lens help

hScjune30

my photography store has suggested i purchase the dslr body and lens separately, as the kit lense it somewhat limited and i would rather have one lens that does most than to eventually have to deal with multiple lenses.

but how much range do i want/need in this lens... 18-200 or 18-250 (+$260) or 18-270 (+$320). thoughts?

ETF my stupid spelling ;-)

uberleslie

i'd say there are a couple of factors here. first off, what kind of dslr body are you looking at (as in, does it have an autofocus motor in the body)?

i have a 18-55 lens and a 55-200 lens, and i would love to get the 2-in-1 version of it, but it's pricey. where are you seeing them for $200-300ish? the ones i look at are upwards of $700-800.

hScjune30

sorry if my $$ were confusing. i was using the 18-200 as a base price, so the $ listed for the others is in addition to the price of the 18-200. this makes the 18-250 about $600. i guess i am trying to decide whether it is worth the extra cash to get the longer distance of hte 18-250 or 18-270.

 

i am looking at the D90 body. which leads me to another question, as i believe this has the motor in the body, but i think the lenses have the autofocus motor as well. am i worng  or does it seem duplicitve/unnecessary??

cmeon_the_water

What do you want to photograph? Over time, I've learned that I'm a much bigger fan of prime lenses than zooms, as I love to have very good depth of field control, shoot in low light settings, quick focusing, and shoot with lower focal lengths- all things tougher to do with less expensive zooms. I don't like hefting heavy zooms around, either. :-p

But, that's just one school of thought- zooms have their fans, too- someone who shoots wildlife or sports would not be thrilled with having to swap lenses around all day.

The D90 does have an AF motor in-body- but, I wouldn't let this have any effect on your decision. I'd only worry if the body you were considering didn't have it in-body. 

You're also talking about third party lenses in most of those cases- and while there are GREAT Tamron and Sigma lenses, there are also big-fat-flops. I don't know enough about the third party 18-200/250/270mm lenses to comment- they aren't ones I've heard raves about, though. The Nikkor 18-200mm is a great one, though- and will be a great one to have in a collection. I'd be surprised if anyone regrets that lens (unless they upgrade to a full frame body quickly or something- but, they have decent used value, too).

And honestly, most beginners will be thrilled with the cheapie 55-200mm VR Nikkor for a long time, so if $$$ is a big concern and you don't absolutely need the wider angles right away, you could get by with it. 

Tell me more about what you want to DO with that camera, though- and I might be able to help more with recs. The D90 is a great camera, though- it's my D300's baby sister, so I adore it, too.

weemz

I really like my 18-200mm zoom, especially for travel.  Before, I had an 18-55mm and 55-200mm, and it was a pain in the ass to keep switching.  Sometimes the moment -- be it a frolicking animal or fading sunset -- would pass before I switched.

Thanks to my 18-200mm, I no longer miss these shots.

I also have a 35mm (f1.8) prime lens, which I use mainly to photograph my meals.  Thankfully, food is stationary, so I don't have to worry about missing the shot!

I am just a novice, and these two lenses serve my needs wonderfully.  If I were to get another lens, it would likely be a 50mm prime lens (f1.8 or f1.4).

hScjune30

thanks for the responses - all very helpful.

 

i am looking to shoot general landscape, wildlife, and sports, but also some of my dog and hopefully macro type stuff as well. I like the idea of the zoom for travel, but at the same time weight is a concern. I am now remembering that they had me in the 18-200 originally, but it was just this last time they fit it with a 18-270.  i guess i wonder if i really need it - will i regret not getting the extra zoom or is it really more than i will prob ever need. 

and i am actually looking at the Tamron lenses...             

cmeon_the_water

200mm on a camera body with a 1.5 crop factor (like the D90) is essentially 300mm- that's pretty good for what you're discussing.  I have a Sigma 300mm zoom that I next to NEVER use- the only time I'd grab it is for night sky stuff- with a tripod. That farker is HEAVY. The macro feature was fun before I picked up a true macro lens- but, seriously- a lens that weighs more than a pound is NOT great for wearing around your neck while you walk a foreign city or hike through the wilderness. Ouch. I'd write the 270 off for the fact that it weighs 1.5lbs, unless you plan to cart around a monopod or tripod everywhere you go. Hand shake becomes an issue when you're focusing that far out, even with vibration reduction.

I don't think you'd miss the bit of extra length that the 250mm would provide, and honestly, it doesn't sound like the best lens for the money. I don't know how the Tamron 18-200mm compares the Nikkor, but, if you like it and don't want to spend the money on the other, it sounds like a good lens to start with. And it isn't so much $$$ that you should feel crushed if you want to upgrade later, or decide that zooms aren't your thing (though, it does sound like your subjects would prefer a good zoom to primes).

You can think about grabbing a cheapie 50mm to use for low light situations and portraits of your dog- the little $100 nifty fifty is honestly a great lens to have around- I still reach for it sometimes! And/or a good external flash, some fun filters, a good camera bag- spend the money you would have spent on the longer lenses on other fun stuff.

But, that's just what I'd do! Have you gotten your hands on all three? If you can test them, you'll be able to figure out if you'd miss the extra length, hate the weight, that sort of thing. Good luck!

 

weemz

Additionally, you say that you're worried about the weight of an 18-200mm. It is heavier to carry an 18-55mm and a 55-200mm than just one 18-200mm.