Good all around lens for Nikon D50?

peestandingup · April 6, 2006

I am going DSLR. Thanks to the help from people here at dgrin, I have decided to get the D50 body & move away from "consumer" cameras, (but im still shopping around, so if anyone wants to get rid of theirs, lemme know). Now, im also looking for an all around lens to go with it. Im interested in a lens that has a decent zoom, but can also do macro, that doesnt cost a small fortune. Is there such a thing?? It doesnt have to be mind blowing professional quality, but I still want good results.

Also, since I have been using nothing but point & shoots, im used to optical zooms reading like this: "3x, 6x, 12x" etc. Is there some kind of comparison chart for DSLRs and their "55mm" etc readings?? I heard that 55mm is comparative to a 4x optical zoom on point & shoots.

Sorry, but I am VERY new to the world of DSLR & there are soo many choices. Thanks...Kerry

Art Scott · April 6, 2006

My km A2 has a 7X optical zoom...that is a 28 - 200..now a 55 would be approx equiv to a 85mm lens of a 35mm film camera.....I believe taht the D50 has a 1.5 crop factor...which means to get the equivalency of a 35mm lens you multiply the lens focal length by 1.5......so 55mm X 1.5 = 85mm.....by doing this you can see that if you want the equiv of a 28mm lens you need to purchase an 18 to have the same focal length.

here is a nice range also 28 - 200 on ebay......link:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Tamron-28-200mm-XR-Macro-Lens-f-Nikon-AF-D-D70s-D50-NEW_W0QQitemZ7605494626QQcategoryZ106863QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Hopes this helps

chuckice · April 6, 2006

Make sure to check out the Nikon 28-200...VERY small and lightweight on my friend's D50.

kygarden · April 6, 2006

chuckice wrote:

Make sure to check out the Nikon 28-200...VERY small and lightweight on my friend's D50.

I have the Nikon 28-200mm. Well worth the money ($300).

DanielB · April 6, 2006

Nikon 18-200 VR

chuckice · April 6, 2006

DanielB wrote:

Nikon 18-200 VR

Great lens...debatable whether it's worth paying $500 more for VR especially considering the added weight/size. It will be faster due to AF-S and a tiny bit more on the wide end...

peestandingup · April 6, 2006

chuckice wrote:

Great lens...debatable whether it's worth paying $500 more for VR especially considering the added weight/size. It will be faster due to AF-S and a tiny bit more on the wide end...

True. I cant see me paying $800 for a lens right now to go on a $400 body. I wanna take it slow for now.

Im talking cheap cheap, like $100-$200 range, but good quality & an all-around type lens.

chuckice · April 6, 2006

peestandingup wrote:

True. I cant see me paying $800 for a lens right now to go on a $400 body. I wanna take it slow for now.

Im talking cheap cheap, like $100-$200 range, but good quality & an all-around type lens.

I can't comment on them but Tamron and Sigma both make a 28-200 in that price range. I do know I've seen some pix from my friends D50 + Nikon 28-200 and it's a very nice, fairly fast and very small/lite combo. The Nikon is a little more but I've never seen anyone say anything bad considering the price/quality of output...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=277215&is=USA&addedTroughType=search
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=397590&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

kygarden · April 6, 2006

peestandingup wrote:

True. I cant see me paying $800 for a lens right now to go on a $400 body. I wanna take it slow for now.

Im talking cheap cheap, like $100-$200 range, but good quality & an all-around type lens.

Be really careful with HOW cheap you go. You could be very disappointed with the performace. You might end up blaming the camera, when it's really the lens. I bought a super cheap used lens just to try it out and I'll never do that again. I really think for the price, a Nikon 28-200 is a good deal - $300 and not much over your limit. Maybe you can even find one slightly used for less.

chuckice · April 6, 2006

kygarden wrote:

Be really careful with HOW cheap you go. You could be very disappointed with the performace. You might end up blaming the camera, when it's really the lens. I bought a super cheap used lens just to try it out and I'll never do that again. I really think for the price, a Nikon 28-200 is a good deal - $300 and not much over your limit. Maybe you can even find one slightly used for less.

Exactly right...in that range for an all-arounder you're dangerously teetering on the you get what you paid for threshold.

peestandingup · April 6, 2006

Yeah, the Nikon 28-200mm lens looks good. Many positive reviews online.

Forgive me for being such a dumb noob, but what does the 28 signify? Is that close up distance?? How close/far away can this lens go & still produce good results??

Sorry, im just trying to wrap my head around all this new info. Layman's terms would be greatly appreciated.

jthomas · April 6, 2006

peestandingup wrote:

Yeah, the Nikon 28-200mm lens looks good. Many positive reviews online.

Forgive me for being such a dumb noob, but what does the 28 signify? Is that close up distance?? How close/far away can this lens go & still produce good results??

