Here's my notes to myself on this issue:
http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php...sc/photography

In retrospect, maybe I'm not in such bad shape with my 28-200 & maybe I
just need to learn how to use it properly. It definitely lacks wide
angle though so if you think you may need that I'd go with the kit lense
unless you can afford a wide angle plus a telephoto zoom, then you might
as well get a huge stabilized tele & go for broke but if you aren't
inclined to go that route, the kit lense is really the best choice.
Image stabilization probably isn't really needed until you get into long
telephoto. Another one-lense option is the VR 24-120 with adapters for
wide & macro. Agh, too many choices.

A good combination if you are willing to get a fancy lense later is the
kit lense plus a future VR 80-400mm which is not overly bulky & would
really buy some bang for the bucks down the road when you really decide
you want tele.


Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote:
The standard lense Nikkor AF-S DX 18-70/3.5G IF ED seems nice, because it
has a good wide-angle range but just a small tele-range.
But I also consider the Nikkor Nikkor AF-S VR 24-120/ 3.5-5.6 G ED.
This lens has a smaller wide-angle range, but a bigger tele-range, and is
also stabilised.


The stabilization will be really helpful in some circumstances. In
general, the narrower the range of a zoom, the better the quality, but
I suspect that the differences in quality will not make much of a
difference in a digital camera. (And neither of these lenses has been
reviewed on http://www.exc.com/photography/ If you have 60 seconds and
own one of these lenses, can you take a minute to let others benefit
from your experience?)

-Joel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please feed the 35mm lens/digicam databases: http://www.exc.com/photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------------