Which lense for Nikon D50?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Diatribe, Oct 6, 2006.

  1. Diatribe macrumors 601

    Diatribe

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2004
    Location:
    Back in the motherland
    #1
    I am going to buy a Nikon D50 this weekend and I am kind of torn between the lenses to get. I can pretty much for the same price ($50 difference) get either the Nikkor 18-135mm lens or the kit with the 18-55mm / 55-200mm.
    The first would have the advantage of not needing to carry around two lenses all the time but the range is a bit limited then. Any suggestions?
     
  2. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #2
    Everyone just starting out things they need a long telephoto lens. You do only in some special circumstances. You are always better off using your feet and getting closer unless there is some physical barrier like a rail, cliff or water.
    The 18-135 is a better quality lens then the others (AF-S with instant manual focus override and a big feature -Non-Rotating front element so you can ue a polarizing filter) Later if youfind you are missing many shots buy a telephoto lens, possably a better quality one than the 55-200 But wait untill you are noticing that you are missing shots. Who knows you may find you need an SB600 strobe more than the llens. Or maybe you find you realy want the 50mm f/1,4 lens for "peole pictures. You will know more after 2,000 exposures.
     
  3. Spectrum macrumors 6502a

    Spectrum

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #3
    I'd also consider the 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5

    It is a really good start-up lens. I have had this for over a year on my D70, and not yet got a tele lens. Nor have I particularly missed one. It takes stunningly sharp photos, albeit the wide end being a little bit distorted... but it really doesn't bother me.

    Disclamier: I now have the 70-300m VR lens on order... please hurry up Nikon! :)
     
  4. Diatribe thread starter macrumors 601

    Diatribe

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2004
    Location:
    Back in the motherland
    #4
    Thanks for the answers. So I could basically even get by with the standard 18-55mm lens? I might consider the 18-70mm lens as I could get that pretty cheap too at about $110 less than the 135mm. These are the possibilities:

    D50 with
    18-55mm: $555
    18-55/55-200mm: $689
    18-70mm: $699
    18-135mm: $810

    So is there really a big difference or should I just get either the 55 or the 70mm lens and get a dedicated tele lens later? Looking at the prices though, it wouldn't really make sense to get the 70mm lens as it would be about the same price as the kit with the two lenses. So it is the 55mm lens with a another tele lens later if I need it or what should I do?
    Thanks again for all the answers. :)

    Edit: Prices have changed a bit so the 135mm is a lot more expensive now than the kit.
     
  5. cube macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #5
    Maybe you want to get the AF-S DX VR 18-200mm F/3.5-5.6G IF ED later.
     
  6. b0tt094 macrumors 6502

    b0tt094

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    #6
    wht website is this, Im debating between nikon d50 and cannon rebel xti
     
  7. shieldyoureyes macrumors 6502

    shieldyoureyes

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Location:
    Uppsala, Sweden
    #7
    I would recomend getting either the 18-70, or the 135. I got the 18-70 used for $200 when I bought my D50 body, and love it, although I do wish it was a bit faster. IMHO, the 18-70 feels much more solid than the 18-55, and you will actually really appreciate the autofocus override and the non-rotating front element. After using the "cheap" zoom lens, you can see what you are missing and then go from there.
     
  8. eyup macrumors regular

    eyup

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #8
    I suggest the 18-200mm VR Nikon - the only lens you'll ever need. If you've got the dosh that is. it's so damn versatile.
     
  9. shieldyoureyes macrumors 6502

    shieldyoureyes

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Location:
    Uppsala, Sweden
    #9
    It would also cost ~$800-$900 just for the lens...
     
  10. beavo451 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    #10
    So? If you want something, then you have to pay for it. Good lenses are expensive. Better lenses are more expensive. Great lenses are small fortunes.
     
  11. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #11
    It has a wide range of focal lengths but it is slow at f/5.6 So it may not be the only lens you need if you want to shoot at f/1.4 or f/2.8. here is also something to be said about small. If all you have is this one huge lens you may not want to always take your camera along.

    I have the 18-70 and use it for 80% of my photos
     
  12. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #12
    It's probably a bit late for the original poster, but when comparing Nikon's lenses, there are a few useful sites:

    Thom Hogan's site is really good as a starter, and his reviews are normally spot on if he's looked at a particular lens:

    http://www.bythom.com/nikon.htm

    Bjorn Rorslett's site is also very reliable:

    http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html then follow the lenses link on the side.

    Finally, www.nikonians.org has good reviews and the forum there for Nikkor Lenses is very good.
     
  13. Diatribe thread starter macrumors 601

    Diatribe

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2004
    Location:
    Back in the motherland
    #13

    Thanks a lot. I'll check them out. :)
     
  14. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #14
    No problem, Thom doesn't like the 18-55- and he's not one of us "go get the $1100 lens" folks.

