A good walking arround Zoom for Nikon

Me again.

I am leaning heavily toward the D300 for my first DSLR.

I went to a camera store and did a more complete side-by-side comparison
of the D300 and 5D. I liked the 5D more than I remembered, but the side
of the screen on the D300, sensor cleaning, and weather resistance
pointed me back to the Nikon.

I still plan to buy at the end of the summer/beginning of fall, assuming
no full frame announcements, But am trying to figure what my final budget
needs to be. I still plan to get a full frame in the future so I don't
want any DX lenses.

I figure I won't be able to afford any of the lenses I really want until
the next year (will need to save a bit), but I obviously want something
to use while walking around and hiking. I want a full-frame lens that I
won't feel the need to replace if.when I get a full frame DSLR in a few
years. I really want a wide zoom and a tele-zoom so I figure I need
something in the middle range.

Any recommendations for a less expensive prime or zoom in the standard
range?

Steve

Steven Green wrote:
Me again.

I am leaning heavily toward the D300 for my first DSLR.

I went to a camera store and did a more complete side-by-side comparison
of the D300 and 5D. I liked the 5D more than I remembered, but the side
of the screen on the D300, sensor cleaning, and weather resistance
pointed me back to the Nikon.

I still plan to buy at the end of the summer/beginning of fall, assuming
no full frame announcements, But am trying to figure what my final budget
needs to be. I still plan to get a full frame in the future so I don't
want any DX lenses.

I figure I won't be able to afford any of the lenses I really want until
the next year (will need to save a bit), but I obviously want something
to use while walking around and hiking. I want a full-frame lens that I
won't feel the need to replace if.when I get a full frame DSLR in a few
years. I really want a wide zoom and a tele-zoom so I figure I need
something in the middle range.

Any recommendations for a less expensive prime or zoom in the standard
range?

Fast normal like a 35mm f/1.4 manual or f/2 AF? Full format fast wide
zooms will be big & expensive: not practical on APS.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

"Rudy Benner" wrote:


"Steven Green" wrote in message
news:tvh_j.1743$QW.1519@trndny04...
Me again.

I am leaning heavily toward the D300 for my first DSLR.

I went to a camera store and did a more complete side-by-side comparison
of the D300 and 5D. I liked the 5D more than I remembered, but the side
of the screen on the D300, sensor cleaning, and weather resistance
pointed me back to the Nikon.

I still plan to buy at the end of the summer/beginning of fall, assuming
no full frame announcements, But am trying to figure what my final budget
needs to be. I still plan to get a full frame in the future so I don't
want any DX lenses.

I figure I won't be able to afford any of the lenses I really want until
the next year (will need to save a bit), but I obviously want something
to use while walking around and hiking. I want a full-frame lens that I
won't feel the need to replace if.when I get a full frame DSLR in a few
years. I really want a wide zoom and a tele-zoom so I figure I need
something in the middle range.

Any recommendations for a less expensive prime or zoom in the standard
range?

Steve

Nikkor 18-200mm VR.


The OP stated "I still plan to get a full frame in the future so I
don't want any DX lenses". So why recommend a DX lens?

On Sun, 25 May 2008 18:58:44 +0100, Bruce wrote:

"Rudy Benner" wrote:


"Steven Green" wrote in message
news:tvh_j.1743$QW.1519@trndny04...
Me again.

I am leaning heavily toward the D300 for my first DSLR.

I went to a camera store and did a more complete side-by-side
comparison of the D300 and 5D. I liked the 5D more than I remembered,
but the side of the screen on the D300, sensor cleaning, and weather
resistance pointed me back to the Nikon.

I still plan to buy at the end of the summer/beginning of fall,
assuming no full frame announcements, But am trying to figure what my
final budget needs to be. I still plan to get a full frame in the
future so I don't want any DX lenses.

I figure I won't be able to afford any of the lenses I really want
until the next year (will need to save a bit), but I obviously want
something to use while walking around and hiking. I want a full-frame
lens that I won't feel the need to replace if.when I get a full frame
DSLR in a few years. I really want a wide zoom and a tele-zoom so I
figure I need something in the middle range.

Any recommendations for a less expensive prime or zoom in the standard
range?

Steve

Nikkor 18-200mm VR.


The OP stated "I still plan to get a full frame in the future so I don't
want any DX lenses". So why recommend a DX lens?

Its OK, if the best affordable lens is a DX and there really isn't a good
full frame alternative I will definitely look at a DX, but it will hit
ebay when I finally get my FF camera

Doing a little digging I am looking at the Nikon 24-120mm the price seems
reasonable at BH or do you think the range is too small.

