New DSLR user and need advice on Zoom Lenses...

I was given a Nikon D80 for Xmas with a 55 mm F1.8 lens and have enjoyed the
last couple of days learning how to use the it.

I am brand new to SLR photography but I have learned in the past how to
control shutter speeds, aperatures, and ISO (limited on point and shoots I
know but I had to start somewhere) but I will have to learn white balances
and metering and learning how the 11 point focus works...

The 55 mm will be good for indoor stuff or outdoor potrait type I think but
my main focus of photography is landscapes. In particular I enjoy taking a
landscape photo then carefully picking out landmarks or objects and zooming
in taking taking pictures of those. The landscapes are almost always
non-urban so no straight lines or right angles.

As a new user to DSLR what comprimises can I expect from a lower priced
sigma or tamron 18-200 or 28-150 mm type lens? I don't really need anything
over 200 mm but I do wish to 1 lens to cover wide angle and then some
telephoto for convience. I do wish VR (is Nikon VR the same as Canon IS)
for the lens and a quick autofocus speed but I can settle for smaller
f/stops like 5.6 instead of 2.8 or 3.5. What colour variences could there
be? Sometimes the Zoom lens will have to pick out a dark or shaded object
in the bright sun. Will the cheaper lenses add more graininess?

A Nikon 18-200 DX VR around here is about $700 +13% sales tax while the
Sigma is $500 and the Tamron is $400. A 28-105 is about $500 for Nikon and
$300 for Tamron.

Budget is a big big concern and I'm not looking for perfection but I do
want a lens that I will really enjoy using. The camera was a gift, but an
unexpected gift.

Thanks for any opinions!!!

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 20:00:33 -0500, The Henchman wrote:

I was given a Nikon D80 for Xmas with a 55 mm F1.8 lens and have enjoyed the
last couple of days learning how to use the it.

I am brand new to SLR photography but I have learned in the past how to
control shutter speeds, aperatures, and ISO (limited on point and shoots I
know but I had to start somewhere) but I will have to learn white balances
and metering and learning how the 11 point focus works...

The 55 mm will be good for indoor stuff or outdoor potrait type I think but
my main focus of photography is landscapes. In particular I enjoy taking a
landscape photo then carefully picking out landmarks or objects and zooming
in taking taking pictures of those. The landscapes are almost always
non-urban so no straight lines or right angles.

As a new user to DSLR what comprimises can I expect from a lower priced
sigma or tamron 18-200 or 28-150 mm type lens? I don't really need anything
over 200 mm but I do wish to 1 lens to cover wide angle and then some
telephoto for convience. I do wish VR (is Nikon VR the same as Canon IS)
for the lens and a quick autofocus speed but I can settle for smaller
f/stops like 5.6 instead of 2.8 or 3.5. What colour variences could there
be? Sometimes the Zoom lens will have to pick out a dark or shaded object
in the bright sun. Will the cheaper lenses add more graininess?

A Nikon 18-200 DX VR around here is about $700 +13% sales tax while the
Sigma is $500 and the Tamron is $400. A 28-105 is about $500 for Nikon and
$300 for Tamron.


You should have this lens for a real long time so the additional $200 over
a 10 year period is less than $2.00 per month so I would stay with Nikon
lenses.

That said I read that if you really want the convenience of an 18 to 200
lens then the big price is in reduced image quality over some of the other
choices but at the same time the convenience may outweigh any reduction in
image quality.


Budget is a big big concern and I'm not looking for perfection but I do
want a lens that I will really enjoy using. The camera was a gift, but
an unexpected gift.

Thanks for any opinions!!!

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:36:38 -0800, aniramca wrote:

On Dec 30, 7:00Â*pm, "The Henchman" wrote:
I was given a Nikon D80 for Xmas with a 55 mm F1.8 lens and have enjoyed the
last couple of days learning how to use the it.

I am brand new to SLR photography but I have learned in the past how to
control shutter speeds, aperatures, and ISO (limited on point and shoots I
know but I had to start somewhere) but I will have to learn white balances
and metering and learning how the 11 point focus works...

