A question for the camera experts

[jmig]

I currently have a Nikon D-40, which I really enjoy with two lens. I have the 18-55 lens that came with the camera and a 55-200 VR. My one annoyance is that I often find my self swapping lenses.

I looked at a Nikon Nikon 18-200 VR lens that has gotten wonderful reviews. It would be a one lens fits all approach for me. However the lens is quite expensive. What would I do with the other very good serviceable lenses afterward.

My question is this, would it be better to buy this lens or buy a D-90 body for just about the same amount of money? I could mount one lens on each camera and just swap cameras between the wide angle and zoom shots.

Any advice appreciated.

 

[grumpos]

I'd suggest going for the second body. the consensus on the forums that I hang out at is that the 18-200 is no great performer. The lens will give you good results, but shorter zooms will give you better.

 

[kilo delta]

If swapping lenses bothers you,John, I'd go with the 18-200mmVR lens. A fantastic lens by all accounts. I tend to carry a few lenses in a camera bag when I'm out and about, though, as it'll only take a few seconds to swap them.

 

[luckydog]

2nd body, no question.
Plus it's always good to have back-up.

 

[MaddogK]

Umm, I'm no expert but I'd say save your money and put on the 55-200mm lens, and take a step back before you shoot. Why does anyone NEED an 18mm lens unless your taking pics of bugs and such.

 

[Ferry_vO]

18 mm on a digital SLR is comparable to the old 28 mm (when using film) so it's slightly wide angle. Shooting bugs requires a good zoom lens or even better a macro lens.
I use two lenses, but I do not have to swap that often. For airshows or visits to the zoo I leave the 70-300 on, for general use I use my 17-85; I do have my camera cleaned by a professional once a year though to remove the dust and dirt from the sensor.
In general more zoom means less image quality, but then again, carrying around two cameras with lenses isn't something I would want to do all day long either, which is why I don't mind swapping every now and then.

 

[6297J]

2nd Body, absolutely. I'd love a second D300.

I bought the 18-200 when it first came out and didn't know any better and I sold it again fairly quickly after taking it on holiday. My copy was quite poor.

The problem is the D90 is so much better than the D40 that you'll soon want to ditch it and get another D90 - it's never ending :mixedsmi:

 

[Kiwikat]

I don't know anything about the Nikon lenses, but I think you would be better off investing in some better glass before you got a better body. For the price of the D90 you could get a pretty nice lens.

I'm in a similar situation with my Canon gear. I wouldn't buy a 50D or 7D now. I'm saving up for some better glass, probably the 100mm L macro or a nice Tokina UWA.

Swapping lenses is what a DSLR is about.

Unless your body fails or you need the extra ISO for sports or something, theres no real point to upgrading it. Spend your dollars on glass. Besides, to take advantage of most Prosumer cameras, you need better glass than the kit lenses.

 

[Kiwikat]

Umm, I'm no expert but I'd say save your money and put on the 55-200mm lens, and take a step back before you shoot. Why does anyone NEED an 18mm lens unless your taking pics of bugs and such.

What lol...

18mm is wide angle, good for landscapes and buildings.

For bugs that 200 would be better! Most medium telephotos have a higher magnification than general purpose zooms. :mixedsmi:

 

[kilo delta]

2nd Body, absolutely. I'd love a second D300.

I bought the 18-200 when it first came out and didn't know any better and I sold it again fairly quickly after taking it on holiday. My copy was quite poor.

The problem is the D90 is so much better than the D40 that you'll soon want to ditch it and get another D90 - it's never ending :mixedsmi:

I love my D300 too (which shares the same sensor as the D90). I've never owned an 18-200mm though have heard that they are generally a great all-in-one solution. My favourite lens are the 50mm f1.8 and the Nikon 80-200mm f2.8.

 

[Henry]

in the old film days i would have 2 bodies 1 for color and 1 for B&w
but with Digital?
my first thought was get another body
but i bet anything you would like that new body better
and not use the old one often, so you would be back to square one:isadizzy:
i have never liked big Zooms 18-200 thats a lot of glass
and often you will lose a stop or two
have you ever thought about
getting into painting instead
sorry not much help
H

 

[6297J]

I don't know anything about the Nikon lenses, but I think you would be better off investing in some better glass before you got a better body. For the price of the D90 you could get a pretty nice lens.

I'm in a similar situation with my Canon gear. I wouldn't buy a 50D or 7D now. I'm saving up for some better glass, probably the 100mm L macro or a nice Tokina UWA.

Swapping lenses is what a DSLR is about.