    Paul
     
  15. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #15
    Yeah, the 18-200 mm is the only lens you'll ever need if you only plan on taking snapshots and don't plan on taking photos in less than stellar situations.

    And similar to what ChrisA said, I use a 24-70 mm f/2.8 for around 95% of all my photos because sometimes I can't be bothered to switch lenses, not unless the specific reason I'm going out is to take photographs with my DSLR. If I'm out and happen to bring my DSLR, my Sigma 24-70 mm f/2.8 Macro never leaves the camera. I like this more than the 18-70 mm because I like my lenses fast, and at constant aperture if possible.

    If I were you, I'd get the 18-135 mm for the versatility while still getting good optical quality (well probably. I haven't seen a review of that lens).
     
  16. Diatribe thread starter macrumors 601

    Diatribe

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2004
    Location:
    Back in the motherland
    #16
    They both really seem to like the 18-70mm one. I think I am going to get that one. It is a nice compromise between price and quality I think.
     
  17. Spectrum macrumors 6502a

    Spectrum

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #17
    If you do, I don't think you'll be disappointed. However, like others have said, the 18-70 does have its limitations, so don't expect miracles!

    For example, if you are upgrading from a consumer P&S superzoom, you may severely miss the range. It also isn't the best in low light. But then with the D50 you can shoot at ISO800-1600 to pick your shutter speed up in low light, and get results that would be next to impossible (noise-wise) with even the best P&Ss. And then there is also the satisfaction of the camera actually taking the shot when you press the shutter - this kept bringing a smile to my face for months!

    I ended up pairing my 18-70 with a fast wide-angle from Sigma for indoor available light shots (Nikon doesn't have anything at the moment).

    If low-light portraits (need a short telephoto lens) end up being your cup of tea, you can't go wrong with either the Nikon 50/1.8 for 100 bucks, or its slightly faster cousin, the 50/1.4 for $250.

    The best thing about a "kit" lens like the 18-70 is that it allows you to figure out your preferred shooting style without shelling out a huge amount of money in the beginning.

    You may find you just want to take snapshots, in which case, this is the only ever lens you'll need. But if you get into it, you will start to notice where it is that you are being limited by your gear.

    This could push you towards low light prime lenses, wide angle zooms, or fast telephoto lenses for sports/birding. But even then, I bet for everyday use, the 18-70 will stay on your camera the most.

    Good luck, and enjoy!
     
  18. Diatribe thread starter macrumors 601

    Diatribe

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2004
    Location:
    Back in the motherland
    #18
    Thanks again so much for all the replies. I just ordered the D50 with the 18-70 lens. It will be here this week, so I am pretty excited. I'll let you guys know how it goes. :)
     
  19. Clix Pix macrumors demi-goddess

    Clix Pix

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Location:
    8 miles from the Apple Store at Tysons (VA)
    #19
    Unfortunately Nikon discontinued their excellent 28mm f/1.4, but with persistence one can round one of those up -- it's a terrific lens and worth the effort to find. A lot of people are happy with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, too, though.

    Definitely the 50 mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 should be in your camera bag! These are both excellent lenses for using in low light, and are nice for head-and-shoulders portraits and such.

    Another nice and inexpensive lens is the underrated 35mm f/2, which is small and unobtrusive and great for shooting in low light (not as good as an f/1.4 or f/1.8, of course, but useable in many situations). It's about the equivalent of the so called "normal" 50mm on a full-frame 35mm camera. It is a very handy lens and works quite nicely with the small D50.
     
  20. jamesW135 macrumors 6502a

    jamesW135

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2005
    #20
    If you really only want one lens it's probably best to get a good zoom at least 28-70mm But more is allways better.
     
  21. Diatribe thread starter macrumors 601

    Diatribe

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2004
    Location:
    Back in the motherland
    #21
    Just got the cam yesterday and I must say it is just awesome. Really nice pictures and just a lot of fun.
    I'll have to send it back though I think, when I shake it a bit it a small part seems to be moving inside. Something is loose in there and makes a sound when the camera is moved, I suppose this is not normal so I guess I'll have to send it back for a new one... :(
     
  22. beavo451 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    #22
    This is normal!
    It is the camera orientation sensor.
     
  23. Diatribe thread starter macrumors 601

    Diatribe

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2004
    Location:
    Back in the motherland
    #23
    Thank you, I just saw that on another forum. I was freaking out there for a second. :p Should mention that in the manual for the uninformed public. :D
    Thanks again though. :)
     
  24. Spectrum macrumors 6502a

    Spectrum

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #24
    Ha ha!

    My D70 has always done this, but I had no idea why! :D

    Enjoy your cam. It's a great combo.
     

Share This Page