Lens and Camera Question

Clevelumbus · #1 Posted: **Oct 22, 2009, 6:08 AM**

So I think I'm finally going to spring for a DSLR, I currently use a Nikon Coolpix S4 (38-380mm). It's been a good camera but I think I'm ready for something more. The wide angle distorts quite a bit, and I rarely ever use the full macro.

The cameras I'm looking at are the Nikon D90 and the D5000 (wouldn't mind a D80 either, but they seem harder to find), I plan on having my body for at the very least 5 years, but most likely more. I've used the Coolpix for 6 years.

My real question comes down to lenses. Obviously what I'll be shooting most is landscape, cityscapes, skycrapers, and urban photography (you can find my photos at the link in my signature). Any suggestions of maybe 2 or 3 lenses that would fulfill my needs? I don't like carrying a tripod except at night.

I was thinking of getting a zoom lens to cover all my needs, either a 18-200 VR, 17-50, 17-55, or 24-70 f/2.8.. But the more I read the more it looks like I should just go with prime lenses. I'm not crazy about the idea of having to constantly change lenses, I like to move fast, but I guess that is kind of the point of a DSLR... Maybe one good zoom lens for times when I'm lazy and a few primes? Looks like the 50 f/1.8 is a must, especially for the price, but maybe I'd be happier with a 30 or 35 prime for what I do and a good zoom to start off with.

Price wise I'm looking to spend under 1k for 1 or 2 good lenses to get started, but would obviously love to spend less. Is the D90 or D5000 kit lens worth getting in this case, or should I just go for the body.

Lots of questions I know, but the more I read the more confused I get. Thanks for the help in advance.

Tony · #2 Posted: **Oct 22, 2009, 10:43 AM**

Lenses are expensive, I'd start with a good zoom that does up to 250 or 300mm, and a standard 17-85 mm (or close) zoom. Preferably with IS on both.

After that, you can add whatever you wish. I'd say that a 50mm prime is better for portraiture than scenery / city shooting as it doesn't allow the flexibility you may want.

You may also want to consider a wide-angle 10mm lens, I love this lens.

flar · #3 Posted: **Oct 22, 2009, 12:27 PM**

Go with a zoom lens at first. Prime lenses will give you better quality, but they're too inconvenient for most situations. If I were a full time photographer and had all day to shoot a city (instead of 2 hours), I would get prime lenses and take a lot of time finding locations and composing shots. But as it is, I run around taking snapshots.

initiald · #4 Posted: **Oct 22, 2009, 1:30 PM**

I have some experience with the 18-105mm VR kit lens with the D90 is good for every day use. I love the 50mm f/1.8 for it's shallow depth of field and low light abilities.

Be cautious of becoming an equipment measurebater. On my freelance photojournalism gigs I use a D40 and the 18-55mm non-VR kit lens, the 55-200mm non-VR lens, and the 50mm f/1.8. Yes, I have to manually focus this lens with the D40. I do hope to upgrade to a D90 soon.

BTW, all Nikon lenses will autofocus with a D90, but some will not with a D5000 (just like the D40). If you want autofocus with the D5000, you will want to get the 35mm f/1.8 and not the 50mm f/1.8.

flar · #5 Posted: **Oct 22, 2009, 4:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by initiald

Be cautious of becoming an equipment measurebater. On my freelance photojournalism gigs I use a D40 and the 18-55mm non-VR kit lens, the 55-200mm non-VR lens, and the 50mm f/1.8. Yes, I have to manually focus this lens with the D40. I do hope to upgrade to a D90 soon.

Good advice + I use those same lenses (except my 50mm is the old manual focus one) with good results.

bulliver · #6 Posted: **Oct 22, 2009, 6:00 PM**

There is nothing wrong with the kit lens. Go ahead and get the 18-55mm, and the 55-200mm, you won't be disappointed. They both have excellent optical quality. If you prefer convenience, consider the 18-200mm. No changing lenses in the field, but some are not happy with optical performance at both the wide and long ends of this lens.

Stay away from the 18-105/18-135 etc....

I upgraded my kit to the 16-85mm and 70-300mm when I got a new body, and while ruggedness and general construction are better than the cheaper models, I am still not convinced optical quality is any better.

Maybe later get a 35mm or 50mm prime for hand-held night shots. I have the 35mm f/1.8, and I am very happy with the low-light performance and optics.

ue · #7 Posted: **Oct 22, 2009, 11:41 PM**

From a price stand point, I'll give you similar advice to what my plan for future equipment is.

First off, the D90 is a little more complex, maybe just coming from a P&S, I would go to something easier. The D5000 is nice, but expensive for what you get...it really needs to come down in price. Plus I've heard it isn't as good as some other cheaper models. And that LCD that swivels looks like it could snap off in an instant-then what? You could go with the newer D3000 that just recently got released, it's got more options than the classic Nikon D40 that will make things easier to use, but also you know the manual settings. The D40 is getting really cheap now, and don't fret at the megapixels, the D40 still produces fantastic results. If you can find the D40, I'd go for it, cause it would leave you more money for lenses and whatnot. If not, try the Nikon D60. I'm sorry I'm not too familiar with Canon or Sony or Pentax.