Sorry, im just trying to wrap my head around all this new info. Layman's terms would be greatly appreciated.

Of course 200/28=7.15, so it's a bit over a 7x zoom.

At 28mm you have a moderately wide angle field of view: about 46 degrees horizontal angle of view.

At 200mm you have a moderate telephoto: about 7 degrees horizontal angle of view.

For macro work, you can add a Canon 500D close-up attachment that screws onto the lens like a filter. It would cost less than $100.

I recommend the Nikkor 28-200G. I have one along with the 18-200VR, and the 28-200 is quite an o.k. lens and much smaller/lighter than the 18-200VR.

cletus · April 6, 2006

peestandingup wrote:

True. I cant see me paying $800 for a lens right now to go on a $400 body. I wanna take it slow for now.

I tend to take the opposite view. I'd rather put my money into glass than into the body. Especially if I'm shopping for lens that I'm going to use a lot.

pathfinder · April 6, 2006

Cletus - everyone wants to find an inexpensive 10-1 zoom that will do everything. Travel zooms I call them. Lots of zoom, very small apertures, usually - typically f4 or even f6.3 at the long end.

Later when they get to examing their images, it gradually dawns on them that they are not as sharp as other images they have seen shot with small range zooms or primes. Funny how that is. Maybe the Nikon large zooms are better, but the laws of optics don't change.

I carried a 28-200mm zoom for a while. I finally realized how bad the chromatic aberration was, and gave it away.

I'm with you, I would rather buy a lesser camera and good glass.

Glass lasts a long time, digital bodies will come and go.

chuckice · April 6, 2006

pathfinder wrote:

Cletus - everyone wants to find an inexpensive 10-1 zoom that will do everything. Travel zooms I call them. Lots of zoom, very small apertures, usually - typically f4 or even f6.3 at the long end.

Later when they get to examing their images, it gradually dawns on them that they are not as sharp as other images they have seen shot with small range zooms or primes. Funny how that is. Maybe the Nikon large zooms are better, but the laws of optics don't change.

I carried a 28-200mm zoom for a while. I finally realized how bad the chromatic aberration was, and gave it away.

I'm with you, I would rather buy a lesser camera and good glass.

Glass lasts a long time, digital bodies will come and go.

I'm all for buying good glass but I disagree in the case where you're a noob and trying to get your arms around the whole thing. Why spend $800 on a lens and you're not sure if the size, weight, range, performance is what you want? When you're still trying to figure out slr lingo it doesn't make sense to dump heavy cash into the game until you're sure you'll even use the thing. Spend as little as possible while maintaining quality...can always dump the 28-200 and not lose alot in the process.

pathfinder · April 6, 2006

I agree - 79.95 in the Canon world will buy a 50mm F1.8. Sharp, easy to use. Probably a similar lens in the Nikon world.

$400 will buy a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di - again sharp, small, light, inexpensive for what you get. And easy to resell, as it is recognized as a very good lens. Price is only the original cost less the final resale value, right? The Tamron probably will only cost about $100-$150 net after disposal.

Like I said, I've been there, done that. I owned a 28-200. I gave it away. Why did I give it away?? No resale value. It cost more than a better lens would have that I could have resold.

But if cost is a primary concern, primes will buy much more quality, than zooms. Trust me here, this is inescapeable facts of optics. Zooms cost more in the long run. Most zooms are usually used at one or two focal lengths anyway - long or short.

Zooms are fun - I own several. But I will part with my zooms before I will part with my primes because image quality is why I bought a DSLR. As I said, lesser camera, better glass - that is my recommendation. Why purchase a camera capable of excellent images, and give it cheap glasses from the discount mall??

If you disagree, that's fine. No problem.

If you remain active in photography we can discuss this topic again in a few years and see if you still disagree with me. That's cool:):

Aloner · April 7, 2006

I also have the D50 and have used the Nikon 28-200. Now I've never used a pro lens on any camera so I don't really have much to compare too. I think the lens is great. Seems sharp enough and focus speed is alright. I've used it for a ton of things including sports, landscape and pretty much everything else. The focus distance isn't great so macro would be hard, but like they said earlier you can get the canon closeup lens (which I haven't used). Also the lens is rear focus, so the front element doesn't spin (which I like).

What ever you get, enjoy it!

