A first timer's first lense

AimeeJ

Hi all,

This is my very first post and I must warn everyone that I am a SUPER Newbie...I'm the stay puffed marshmellow man of all newbs. So, please excuse my novice questions. So, I've decided that my first DLSR is going to be a Nikon D40x (I know, all the canon faithful just felt a shiver go up their spines) and I was wanting to hear opinions on what is a good lense to get started with. Personally, I like this one... AF-S DX VR Nikkor 18-200 mm f/3.5-5.6G. I also know that this cost more than the camera itself...but would cover most of my needs as a newbie. So, should I just buy the body and go ahead and invest in the lense or stick with one of the lenses that comes in a bundle??

Aimee

James S

I am a Canon guy and I didn't shiver. It seems that it is pure preference. Just make sure you hold the camera before you buy it. Comfort is the most important thing. If the camera is not comfortable in your hand you will end up hating it. Lens wise it is all what you are planning on shooting. Most of the kit lens that comes with DSLRs are just starter lenses and won't get you much.

Here are the questions I think you will need to answer before you make a purchase.

Will you be shooting outdoors or indoors or both equally?
Will you be shooting wildlife/landscapes/portraits?


That 18mm-200mm has a good range but won't do so good in low light situations becasue of the F/3.5-5.6. Your shutter speed will have to be too long to make sure you get a sharp shot.

Answer those two questions and I am sure we can assist you better. There may be more questions but I am sure the more knowlegable will post as well.

AimeeJ

Ideally, I will be shooting mostly outdoors. When I lived in Germany, that's all I did...castles, town shots, etc. I also want to get into shooting the pure outdoors. I love scenery shots. Coming in third in my list of things to shoot will be people (candids, not posed). ...i guess that's a pretty wide range of things to consider.

Tommyboy

I'm a Canon user, but not a faithful. I shot Nikon for 20 years and still love their stuff.

I've read some good things about the lens you're considering but have no first-hand experience. There are a couple of general truths (truth to me) that I try to follow.

I always buy the camera manufacturer's lenses and not other brand lenses. Apparently, so-called off-brand lenses are quite good and many people on this forum are very pleased with them. Many years ago, whenever I tried them, good though they may have been, they never measured up to the originals. Perhaps that's changed now. I think it's good that you're considering a Nikon lens.

All-in-One lenses (which is what I would consider an 18-200 to be) are a good choice if you only want to own one lens. But they don't do as well at a given task as a more specialized lens would. For example, you could get a shorter lens with a faster aperture or a longer lens that might be sharper. As a result, though, you will be carrying two or more lenses rather than one. The other downside with an all-in-one is that when you do buy a second lens, there will be considerable overlap in features and capability. Not the end of the world, but something that bugs me.

In summary, one lens is convenient, two or more lenses may provide you with greater capability and/or superior image quality.

One other note: I'm a lot more cavalier about buying equipment than I used to be. If something doesn't work out to my taste, it's very easy to sell online (here, ebay, etc.) and recoup 80% of your purchase price. YMMV, but that's been my experience.

Good luck, and let us know what you decide.

AimeeJ

When one is referring to a lense having a 'faster' aperture...which spec is that? (sorrry, still learning all the lingo).

AimeeJ

Tommyboy wrote:

I'm a Canon user, but not a faithful. I shot Nikon for 20 years and still love their stuff.

I've read some good things about the lens you're considering but have no first-hand experience. There are a couple of general truths (truth to me) that I try to follow.

I always buy the camera manufacturer's lenses and not other brand lenses. Apparently, so-called off-brand lenses are quite good and many people on this forum are very pleased with them. Many years ago, whenever I tried them, good though they may have been, they never measured up to the originals. Perhaps that's changed now. I think it's good that you're considering a Nikon lens.

All-in-One lenses (which is what I would consider an 18-200 to be) are a good choice if you only want to own one lens. But they don't do as well at a given task as a more specialized lens would. For example, you could get a shorter lens with a faster aperture or a longer lens that might be sharper. As a result, though, you will be carrying two or more lenses rather than one. The other downside with an all-in-one is that when you do buy a second lens, there will be considerable overlap in features and capability. Not the end of the world, but something that bugs me.