The 55 mm will be good for indoor stuff or outdoor potrait type I think but
my main focus of photography is landscapes. In particular I enjoy taking a
landscape photo then carefully picking out landmarks or objects and zooming
in taking taking pictures of those. Â*The landscapes are almost always
non-urban so no straight lines or right angles.

As a new user to DSLR what comprimises can I expect from a lower priced
sigma or tamron 18-200 or 28-150 mm type lens? Â*I don't really need anything
over 200 mm but I do wish to 1 lens to cover Â*wide angle and then some
telephoto for convience. Â*I do wish VR (is Nikon VR the same as Canon IS)
for the lens and a quick autofocus speed but I can settle for smaller
f/stops Â*like 5.6 instead of 2.8 or 3.5. Â*What colour variences could there
be? Â*Sometimes the Zoom lens will have to pick out a dark or shaded object
in the bright sun. Â*Will the cheaper lenses add more graininess?

A Nikon 18-200 DX VR around here is about $700 +13% sales tax while the
Sigma is $500 and the Tamron is $400. Â* A 28-105 is about $500 for Nikon and
$300 for Tamron.

Budget is a big big Â*concern and I'm not looking for perfection but I do
want a lens that I will really enjoy using. Â*The camera was a gift, but an
unexpected gift.

Thanks for any opinions!!!

I just posted similar question as you have (for Fuji S5) , and I
noticed the following lens available (all Nikon lens):
AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR - around $150 - This is a kit
lens for the cheaper D40 or D60. However, I also see that it was
offered as the cheaper kit lens for D80/D90 (The more expensive kit
lens is the AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm F/3.5-5.6G ED (VR lens for about
$380).
My question whether the 18-55mm VR (which is on sale now) is good
enough for D80 and above. Perhaps someone else could provide this
info.

From my reading I would say that the 18 to 105 might be a better choice as
far as range and build quality. I think you need to find reviews about
image quality.

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:36:38 -0800 (PST), wrote:

I just posted similar question as you have (for Fuji S5) , and I
noticed the following lens available (all Nikon lens):
AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR - around $150 - This is a kit
lens for the cheaper D40 or D60. However, I also see that it was
offered as the cheaper kit lens for D80/D90 (The more expensive kit
lens is the AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm F/3.5-5.6G ED (VR lens for about
$380).
My question whether the 18-55mm VR (which is on sale now) is good
enough for D80 and above. Perhaps someone else could provide this
info.

I don't have the 18-55mm VR, but I've read numerous reports that
it's a very respectable kit lens, even outperforming Nikon's much
more expensive 18-200mm VR in much of its smaller range. From its
price you won't be surprised that its build quality isn't quite the
same, but that won't stop it from producing very good photos. The
55-200mm VR (which I do have) is a good companion lens, not able to
match the build quality of the 70-300mm VR, but like the 18-55mm VR,
it's lightweight, inexpensive and produces very good pictures.

The Henchman wrote:
I was given a Nikon D80 for Xmas with a 55 mm F1.8 lens and have
enjoyed the last couple of days learning how to use the it.
[]
A Nikon 18-200 DX VR around here is about $700 +13% sales tax while
the Sigma is $500 and the Tamron is $400. A 28-105 is about $500
for Nikon and $300 for Tamron.

Budget is a big big concern and I'm not looking for perfection but I
do want a lens that I will really enjoy using. The camera was a
gift, but an unexpected gift.

Thanks for any opinions!!!

Go for the Nikon 18-200mm VR if you want the convenience of a single
carry-round lens. If you don't need telephoto, you could get the 18-55mm
VR which is an excellent lens for the price, although I ended up with the
Nikon 16-85mm VR as I wanted a slightly wider wide-angle and a longer
telephoto. My wife has the Nikon 18-200mm VR and is very pleased with it.

David

The Henchman wrote:


The 55 mm will be good for indoor stuff or outdoor potrait type I think but
my main focus of photography is landscapes. In particular I enjoy taking a
landscape photo then carefully picking out landmarks or objects and zooming
in taking taking pictures of those. The landscapes are almost always
non-urban so no straight lines or right angles.