Steve

Steven Green wrote:

Its OK, if the best affordable lens is a DX and there really isn't a good
full frame alternative I will definitely look at a DX, but it will hit
ebay when I finally get my FF camera

Doing a little digging I am looking at the Nikon 24-120mm the price seems
reasonable at BH or do you think the range is too small.


Earlier versions of this lens had very bad distortion, plus issues
with light fall off and lack of sharpness. Thom Hogan suggests this
version is better but still not a great optic.

"I was prepared to be very disappointed with this lens. The previous
24-120mm is one of my least favorite recent lenses, with substantive
compromises all over the place, and barely adequate performance at the
extremes. Fortunately, this new version manages to crawl over that low
hurdle and provide some reasonable, if not outstanding, performance.
So I'm not disappointed, but I'm also not overly impressed."

Not exactly a strong recommendation, but do read the whole review:
http://www.bythom.com/24120ens.htm

As for whether the range is too small, only you can decide, but in my
opinion there are very few lenses with a zoom range of 4X or more that
are worth considering. Personally, I would not even consider an
18-200mm optic, regardless of how cheap and "convenient" it might
appear. The 11x zoom range means that major optical compromises have
had to be made.

If you cannot make the effort to change between two shorter range and
therefore optically better zooms, you shouldn't be buying a DSLR.

On 2008-05-25 19:18:39 +0100, Steven Green said:

On Sun, 25 May 2008 18:58:44 +0100, Bruce wrote:

"Rudy Benner" wrote:


"Steven Green" wrote in message
news:tvh_j.1743$QW.1519@trndny04...
Me again.

I am leaning heavily toward the D300 for my first DSLR.

I went to a camera store and did a more complete side-by-side
comparison of the D300 and 5D. I liked the 5D more than I remembered,
but the side of the screen on the D300, sensor cleaning, and weather
resistance pointed me back to the Nikon.

I still plan to buy at the end of the summer/beginning of fall,
assuming no full frame announcements, But am trying to figure what my
final budget needs to be. I still plan to get a full frame in the
future so I don't want any DX lenses.

I figure I won't be able to afford any of the lenses I really want
until the next year (will need to save a bit), but I obviously want
something to use while walking around and hiking. I want a full-frame
lens that I won't feel the need to replace if.when I get a full frame
DSLR in a few years. I really want a wide zoom and a tele-zoom so I
figure I need something in the middle range.

Any recommendations for a less expensive prime or zoom in the standard
range?

Steve

Nikkor 18-200mm VR.


The OP stated "I still plan to get a full frame in the future so I don't
want any DX lenses". So why recommend a DX lens?

Its OK, if the best affordable lens is a DX and there really isn't a good
full frame alternative I will definitely look at a DX, but it will hit
ebay when I finally get my FF camera

Doing a little digging I am looking at the Nikon 24-120mm the price seems
reasonable at BH or do you think the range is too small.

Steve

As the other poster said, try the 18-200VR, it's cheap enough that you
won't really get the same range, quality and ease of use with Nikon FF
lenses unless you spend a LOT more - even if you are int he market for
used FF lenses.

As you said, you can always eBay it later!

To be honest, I wouldn't get too hung up about FF for now - just buy
the D300 and the 18-200mm VR and see how you get on. The D300 is a
superb camera and will do almost everything you are likely to need, the
18-200 will also cater for 95% of all your needs if you are a casual
photographer. Just get this combo and go have fun. Then save your
pennies for the FF body or some FF lenses later if you need to.

On 2008-05-25 20:07:32 +0100, Bruce said:

Steven Green wrote:

Its OK, if the best affordable lens is a DX and there really isn't a good
full frame alternative I will definitely look at a DX, but it will hit
ebay when I finally get my FF camera

Doing a little digging I am looking at the Nikon 24-120mm the price seems
reasonable at BH or do you think the range is too small.


Earlier versions of this lens had very bad distortion, plus issues
with light fall off and lack of sharpness. Thom Hogan suggests this
version is better but still not a great optic.

"I was prepared to be very disappointed with this lens. The previous
24-120mm is one of my least favorite recent lenses, with substantive
compromises all over the place, and barely adequate performance at the
extremes. Fortunately, this new version manages to crawl over that low
hurdle and provide some reasonable, if not outstanding, performance.
So I'm not disappointed, but I'm also not overly impressed."

Not exactly a strong recommendation, but do read the whole review:
http://www.bythom.com/24120ens.htm

As for whether the range is too small, only you can decide, but in my
opinion there are very few lenses with a zoom range of 4X or more that
are worth considering. Personally, I would not even consider an
18-200mm optic, regardless of how cheap and "convenient" it might
appear. The 11x zoom range means that major optical compromises have
had to be made.