In summary, one lens is convenient, two or more lenses may provide you with greater capability and/or superior image quality.

One other note: I'm a lot more cavalier about buying equipment than I used to be. If something doesn't work out to my taste, it's very easy to sell online (here, ebay, etc.) and recoup 80% of your purchase price. YMMV, but that's been my experience.

Good luck, and let us know what you decide.

That was one of my concerns...I know that as I get more into this, I will end up with multiple lenses and I don't like the idea of having the overlapping qualities either.

James S

The f/2.8 or f/1.8 or f/3.5-5.6

If it has one number it is a constant aperture. If it has a range your aperature can be anywhere in that range.

AimeeJ

so...larger max aperture=small f numer=faster shutter speed? ...have I got it?

James S

yes you got it. See how easy this stuff is? If you need any more help just ask.

Also you should post your website in your profile so we can check out your photos.

jdryan3

rex wrote:

The f/2.8 or f/1.8 or f/3.5-5.6

If it has one number it is a constant aperture. If it has a range your aperature can be anywhere in that range.

To clarify for the new OP AimeeJ, that f-stop (like f/2.8) is the maximum aperture a lens can do. Since prime lenses only have one focal length, such as 24mm, 50mm, 100mm, 200mm etc., they will always have only one # as the maximum aperature.

But any lens can have a range of aperatures. Most lenses can go to at least f/22, some f/32 or even f/44.

Zoom lens (such as 24-70, 18-200, or 75-300) have a range of focal lengths. As Rex said, if a ZOOM has only one f-stop like f/4 then that is the maximum you can do at any focal length within the zoom range. If there is an f-stop range (such as f/3.5-f/5.6) that means the low end of the zoom range (18 in your case) has a max aperature of f/3.5 and at the long end (200 for the lens you are talking about) has a max aperature of f/5.6.

But you can do, for instance, f/8 at any focal length for that lens.

kts

If you haven't gotten the D40x yet you may want to hold off a few weeks. There is a strong rumor that a new D60 will be released at the end of the month and that it will replace the D40x. (There are also reports that D40x production has ceased and they are closing out the inventory of them.) So then again if you can get one on sale now might be a good time to get the D40x. But most people think that the D60 will add an autofocus motor into the body so it will work with lenses that aren't AF-S giving you the ability to use more 3rd party lenses and older Nikon lenses that don't have the autofocus motor built into them.

As for the 18-200mm VR it's a great walkaround lens. I'm addicted to wide angles so most of my urban exploring photos are 12-24, but if I'm doing a car shoot or just general photography for the day I use the 18-200. As some have pointed out it's not as fast as something that can go down to f/2.8 but with the VR it helps bring the stops down anywhere from 1/2 a step to a step from what I remember reading. You can shoot down to 1/10th or 1/15th and have it come out if you skip your morning caffeine. In really low light you will still need a tripod, but that's always the case.

The 18-55mm kit lens that comes with the D40/D40x/D50/etc is pretty decent for a kit lens, and they recently added VR to it (not sure if that's what's in the kits now or if that's extra.) so if money is tight you can get the kit and be making great shots for a long long time. If you do have the money for the 18-200mm then I say go for it since it should do just about everything you need.

AimeeJ

After talking a bit with the hubby, we decided to go for the D80 instead. I really love getting scenic shots so I guess I want a good wide angle and one other to supplement it. I don't have wads of cash so I can't buy oodles of lenses. So, I guess 2 recommendations from all you experienced people would be great.

kts

For wide angles it's hard to beat the Tokina 12-24mm f/4. It's half the cost of the Nikon 12-24mm f/4 and 99% as good. I love my Tokina, it's what I take ~95% of my shots with.

If you can afford to go baller the Nikon one is also excellent. Tokina also just came out with an 11-16mm f/2.8 which should be ~$800 but doesn't seem to have made it to the US yet.

With the Tokina 12-24 and Nikon 18-200 there isn't much you can't do.

Photoskipper

off-brand lens
It is good to ask around and collect more idea to make a more sensable decision.