As a new user to DSLR what comprimises can I expect from a lower priced
sigma or tamron 18-200 or 28-150 mm type lens? I don't really need anything
over 200 mm but I do wish to 1 lens to cover wide angle and then some
telephoto for convience. I do wish VR (is Nikon VR the same as Canon IS)
for the lens and a quick autofocus speed but I can settle for smaller
f/stops like 5.6 instead of 2.8 or 3.5.

Thanks for any opinions!!!



You may find a modern tripod is cheaper than the VR feature on a lens.
With landscapes one ordinarily does not have to get quick shots, so the
tripod is ordinarily okay. I am amazed at how cheap a reasonably good
tripod goes for these days :-)

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 20:00:33 -0500, "The Henchman"
wrote in
:

As a new user to DSLR what comprimises can I expect from a lower priced
sigma or tamron 18-200 or 28-150 mm type lens?

Build quality, quality control, and durability tend to be lower with
independent lenses. That said, they may be good enough for your
purposes.

What colour variences could there
be?

None that you will notice.

Sometimes the Zoom lens will have to pick out a dark or shaded object
in the bright sun. Will the cheaper lenses add more graininess?

They might exhibit a bit more lens flare, but otherwise no.

A Nikon 18-200 DX VR around here is about $700 +13% sales tax while the
Sigma is $500 and the Tamron is $400. A 28-105 is about $500 for Nikon and
$300 for Tamron.

Budget is a big big concern and I'm not looking for perfection but I do
want a lens that I will really enjoy using. The camera was a gift, but an
unexpected gift.

I personally don't think it makes sense to get a great major brand
camera body like the D80 and then compromise it with an off-brand lens
-- I'd put my money first in the lens, rather than the body* -- but as
always, YMMV.

* For average uses I'd try to trade the D80 in on a D40 with kit lenses.

--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John

"Don Stauffer" wrote in message
...
The Henchman wrote:


The 55 mm will be good for indoor stuff or outdoor potrait type I think
but my main focus of photography is landscapes. In particular I enjoy
taking a landscape photo then carefully picking out landmarks or objects
and zooming in taking taking pictures of those. The landscapes are
almost always non-urban so no straight lines or right angles.

As a new user to DSLR what comprimises can I expect from a lower priced
sigma or tamron 18-200 or 28-150 mm type lens? I don't really need
anything over 200 mm but I do wish to 1 lens to cover wide angle and
then some telephoto for convience. I do wish VR (is Nikon VR the same as
Canon IS) for the lens and a quick autofocus speed but I can settle for
smaller f/stops like 5.6 instead of 2.8 or 3.5. Thanks for any
opinions!!!

You may find a modern tripod is cheaper than the VR feature on a lens.
With landscapes one ordinarily does not have to get quick shots, so the
tripod is ordinarily okay. I am amazed at how cheap a reasonably good
tripod goes for these days :-)

Tripod is tough for me to carry on 20 mile hikes. I do have a wonderful
aluminum tripod. I'm 6' myself so a good 6' tripod works wonders, until you
are 20 miles in the bush.....

Tripod is tough for me to carry on 20 mile hikes. I do have a wonderful
aluminum tripod. I'm 6' myself so a good 6' tripod works wonders, until
you are 20 miles in the bush.....

Correction; Tripod is 5' 6"

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:21:26 -0500, "The Henchman"
wrote in
:

"Don Stauffer" wrote in message
.. .

You may find a modern tripod is cheaper than the VR feature on a lens.
With landscapes one ordinarily does not have to get quick shots, so the
tripod is ordinarily okay. I am amazed at how cheap a reasonably good
tripod goes for these days :-)

Tripod is tough for me to carry on 20 mile hikes. I do have a wonderful
aluminum tripod. I'm 6' myself so a good 6' tripod works wonders, until you
are 20 miles in the bush.....

My hiking tripod weighs less than my camera.

--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John