If you cannot make the effort to change between two shorter range and
therefore optically better zooms, you shouldn't be buying a DSLR.


Why post a Thom Hogan review on the 24-120 that is negative, then diss
the 18-200 yourself, but not bother to post the highly positive Thom
Hogan review on it?

http://www.bythom.com/18200lens.htm

"let's cut to the chase: on almost every performance parameter this is
an excellent lens. Not perfect, but quite good at almost everything."

Snobbery helps nobody.

adm wrote:

Why post a Thom Hogan review on the 24-120 that is negative, then diss
the 18-200 yourself, but not bother to post the highly positive Thom
Hogan review on it?


Because I hadn't read the 18-200 review.

As Thom says, "Superzooms shouldn't be this good."

And I don't believe it is that good - at least not yet. Nikon has a
history of introducing new lenses that have had excellent early
reviews, but which do not perform anything like as well in practice,
or suffer from significant sample variation, with only a small
proportion of the lenses produced giving satisfactory results.

I agree, Thom Hogan's review was surprisingly good. It almost makes
me wish I was a Nikon user. Almost.

adm wrote:
On 2008-05-25 19:18:39 +0100, Steven Green
said:

On Sun, 25 May 2008 18:58:44 +0100, Bruce wrote:

"Rudy Benner" wrote:


"Steven Green" wrote in message
news:tvh_j.1743$QW.1519@trndny04...
Me again.

I am leaning heavily toward the D300 for my first DSLR.

I went to a camera store and did a more complete side-by-side
comparison of the D300 and 5D. I liked the 5D more than I remembered,
but the side of the screen on the D300, sensor cleaning, and weather
resistance pointed me back to the Nikon.

I still plan to buy at the end of the summer/beginning of fall,
assuming no full frame announcements, But am trying to figure what my
final budget needs to be. I still plan to get a full frame in the
future so I don't want any DX lenses.

I figure I won't be able to afford any of the lenses I really want
until the next year (will need to save a bit), but I obviously want
something to use while walking around and hiking. I want a full-frame
lens that I won't feel the need to replace if.when I get a full frame
DSLR in a few years. I really want a wide zoom and a tele-zoom so I
figure I need something in the middle range.

Any recommendations for a less expensive prime or zoom in the standard
range?

Steve

Nikkor 18-200mm VR.


The OP stated "I still plan to get a full frame in the future so I don't
want any DX lenses". So why recommend a DX lens?

Its OK, if the best affordable lens is a DX and there really isn't a good
full frame alternative I will definitely look at a DX, but it will hit
ebay when I finally get my FF camera

Doing a little digging I am looking at the Nikon 24-120mm the price seems
reasonable at BH or do you think the range is too small.

Steve

As the other poster said, try the 18-200VR, it's cheap enough that you
won't really get the same range, quality and ease of use with Nikon FF
lenses unless you spend a LOT more - even if you are int he market for
used FF lenses.

As you said, you can always eBay it later!

To be honest, I wouldn't get too hung up about FF for now - just buy the
D300 and the 18-200mm VR and see how you get on. The D300 is a superb
camera and will do almost everything you are likely to need, the 18-200
will also cater for 95% of all your needs if you are a casual
photographer. Just get this combo and go have fun. Then save your
pennies for the FF body or some FF lenses later if you need to.

I also suggest not to get too hung up on Fx. The advantages are
undeniable for either extreme high ISO performance or very large prints
when finally high resolution Fx "D3x" is available from Nikon, but there
will always be a large "system" cost premium, and a large weight premium
if you're carrying kit around with good quality lenses covering a wide
focal length range.

Why not just buy the D3 now, and be done with the whole "in the future"
statement? More money than perhaps you might wish to spend!?! I really
don't see Nikon offering up a full frame camera under $2K anytime soon,
but I've been wrong before. IIRC, Canon offers a few choices for FF as
well, but if you want to play with FF, then you've got to pay.

Agreed, I would buy a D3 but it really comes down to time. I can save
enough in a couple years but right now I can only manage 2-3K. at the
high end of the range I would need to wait until January to have camera
in hand. If I went with the D3 I wouldn't be able to swing any lenses for
it for a while later. I am not the type to put money onto a credit card
unless I could pay it off immediately.

As it is I am still saving a waiting for the fall in case Canon finally
unveils a 5D II. If so, depending upon features, I would reconsider
it.But if they take too long, I will go with the D300 and try to buy one
good lens a year until I have more wherewithal or there is a relatively
inexpensive FF Nikon.

Note, while older than the average college student, I have returned to
school to pursue an engineering degree. This is why I save so slowly. If
I were working full-time I would have a better budget.