Unless your body fails or you need the extra ISO for sports or something, theres no real point to upgrading it. Spend your dollars on glass. Besides, to take advantage of most Prosumer cameras, you need better glass than the kit lenses.

The D90 body only is $899 - you'd be very hard pressed to find a quality lens for that beyond 50mm, Nikon or otherwise. But I agree, anything beyond a D90 is overkill for the kit lenses.

 

[Kiwikat]

The D90 body only is $899 - you'd be very hard pressed to find a quality lens for that beyond 50mm, Nikon or otherwise. But I agree, anything beyond a D90 is overkill for the kit lenses.

I guess Nikon is more expensive than Canon. :mixedsmi:

:naturesm:



For 900 bucks you could get a like new 24-105 L, or a 70-200 L, or a 17-40 L, or a 17-55 f/2.8, or a 10-22 UWA, or.... I'm glad I shoot Canon.

 

[6297J]

I love my D300 too (which shares the same sensor as the D90). I've never owned an 18-200mm though have heard that they are generally a great all-in-one solution. My favourite lens are the 50mm f1.8 and the Nikon 80-200mm f2.8.

My favourites are the 50mm f1.4, the 300mm f2.8 and my beloved 60mm macro. I am hoping Nikon will update the 85mm f1.4 soon.

You should take a look at the Nikon Cafe forums if you are a Nikon fan.

 

[6297J]

I guess Nikon is more expensive than Canon. :mixedsmi:

Indeed. I guess like anything in life, you get what you pay for

 

[Kiwikat]

Indeed. I guess like anything in life, you get what you pay for

I'll let you off the hook on that one. We're all friends here.

 

[MaddogK]

What lol...

18mm is wide angle, good for landscapes and buildings.

For bugs that 200 would be better! Most medium telephotos have a higher magnification than general purpose zooms. :mixedsmi:

heh, I don't shoot bugs, but i remember the world looking 'fisheye' thru a 28mm and it was great for flowers when I was less that a foot away taking pics, assumed 18mm would be even better for extreme closeups. Besides the light loss thru a 200 would make it useless for bugs unless your in broad daylight.

Anyhow my 28 hasn't been out of the bag in years, and my 50 almost never comes off my body unless I need serious zoom, then on goes a 100-300, and I carry a doubler in case I need a bit more. Am still working up the courage to go digital, but it's hard for me to stomach the price off all the new glass I gotta buy.

 

[Henry]

I'll let you off the hook on that one. We're all friends here.

LOL
id hate to moderate that argument
H

 

[OBIO]

I don't have a digital SLR...just a point and shoot 7 mega-pixel tote about. But I do have two veteran Canon AE-1s that I love. Having two bodies with film cameras in a must.....one loaded with high speed film for action, the other with slower speed film for low light conditions or one loaded with color and the other with black and white. That is not an issue with digital, since one good DSLR can be set up for high speed, slower speed, color, black and white, sepia, etc.

Swapping lenses with a SLR is part of the fun, the magic...swapping lenses elevates even a bumbling idiot to a position higher than those with simple point and shoots....it makes us look like serious photographers, like intrepid National Geographic photo journalists...even if the pictures all come out looking like blurry ultrasound images of unborn toads....the people standing next to you at the air show or zoo or wedding, they don't know that we have no clue how to actually use all those lenses and filters and that neat little air puffer thing for blowing dust off our equipment...all they see is a guy with a REAL camera, a bag full of lenses and we are suddenly Earnest Hemingways of photography.

Both of my AE-1s are equipped with 50 mm lenses for general purpose stuff, but I have a number of lenses in the 80 to 135 mm range in 52 and 62mm diameters (I have found lenses in the 100 to 135mm focal length the best choice for portrait work as they give the best overall proportion to the victim....er, SUBJECT...of the picture). I have a few lenses in the 200 to 300mm range, a 400mm, and an 800mm. I also have a couple rarely used wide angle lenses..including a very very very odd looking fish eye lense...which unfortunately has not been used in so long that it has sprouted some fungi between the optics and isn't worth the cost of having it de-fungi'd as I have only used it once or twice in the last 5 to 6 years. I avoid lenses that have really wide focal ranges...such as 70 to 300mm....I have found that I get better results using lenses with narrower focal ranges, such as 200 to 300mm...but then again, I am basing this on my experience with film.

Basically I just spent 15 minutes typing this post...and really did not help you one bit.

OBIO

 

[Kiwikat]

Besides the light loss thru a 200 would make it useless for bugs unless your is broad daylight.

That's why almost all macro lenses are f/2.8. Most serious flash photographers use ring flashes anyways. I'll have to make do with my 430exII speedlight.

Heeeenry can we please have a Photography subforum?