[Zgradis]

So I am a student, I just enjoy photography and I am looking to possibly make a little bit of money off of photography but if I don't o well...

Now everyone is saying to get the 18-200mm VR Nikon lens but I DON'T have that kind of money... So I was looking at getting one of the following;
1. Get the D80 with the 18-135mm lens
2. Get the D80 with the 18-55mm lens and the 70-300mm G lens ($156.00) - This option gives me a better zoom but then I have to carry around 2 lens'. In the same token it saves me about $45...

So I am not sure what I want to do, any recomendations?

[shuttertalk]

Hey and welcome to Shuttertalk!

I know Toad would definitely say the 18-200, but we all have budget constraints.

The 18-135 is new, so I haven't heard much about it.

I've used both 18-55 and 18-70 lenses and I must say that optically, they're both pretty much on par. The 18-55 is suprisingly good; just that you get a more solid construction with the 18-70.

I also have the 55-200, which is quite good optically as well, just a bit slow. Can't comment on the 70-300...

Hope that helps...

[Zgradis]

Hey and welcome to Shuttertalk!

I know Toad would definitely say the 18-200, but we all have budget constraints.

The 18-135 is new, so I haven't heard much about it.

I've used both 18-55 and 18-70 lenses and I must say that optically, they're both pretty much on par. The 18-55 is suprisingly good; just that you get a more solid construction with the 18-70.

I also have the 55-200, which is quite good optically as well, just a bit slow. Can't comment on the 70-300...

Hope that helps...

Now I want to check otu the 55-200! lol The 70-300 is a bit slow but if i set it to manual its not bad I can focus it faster then it can...

The 18-135 is awesome, I really love it, its a solid build and I personally love the focus ring being close to the body. That was my first thought to get... So after reading ken rockwell's reviews he said go witht he 70-300 and the 18-55. Bah just more thoughts to confuse me! Ha ha!

[Toad]

Hi Z: Welcome to Shuttertalk.

I have the NIkon D200 and the F100 (film). I own the Nikon 24-85 F3.5-4.5, the Nikon 80-200 F2.8, the Nikon 12-24 F4, the Tamron F2.8 90mm macro, and the Nikon 18-200 VR. They are all great lenses - not a lemon in the group.

I work semi-pro, and do gallery stuff on occasion.

If you look at my lens lineup, the first thing that you will notice is that there is quite a lot of range overlap. That comes from my habit of appraising what my "immediate" need for lenses is, without really considering my long-range plans. In the end, this strategy has NOT proved to be cost-effective for me.

How do I really shoot? The 18-200 is on my camera 95% of the time. It is just such a versatile lens that it is truly one-size-fits-all, and the VR gives me back at least 2 extra F stops. It would not be the right lens for low-light, fast action photography (i.e. sports, theatre), but for everything else, it is a jewel. If you compare its cost to the cost of the other lenses that it effectively replaces, it is a bargain. This would definately be my first suggestion.

However, I do understand a student budget - so failing that, the 18-70 and the 70-300 would be a good reasonable cost combination. My understanding is that the 70-300 is not the optical match of some other lenses - but realistically, almost every lens will do very well for almost any semi-pro gig, and you should not get into the trap of pixel-peeping and comparing 100% crops from lenses. In the real world - people look at the IMPACT of an image - and hardly anybody sells photos of resolution charts. Stock photography is maybe the exception in that some photos may be blown up very, very large, and sharpness becomes critical (not that a better lens will insure sharpness).

I would look seriously at the "real" costs however. If the combination of the 18-70 and the 70-300 is within a couple of hundred dollars of the 18-200 - I would grit my teeth and pop for the 18-200. You won't regret it after the initial price shock, and honestly, you may never need another lens - unless you have a specialty need (i.e. 1:1 macro, very long zoom, or ultra wide).

Sometimes the most expensive initial option is not the most expensive over time - look at my lens lineup and you will see what I mean.

[Zgradis]

If you had to choose out of the two choices which one do you think you'd pick? Don't get me wrong i want the 18-200 but if i wait and just get the 18-55 it might be 6 months to a year before I can put my hands on that baby! I am already spending more then I wanted to but I really love the feel of the d80 (I was looking at the d50 but the body just feels to cheep and I want this camera for the long haul), so I am already spending WAY more then I ever thought I would, and spending even more right now would prob make me not eat for the next few months... lol (I am a poor college student, with lots of college loans...)

[Toad]

Personally, I would buy the 18-200 - I hate changing lenses in the field, and also having to carry a bag full of lenses just to do the job that 1 versatile lens will do all by itself. Plus neither the 18-70 or the 70-300 are VR.

If I was starting over right now with no gear at all - I would buy the the 18-200 - and *maybe* - way down the road the 12-24 - and that's it. There is some overlap even in this combination, but they overlap in a good space - the medium wide. This greatly reduces the lens changes necessary - my rule of thumb: the 12-24 inside and the 18-200 outside. Honestly, you can also do very nicely without the 12-24 - for my work, it is a luxury - not a necessity.

If you don't have that kind of coin, here is what I would suggest:

Don't buy everything right now - buy all *good* gear that will grow with you, and that you will not feel like replacing when you have more money.

I would suggest the 18-70 right now as your walkaround lens and maybe down the road when you can afford it, buy something like the 70-200 VR or the much cheaper but also excellent 80-200 F2.8.

Either of these combinations will cost significantly more than the 18-200 - but at least you can spread the pain over a longer time.

[Paul.R.Lindqvist]

A 50mm/1,8 D is a must have imo, and its not all that expensive. 35mm/2 is a great lens aswell. 85mm/1,8 D is also a killer for the money.


I dont mind changing lenses. :-) (at least not between my own lol)


Welcome btw.

/Paul L.

[Zgradis]

Arg so I just heard the news of the d60... I am thinking i should wait now... I am in no rush to get the camera. In fact getting the d60 at a $600 price point, would make it completely afordable to buy the 18-200 VR lens... ARG why do new things have to come out, plus I don't know if i will even like the d60! GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR Has anyone heard what the d60 wont have vs the d80? (should i move this camera talk?)