Either way, don't spend a boat load of money on the body, it's lenses what matter the most. Look around for different deals on the body you choose.

Onto lenses, starting out, getting your body with the kit lens 18-55mm or 18-105mm depending which model you get will set you up for some decent shots once you learn the tricks of professional photography. I would recommend you not buy a bunch of lenses at first, so you can get a real feel for each individual lens and learn about it and learn to twist what you'd photograph to fit that lens, i think it helps one learn. Space it out at least a month from each other.

A good second lens would be Nikon's 55-200mm f3.6-5.6 lens, but make sure you get that VR, which is about 100 bucks more (at least in Canada). That would be great because you can get some different types of urban shots than the reg. kits would offer yeh, you can take shots of the architectural details of different buildings or get closer in on landscape photography instead. It's a telephoto lens, by the way. If you end up getting into random people street photography like some on this forum including myself like, then it's also great for that as well, and bokeh if you get into that (which is a form of 'depth of field').

After that, a wide angle lens would be awesome to get like a 10-24mm or 11-16mm, but you've been warned, they are extremely expensive. If you want though, I can give you a tip I just learnt on how you can get wide angle effects just with a kit. Buying the tele, body, and kit along with essential camera accessories like UV filters (to protect your lens), bags, and an extra battery in case will put you at your price range probably (as long as you don't get the d5000 or d90), and the wide angle will bring you way over, so I'd either save for that or....

...Buy a prime! The 50mm prime you talk about is a must have for the price and I'm sure you'll love it. You could also go for a 35mm one too.

If you need further clarifications, don't understand some things I am saying, or have further questions, don't hesitate to PM me personally (or, of course, in here, where more people can help you than just I alone).

Hopefully this helps and good luck with your first big camera purchase.

mr.John · #8 Posted: **Oct 23, 2009, 12:07 AM**

Quote:

18-200 VR, 17-50, 17-55, or 24-70 f/2.8..

I don't know why you listed all those lenses, in my opinion all you need is the 24-70mm f/2.8 ...remember this is a pro quality lens so be prepared to pay over $1,500 for it ... p.s forget about the d80 the camera is a real turkey everytime I use that shitbox I feel like smashing it against a wall, the camera's metering system is beyond a joke (off by as much as 2 stops)

Clevelumbus · #9 Posted: **Oct 23, 2009, 3:18 AM**

Thanks for the help everyone!

Quote:

Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast

Buying the tele, body, and kit along with essential camera accessories like UV filters (to protect your lens), bags, and an extra battery in case will put you at your price range probably (as long as you don't get the d5000 or d90), and the wide angle will bring you way over, so I'd either save for that or..

The 1k or a little less is what I'm willing to spend on lenses, regardless of the body I get.

Quote:

I don't know why you listed all those lenses, in my opinion all you need is the 24-70mm f/2.8 ...remember this is a pro quality lens so be prepared to pay over $1,500 for it ...

Oh I don't plan on getting all those lenses, just trying to narrow it down to one in that range.

BTW I did take a digital photography class well in college so I feel pretty well prepared going from a P&S to a DSLR (which is what the class focused on), and feel comfortable with the additional features the D90 provides, if not right away I'm prepared to learn it eventually.

The D60 and D3000 are looking quite attractive though for the price, do they autofocus? Or will I have to get autofocus lenses for it if that's what I want.

ue · #10 Posted: **Oct 23, 2009, 3:25 AM**

^If that's the case you could probably afford all or almost all those lenses for around 1000. The wide angle would be at least 750 though, so if you add that one in it may be a little larger a number. But you could save up a few mo.'s. Those 4-5 lenses are probably all you'll ever need for what you want in photography. A 18-55mm, A 55-200mm VR, A 50mm or 35mm primer, and A wide angle.

Clevelumbus · #11 Posted: **Oct 23, 2009, 3:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast

^If that's the case you could probably afford all or almost all those lenses for around 1000. The wide angle would be at least 750 though, so if you add that one in it may be a little larger a number. But you could save up a few mo.'s. Those 4-5 lenses are probably all you'll ever need for what you want in photography. A 18-55mm, A 55-200mm VR, A 50mm or 35mm primer, and A wide angle.

Cool! So I found a D60 on craigslist for $250, seems too good to pass up! Will those lenses all autofocus?

ue · #12 Posted: **Oct 23, 2009, 5:06 AM**

All of them should except for the primes. They will need manually focus because of it's mount, but with those types of lenses, I think it's better you manual focus to get the special focus you want, cause that's what it's about with those lenses, the way one can make the depth of field with those lower fstops.

Find more information here: http://d40xd60.wikidot.com/

initiald · #13 Posted: **Oct 23, 2009, 11:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clevelumbus

Cool! So I found a D60 on craigslist for $250, seems too good to pass up! Will those lenses all autofocus?

The 50mm f/1.8 AF won't but the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX will autofocus.