LeDude · April 7, 2006

i'm going to recommend reviewing what you intend on doing with your camera in the long term...

if you really have multi-purpose needs now (e.g. some family shots, kids sports events, the occasional special event memories) and don't plan on getting super-serious about any, then a zoom lens like everyone's been talking about makes sense

if, on the other hand, you like the idea of having options because you aren't sure about the many possibilities having a dslr will present, i would offer an alternative approach. get the lens most appropriate for what you are most interested in now. for example, if you know you want to take a lot of portraits in the coming months and just are thinking about sports, etc. later, consider getting a nice portrait fixed lens (e.g. the 85mm nikon 1.8 - he he, like I have, or maybe a 105, though this isn't really necessary with the whole crop factor deal)

you'll have plenty on your hands learning from that one fixed lens and when you are ready to get something new for a different application, like the little league photos, you'll still have a great lens to do portraits... i have two all around lenses (18-70 & 70-300) i almost never use (they came in a 'kit') because I just don't need them for what I am doing... they are nice to have and will still get used, but if I could do it over again I'd have taken a more efficient approach

a lot depends on how serious you think you might get about this d50 of yours and whether, if you do, you'll wind up with a nearly un-used all around lens lying around

good luck,
Rich

ziggy53 · April 7, 2006

I don't think I saw it mentioned here, and I got a chance to use one yesterday, but the Nikon 18mm - 70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED IF AF-S DX is a very nice all-around lens for Nikon digital cameras.

Equivalent to a 28-105mm lens on a full-frame camera, it can function as a landscape lens as well as a portrait lens. It would be great for informal event photography as well. While it's not perfectly sharp wide-open, it seems to be very sharp by f5.6. (Even wide open it's not bad. At the high end of the consumer lenses.) I didn't check it for lens flare, but otherwise contrast and color are sweet.

Autofocus was very good to excellent, and I believe you can override or tweak focus because of the SWM.

The zoom takes a little getting used to, not like other zooms I use, but not bad at all.

Couple this lens with a good flash, the Nikon SB-800 or Sigma 500 Super, and you have a good basic lightweight kit for the D50, that can serve many indoor and outdoor duties.

Good review here:

http://www.bythom.com/1870lens.htm

Adorama has them for $340.

http://www.adorama.com/NK1870DXU.html

B and H has them for the same price, but they also have an imported version for $270.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=324190&is=GREY&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

zigzag · April 7, 2006

I'll second the 18-70 DX. It's an excellent lens, and there are lots of them on the used market right now - I sold mine for $225.

Pathfinder: the Nikon 18-200VR (though perhaps too expensive for peestandingup) is by accounts a very rare bird: a 10X zoom with extremely good optical quality. No, it's not a prime, but sometimes you have to throw old assumptions out the window.

The 28-200 also is known for being a good standard performer as an all-around lens, but on digital it may require you to back up in some instances.

Peestandingup: the "28" in 28-200 is the focal length (millimeters). It's something you'll get used to if you read forums like this often and if you go out and take pictures with your camera. Basically 28 used to be relatively wide angle, but now it takes 18mm to get to what's considered wide. And yes, there's a big difference between 18 and 28.

Hope it helps. Personally, for you I'd recommend the 18-70 (very good optical quality at the cost of zoom range) or 28-200 (better zoom range with still decent quality).

jthomas · April 7, 2006

zigzag wrote:

I'll second the 18-70 DX. It's an excellent lens, and there are lots of them on the used market right now - I sold mine for $225.

You can get one here for $175 nearly new.

peestandingup · April 8, 2006

Thanks everyone for the great advice! I will research all the suggestions & make a decision on what direction I think I wanna go with all this. Im gonna dive in deeper, so I can have a better understanding of what it all means. Thanks again...Kerry

IanZ28 · April 8, 2006

peestandingup wrote:

True. I cant see me paying $800 for a lens right now to go on a $400 body. I wanna take it slow for now.

Im talking cheap cheap, like $100-$200 range, but good quality & an all-around type lens.

you should look at the Nikon 28-105 f3.5-4.5 (3.75x zoom). It's not very wide (42mm equiv. on a film body) but, it's a very good lens that has a very useful and effective 1:2 macro capability. It's sharp wide open with only mild distortion on both ends. Comparing to the super zooms this lens wins in optical quality hands down. They can be found used for decent prices (I think it's almost $400 new).

The only true negative is the not so wide 28mm for the wide end.

the standard P&S has a 3x optical zoom from 36mm - 110mm. All you have to do to get the actual #x rating is divide the larger number by the smaller number.....ie. 17-35 = a 2x zoom. 18-200=11x zoom. Generally speaking the larger the zoom range the lower the image quality from a given lens. So, even though the uber 20x zoom that costs $1000 sounds really cool....it probably doesnt produce great results.

