit extra for quality before you kick yourself later when you had a chance to have a fantastic pic only to find it's soft or out of focus because "you" bought the cheaper lens, i know cause thats what i did

cheers rob

I guess it comes down to price..

My ideas are the same as most. I have the 18-70 Kit lens and a push pull 80-200 2.8 all be it a little bit rough. I also like the idea of the 18-200VR and as a all ya can do lens this seems great.


If you like the idea of a 2 lenses go the 18-70 and a second hand 80-200 2.8 .

regards
MATT

The way i look at lenses is that if photography is a hobby, then you get the best lens you can afford. So if that means the kit lenses is what you can afford at the moment, then get them and start enjoying your D200.

But if you can squeeze a bit more coin for a better lens, you'll get a lot more out of it.

If you are coming from the MZ50 then you probably had the Kit Stigmas that came with that camera. All the lenses mentioned above are many times better than those Stigmas.

losfp and Matt have very good advice - i.m.h.o.

It's difficult to add to what's been said, except to say that the 70-300G is too light to use as a paperweight, which makes it totally useless in every possible respect. It's certainly of little value as a lens.

One point that has been overlooked is that the D200 has the ability to accept many of the older, non-AF lenses. This means that a wander around some of the second hand stores or flea markets may yield some high quality but relatively inexpensive glass.

An elderly but serviceable 300 f/4 AI will be far more satisfactory than a 70-300G, and should be well within your budget.

And yes, non-AF glass means that it's going to be you that has to do the focusing.

I picked up a second hand 18-200 for 800 or there abouts so that is well within your price range.

I would then add a 50 1.8 for the extra 200 or if you can stretch it the 1.4.

IMHO these two lenses are part of almost the perfect kit for me.

18 - 200 for travel do everything
50 1.8 for low light

Then when you have some more money and have started to go beyond the limits of those lenses move into the 2.8 zoom territory.

Ryan,

As mentioned, the 18-70 is a fairly decent lens to start with. If you already have one then stick with it. Get to know it well and it will deliver fine results.

Other alternatives if you do not already have any lenses include the Sigma 18-50/2.8 EX HSM which from all accounts is quite a nice lens ($750 from Vanbar). It may not be quite in the class of the Pro Nikkor lenses, but at less than half of the price of the Nikkors (Nikkor 17-55/2.8 retails at $2200 from Vanbar) it would be hard to go wrong.
If you are looking for a tele, forget the likes of the 70-300. They will disappoint. I also suggest the Sigma 70-200/2.8. BTW, I fail to understand the stigma attached to Sigma lenses. They do make some good gear which can represent excellent value for money and offer a viable alternative to Nikkor lenses. Have a look at their EX (Pro) lenses.

Cheers

an alternative is the sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC Macro. i bought this lens after alot of testing of different lens' including the 18-200VR and 18-135 kit lens. it's sharper, has better contrast and is a constant 2.8 throughout its range.

it doesn;t have the VR or flexibility of the 18-200VR but its a heck of alot sharper. the main issue is that its noisier and not quite as quick on the AF. i suspect the new version which has HSM will eleiminate these two issues.

Out of all the entry level lenses, the 18-70 AF-S is great. Well built and decent quality glass for an entry level model.

Use that and coupled with a Sigma 70-200 f2.8, you'll be sweet for most jobs if you're on a shoestring budget.

24-120vr was excellent on my D200

18-200 would be ideal though!

Thanks for the responses guys, didn't think I would get so many!

Now it's time to put the thinking cap on, and decide on the product. The 18-200 VR is looking pretty good at this stage. The ultimate decision will lay with the Minister of War and Finance.....hehehe

Once again, thanks for the help.

If any of you see or have good second hand lenses that would suit, make sure you give me a yell!

Cheers
Ryan