LSyd · #14 Posted: **Oct 23, 2009, 12:22 PM**

i got a D90 back in June, an upgrade from my first DSLR, a D70s. before that i had a Coolpix 5400. i'd had the D70s a little over two years and had recently made a lot of money. i paid about $750 for the D70s, which was a refurbished display model, along with a 18-55mm and 70-300mm from cameta camera auctions on ebay.

if you've played a lot with the manual settings on your current camera, the D90 isn't that complex. it even has some features which make shooting easier (especially for me because i like to shoot high contrast scenes.)

my D90 came with a 18-105mm VR and 70-300mm VR for about $1800; i hadn't planned on getting the 18-105mm, but since then i like its convenience for daytime use...just enough zoom for people photography without being in their face or changing lenses.

i also have a Tokina 12-24mm wide angle ($500ish) and a 18-55mm VR ($180). i use the 18-55mm for night photography because i thought i was getting too much lens flare from the 18-105mm.

the 70-300mm is awesome, VR or not, although i'd recommend the VR even though it's heavy.

i've read great things about the 18-200mm VR though.

if the D60 for $250's in good shape that's a great deal to start off with...you can spend the extra money on a great lens and in a year or two get a better body, one which'll last longer.

good luck, have fun, shoot lots of pics and post 'em here.

-

Clevelumbus · #15 Posted: **Oct 25, 2009, 2:07 AM**

So the D60 for $250 deal fell through... But the good news is I've narrowed everything down quite a bit..

I am going to get the D3000 for sure, with either:

body and kit 18-55VR & 55-200VR ($750)

-or-

the body ($450) and the 18-200 VR II ($850), more expensive but I'm really liking the idea of not having to change lens', especially since all my photography will be walking around the city and traveling, and it's gotten really good reviews.

I wouldn't mind saving the money for now and getting the 18-200 eventually, but I'm worried I'll be stuck with the two kit lenses and no use for them/ unable to sell.

I also plan to get the 35mm prime, and possible the 50mm..

Then save up for a wide angle down the road.

Thanks for all your help guys.

Robert Pence · #16 Posted: **Oct 25, 2009, 2:23 AM**

Congrats on the acquisition, Marc!

I read several people's negative comments on the 18-200mm, and they don't reflect my experience at all. I carried a D200 with that lens for about a year, and from the start I was very impressed with its performance. I never noticed corner falloff problems at all, and I printed a lot of the photos I shot with it at sizes up to 12x18.

Two guys at the camera shop where I go have used the 18-200, and their experience and impression mirrors mine. I must note, though, that I almost always shoot in aperture-preferred mode, and rarely use larger apertures than f/8. I think that lens is a stellar performer; throughout the entire focal-length range, in a variety of settings, it always delivered and I never hit a soft spot.

bulliver · #17 Posted: **Oct 25, 2009, 2:25 AM**

I've got the 18-55 and 55-200 for sale right now. Too bad you're not closer...

I also have the 35mm f/1.8, fantastic lens, I love it. Highly recommend. You may find the 50mm a bit long for a walkabout, as on DX format it is closer to a portrait lens.

Congrats....and have fun!

Clevelumbus · #18 Posted: **Oct 25, 2009, 4:36 AM**

^ Thing is I can't get a 3000 with the body alone, not at the store anyway, as it only comes in kits... However the resale on ebay for the 18-55mm VR is pretty good.

I found the 18-200mm on craigslist for $500 and $599. So it looks like that's going to determine if I go with the full kit (18-55mm and 55-200mm) or just the 18-55mm and sell that.

And who knows when I go to the store I might just break down and get the D90 with 18-105mm and 70-300mm kit (It's on sale and Best Buy has a nice financing offer which I can easily afford and pay off in a couple of months)...

Regardless I'll have a new camera in the next 2-4days, and let you guys know what I got.

BTW for anyone with Canon's, I was going to go that route except I found out my Dad's old Canon lenses won't work with any of their DSLRs (He has the old FD lenses, and the mount adapter doesn't seem worth it at all).

bulliver · #19 Posted: **Oct 25, 2009, 5:19 AM**

Well then, I guess it comes down to the kit. If you get the body alone get the 18-200, and if not, you'll have to buy a tele separate. Again though, I caution against getting the 18-105mm or 18-135mm. Performance of the 18-55 is better, it's cheaper, and there is no point in paying extra to duplicate focal length, asd you'll need a tele anyway...

And as for the negative comments on the 18-200mm, I have not used it personally (I ended up getting the 16-85VR + 70-300VR) but I was seriously considering it, as it does seem to be the perfect walking around lens. I asked a couple of my Flickr contacts who own it what they thought, and both told me they found it soft at the wide and long ends. I've seen plenty of shots taken with the lens, and they look plenty crisp to me

Clevelumbus · #20 Posted: **Oct 25, 2009, 6:07 AM**

Would I be missing much if I got the 18-55 kit lens and then purchased the 70-300 (I found a good deal for it as well)? I guess I'd be missing the 55-70mm range, but could always upgrade in the future for something like the 16-85.