Nikon DX lens advise...

[Siliconslave]

Bit of a dilemma here, my parents and fiancée have offered to get me a new lens for my D40x for my birthday (30th - eep)

They were budgeting around £500ish and I was looking at the Nikon 18-200 AF-s VR II but from reading up it looks like the 55-200 is as good a lens and about 1/3 the price - The kit lens with the camera is also 18-55 so in theory I have that range covered.

Coincidently the 35mm prime lens Nikon do is pretty much exactly the difference, cost wise, between the two. I've never had a prime lens but i'm very temped by the results.

So my choice is either:

• 18-200mm VR AF-S 1:3.5-5.6GII ED

or

• Kit 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX
• 55-200mm VR AF-S f/4-5.6G ED
• 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX

Now for a casual user is three lenses overkill?

 

[bigredshark]

I'd take the second set in a heartbeat out of the two, all are very good (in all respects, image quality is good and they're excellent value too). I don't think you'll find three lenses overkill as they're all quite distinct options, the 18-55 is an everyday walkabout workhorse, the 55-200 gives you more reach and the 35mm is a low light and indoor option primarily (or when you're being creative of course)...

Only advice would be to consider the 70-300 VR instead of the 55-200, it's more money but it's also more reach and the loss of the 55-70 range between the kit lens and it doesn't matter. What are you shooting?

 

[Tooks]

I'd take the second set in a heartbeat out of the two, all are very good (in all respects, image quality is good and they're excellent value too). I don't think you'll find three lenses overkill as they're all quite distinct options, the 18-55 is an everyday walkabout workhorse, the 55-200 gives you more reach and the 35mm is a low light and indoor option primarily (or when you're being creative of course)...

Only advice would be to consider the 70-300 VR instead of the 55-200, it's more money but it's also more reach and the loss of the 55-70 range between the kit lens and it doesn't matter. What are you shooting?

That's good advice above, but what kind of person are you?

By that, I mean do you not mind changing lenses 'mid shoot', or are you more the sort of person who likes to walk around with the one lens on the camera and shoots whatever catches your eye?

If the latter, then the 18-200 is a fine lens for your requirements.

The 35mm is a great lens on a DX camera, giving you near the 50mm range so revered on full frame/35mm film cameras.

But, if you don't like changing lenses, or don't want to carry them round with you, the separate lenses probably won't be used much.

 

[Siliconslave]

from the reviews I've seen the 70-300 suffers pretty bad distortion in the 200-300 range, but I'm not sure I'm critical to notice it - it also seems to be about twice the price of the 55-200!

Photography wise I don't have a specific 'thing' as such although I do allot of family and event photographs. Carrying and changing lens shouldn't be a problem most of the time and I should be able to predict what I'm going to be shooting ahead of time I think...

 

[jazzy182]

im just about to order the nikkor 50mm 1.4G lens, from my parents for graduation. Looking forward to it, ive tested it on my mates and its supurb even without touching the pictures up its great so i decided i needed myself a prime lens..

http://www.flickr.com/groups/afs50mmf14g/

Seems like a good prime lens

 

[bigredshark]

im just about to order the nikkor 50mm 1.4G lens, from my parents for graduation. Looking forward to it, ive tested it on my mates and its supurb even without touching the pictures up its great so i decided i needed myself a prime lens..

http://www.flickr.com/groups/afs50mmf14g/

Seems like a good prime lens

It's very nice indeed optically, it's just a pity it doesn't have the indestructible feel it's AF-D predecessor had...

 

[Irish_Tom]

The 18-200VR suffers distortion at both ends and the IQ is about on-par with the 18-55 kit lens.

If you're happy with this then the 18-200VR is a very flexible lens.

If that doesn't sound good then separate lenses might be a better option.

I've just sold my 18-200VR and am currently using a 50mm 1.8

I've come to the conclusion that faster and sharper is more important to me than range.

 

[robertgilbert86]

As above, avoid the 18-200, it's very soft.
I think a fast prime would be good for portraits and events, the 35mm f1.8 would be ideal.
Then either the 55-200 or 70-300 depending on your budget, I know I don't miss that 50-70mm range in my setup!

 

[asim18]

• Kit 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX
• 55-200mm VR AF-S f/4-5.6G ED
• 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX

Deffo go for this set^.

I have the 18-55 and 55-200VR and they're fantastic lenses. The quality is unbelievable considering what you're paying for them. The 35mm is next on my list too!

Don't get a 70-300VR if you're just a "casual" user. Unless you have a huge bank balance of course.

 

[D.P.]

Bit of a dilemma here, my parents and fiancée have offered to get me a new lens for my D40x for my birthday (30th - eep)

They were budgeting around £500ish and I was looking at the Nikon 18-200 AF-s VR II but from reading up it looks like the 55-200 is as good a lens and about 1/3 the price - The kit lens with the camera is also 18-55 so in theory I have that range covered.

Coincidently the 35mm prime lens Nikon do is pretty much exactly the difference, cost wise, between the two. I've never had a prime lens but i'm very temped by the results.

So my choice is either:

• 18-200mm VR AF-S 1:3.5-5.6GII ED

or

• Kit 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX
• 55-200mm VR AF-S f/4-5.6G ED
• 35mm f/1.8G AF-S DX

Now for a casual user is three lenses overkill?

Very definitely Option 2. The 18-55 + 55-200 gives better quality than the 18-200 and having the 35 DX in the mix really sweetens the package.


I wouldn't consider the 18-200 at all.
One option would be to get the 70-300 VR, this is a really sweet lens in Nikons line up and is sharp enough for the Pros. Really punches above its weight. Combined with the 18-55 this would eb great, more money of cause.

If you really want a lens that does a lot and is high quality then the Nikon 16-85 is a great versitle lens, the 16mm on the wide end is infinitely valuable to me, while the 85-200 difference is pretty small. The 18-200 doesn't go to 200mm, more like 180mm, and when focusing closely this can be as little as 135mm effective.

 

[D.P.]

from the reviews I've seen the 70-300 suffers pretty bad distortion in the 200-300 range, but I'm not sure I'm critical to notice it - it also seems to be about twice the price of the 55-200!

Photography wise I don't have a specific 'thing' as such although I do allot of family and event photographs. Carrying and changing lens shouldn't be a problem most of the time and I should be able to predict what I'm going to be shooting ahead of time I think...

The 70-300 has very little distortion on a crop sensor, less than 0.2% which is barely visible.

 

[Rollo]

If you can afford to chip in the extra £50 yourself I'd get the 70-300 and the 35. If not the 55-200 is still very good for the price.

I love my 16-85 but it's expensive for what it is. I also dont think I would have bought it had I not already owned the 35 and the 55-200.

 

[the shadow]

18-70+70-300 vr +35 all used around 530

 

[DoubleCheese]

From reading the first post, it sounds like the OP already has the 18-55 kit lens, so the 70-300 will come in under budget.

 

[the shadow]

18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX the VR is better i hear
maybe ditch it an get the 18-70

 

[Snapshot]

Just as a slightly different angle, how about a Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 and a Sigma 50-150mm f2.8? Add a Sigma 1.4x converter if you need a bit more reach.

 

[bigredshark]

18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX the VR is better i hear
maybe ditch it an get the 18-70

it's nice to have but optically the same or very similar, you'd be silly to upgrade purely for the VR...

The 18-70 was a good kit lens too but it's not enough of an upgrade over the 18-55 to justify the price, if you want to replace the kit lens the 16-85 is the best mid range option, after that get saving for one of the fast zooms.

I think chucking in £50 and getting the 70-300 and 35mm is easily your best option here...