I started with Canon 300D package with the bundle 18 -55 mm lens. It lasted me only few months then I wanted an on-camera lens for business travelling. I got the Sigma 18-200 which served for 2 years till I got my 5D.

The Sigma 18-200 is good to cover 29 to 320 mm range. It is relatively slow but yet managed to deliver reasonable quality pictures. It is no way to compare with the prime lens such as the 70-200L IS F2.8 or the 24 -104 F4 L in terms of the weight, size, cost and the picture quality.

But I am still using it for causal shooting on short non-photo trips as it is lighter and smaller. It still heavier than the bundle lens, not weather proof.

Sigma came out with the image stablizer version recently. You can consider it.

Spend big money on the big toys only when you feel 100% sure you want to continue the hobby. Try something cheaper and build up the confidence before move on. (I am talking to myself)

Tee Why

You keep mentioning landscapes, in which case, I'd recommend ultrawide zooms. They tend to be pretty wide so you will most likely still need a "normal" zoom that most kit lenses are.

Some ultrawides to consider are the Nikon 12-24 and Sigma 10-20 and Tokina 12-24. If cost is an issue, I recommend the Sigma 10-20 over the Tokina mainly b/c it's wider, Sigma also takes a normal polarizer filter, the Tokina will vignette with a normal polarizer at 12mm. Lastly Simgma has a HSM AF motor which is nicer than the older design in the Tokina.

The Nikon Kit lenses, especially the 18-55 VR one should be nice and pretty cheap at under $200 or so. Other nice "normal" zooms ar the Nikon 17-55 f2.8, Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, Tokina 16-50mm, Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 macro, and Sigma 17-70mm. The run from just under $400 for the sigma 17-70, to $450 or so for the Tamron and the other Sigma, $600 plus for the Tokina, and about $1000 for the Nikon.

Good luck.

rpcrowe

Lenses 101 - Think about them this way...

AimeeJ wrote:

so...larger max aperture=small f numer=faster shutter speed? ...have I got it?

If you can consider exposure with a camera and lens like filling a bucket with water.

The size of the bucket is the total amount of exposure you need.

The shutter speed is the length of time the water needs to run to fill the bucket.

The f/stop is the size of the pipe from which the water is pouring.

You can consider the ISO as the pressure of the water coming through the pipe.

The larger the spout (larger size f/stops are the smaller numbers. Full f/stops are f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16 and f/22 - with each larger number admitting 1/2 the light of the previous number) the faster the bucket will fill. Or in camera terms, the faster shutter speed you can use. That is why some lenses are described as being "faster" than others.

You can vary the ISO, the shutter speed and the f/stop considerably and have a correct exposure across a wide spectrum of variables.

The advantage of a fast shutter speed is that it will stop or freeze action and will also minimize blur due to camera movement.

The advantage of a smaller f/stop (remember smaller size f/stops are larger numbers) is that the depth of field (distance between the near and far points of acceptable focus) is larger.

A higher ISO will often give less quality than a lower ISO because of noise in digital and grain in film photography, however a higher ISO will allow you to use a faster shutter speed or a smaller f/stop or both.

Each prime lens (a prime lens is a lens with only one focal length such as 50mm) has a maximum aperture to which it can open (although it can be closed down to smaller apertures). It is described using both the focal length and the maximum f/stop such as 50mm f/1.4.

Some zoom lenses (a zoom lens is a lens in which the focal length can be varies such as the 70-200mm Canon zooms) have a constant maximum f/stop and are described with this one f/stop such as the 70-200mm f/4 Canon. The widest aperture of this lens is f/4 at 70mm and at all focal lengths through 200mm.

Some zoom lenses have a variable maximum aperture that changes as you adjust the focal length of the lens. They are described such as 70-300mm f/4-5.6 lens. This means that the maximum aperture of the lens is f/4 at 70mm and becomes smaller as the focal length is increased to become f/5.6 (allowing 1/2 the light of f/4) at 300mm.

Please remember, we describe the lenses we are using their maximum apertures whether that be a constant aperture such as f/4 or a variable aperture such as f/4-5.6. All of the lenses are capable of being stopped down to smaller apertures than the maximum.