Ian

edit: I just read through the entire post and I am rather surprised no one has mentioned this lens. I have had and sold the 18-70, the 24-85, and the 28-105. The 28-105 was the best of the three without the image quality issues of the other 2. The 18-70 and 24-85 have a very warm tone in my oppinion. Plus they exhibit what is called "Mustache" distortion on the wide end (uncorrectable in post processing). They also have a lower re-sale value. I have moved on to higher quality lenses more specialized for my uses and I still have more lens purchases to go. But, the 28-105 is the only lens that I regret selling. Finally, In the long run you will be much happier with this lens than any super zoom. Even if your kit grows (which it will) this is a lens you can keep due to size, ability, and optical performance.

retro · April 8, 2006

A great walkaround lense would be the Nikkor AF-S 17-55/2,8 G ED, however since it doesnt fit in my tight budget i just ordered the Sigma 17-70/2,8-4,5 DC which seems to be a great lense for a small price.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial] [/FONT]

peestandingup · April 8, 2006

I have found some good deals on the D50s with the kit lenses. Which is better, the [FONT=tahoma,arial]Nikon 18-55mm or the Nikon [/FONT][FONT=tahoma,arial]28-80mm lens?

[/FONT]I assume its the latter??

Harryb · April 9, 2006

peestandingup wrote:

I have found some good deals on the D50s with the kit lenses. Which is better, the [FONT=tahoma,arial]Nikon 18-55mm or the Nikon [/FONT][FONT=tahoma,arial]28-80mm lens?

[/FONT]I assume its the latter??

I would go with the 28-80.

peestandingup · April 10, 2006

Booya!
My Nikon D50 is on its way!! I went with the body + the kit lens (18-55mm) because it was a steal at $460 factory refurbished! I figured I could learn with it & decide where I wanna go from there.

But, this thread has been very helpful & I will refer to it regularly. I do however wanna go ahead & get a macro (close-up) screw on adapter lens for it. I know they're not as good as a "true" macro lens, but I cant afford that right now, maybe later. Are all those adapters pretty much the same??

IanZ28 · April 11, 2006

peestandingup wrote:

My Nikon D50 is on its way!! I went with the body + the kit lens (18-55mm) because it was a steal at $460 factory refurbished! I figured I could learn with it & decide where I wanna go from there.

But, this thread has been very helpful & I will refer to it regularly. I do however wanna go ahead & get a macro (close-up) screw on adapter lens for it. I know they're not as good as a "true" macro lens, but I cant afford that right now, maybe later. Are all those adapters pretty much the same??

the Nikon 28-105 f3.5-4.5 does 1:2 macro and is the best lens around your price point. do your research - go to dpreview.com 's forums for lens information. Since you got the 18-55 you have wide angle if you need it. Start building from here.

chuckice · April 11, 2006

IanZ28 wrote:

the Nikon 28-105 f3.5-4.5 does 1:2 macro and is the best lens around your price point. do your research - go to dpreview.com 's forums for lens information. Since you got the 18-55 you have wide angle if you need it. Start building from here.

I'd go with the Kenko extension tubes to get the macro capability for that 18-55 lens and not spend any more money on lenses until you know what you want and how you prefer to shoot.

ziggy53 · April 11, 2006

peestandingup wrote:

My Nikon D50 is on its way!! I went with the body + the kit lens (18-55mm) because it was a steal at $460 factory refurbished! I figured I could learn with it & decide where I wanna go from there.

But, this thread has been very helpful & I will refer to it regularly. I do however wanna go ahead & get a macro (close-up) screw on adapter lens for it. I know they're not as good as a "true" macro lens, but I cant afford that right now, maybe later. Are all those adapters pretty much the same??

peestandingup,

We just had a discussion about these types of macro/close-up lens attachments.

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=31258

See the references in this part of the thread:

http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=282252&postcount=4

If you use chuckice's advice,

You will gain closer focus with the lens you currently have.
It will also work with (potentially) any lens you purchase.
It will work with macro lenses especially well.
Coupled with a reversal ring gives even more magnification, when you are ready for that.

So I second the recommendation for extension tubes.

However (nothing comes without cost),

It is not the best image quality, especially with all the extension tubes attached. The image edges will suffer.
You do loose significant lens efficiency (smaller effective f stop)
It's a little less handy than a screw-on close-up lens (IMHO)

Knowing all this, I still recommend the extension tubes. (The WaynesThisAndThat link in the references addresses some of these issues with examples.)

Congratulations on the camera. We expect great this from now on, even if it is from, "The Dark Side" of photography.:D

ziggy53

peestandingup · April 11, 2006

ziggy53 wrote:

Congratulations on the camera. We expect great things from now on, even if it is from, "The Dark Side" of photography.:D

Should be getting the camera this Friday. After that, im gonna go at it pretty hard & work to get some stuff ready for a local art exibit. They said they like to see shots that are a break from the norm & "different", so thats what im gonna give them, even if they may turn out to be a little on "the dark side." Muahaha!

Im already using the trial version of Nikon Capture with some D50 RAW files I downloaded online. Seems pretty easy so far, but still allot to learn. But, those macro tubes sound like the way to go, so that will be next.

Thanks friends!!

Good all around lens for Nikon D50?

Comments