JanS
newbie
Reged: 25/11/2008
Posts: 2
|
|
I am new to photography and have a new Nikon D40X which I love and am just about getting to grips with. I have the 18-55mm kit lens, and the f/1.8 50mm prime lens (which I am struggling with as I have to manually focus - I didn't do my research properly before buying that one!) but now feel as though I need a lens with more zoom. I like taking natural candid photos of my kids but if I get too close I get the false cheesy grins - I want to be able to sneak pics of them without them noticing. Also, I like photographing animals/insects etc but they usually end up as dots in the middle of the photo as I can't get close enough to them without scaring them away.
Santa says I can have a new lens for Christmas and I have been looking at the 18-135mm and 18-200mm lenses. There seems to be a huge difference in the price but I don't really understand how they differ in what they can do. Can anyone give me some guidance please? Thank you for your time.
|
Learning
Ethelred the Ill-Named
Reged: 26/09/2006
Posts: 2343
Loc: Nottingham
|
|
Another possibility is to keep the 18-55 and complement it with a 55-200 VR. There is also a none VR version of the 55-200; I suggest that you avoid that version.
As to your original suggestions you might remember that the 18-135 is not a VR lens. The 18-200 is VR and was well thought of after taking into account the very ambitious specification. My own 18-200 has drifted out of adjustment and now front focusses. This is not a problem for me because I have set my D300 to compensate for the error. The D40x does not allow for such compensation. I understand that this fault is more common than it should be.
I guess all that is not very helpful since it raises more questions than it answers. Given that you already have the 18-55 kit lens I think that buying the 55-200 VR is the best option exept that its closest focussing distance is 1.1m and will not be any good for insects.
|
lee74
newbie
Reged: 29/04/2007
Posts: 36
Loc: Yorkshire
|
|
Hello and welcome to the forum,
Have you thought about the 70-300mm VR lens will get you closer still, I am thinking of getting this one next, best to try it out in a shop first to see if you like the feel of it as it weighs a bit!
|
El Sid
Going potty
Reged: 14/04/2003
Posts: 9477
Loc: Sussex-by-the-Sea
|
|
I'd go along with the others and recommend the 55-200 or 70-300 lenses. Generally the greater the zoom range a lens has the more compromised it's design has to be. Modern super-zooms are better than they were years ago but they still aren't quite up to the standards of purely telephoto zooms.
For better close up work you could add a close up filter or buy a set of extension tubes...
--------------------
Nigel
Completely BSRIPN 
ElSid Gallery
A camera in the hand is more fun than one in the cupboard........
|
Learning
Ethelred the Ill-Named
Reged: 26/09/2006
Posts: 2343
Loc: Nottingham
|
|
Quote:
For better close up work you could add a close up filter or buy a set of extension tubes...
The tubes would work well with your 50mm. Many macro photographers prefer to use manual focus even when AF is available. Note however that the working distance might be too small for your rquirements.
|
adetri
journeyman
Reged: 23/04/2006
Posts: 72
|
|
I have not tried an 18-135mm, but have used the 18-200mm for some time now on a D200 and of all my lenses, it is the 18-200mm which is most used. It is so useful and convenient and can produce great images.
The only thing I would consider, is that one D40 it is quite a big lens. I tried it out on my nephew's D40 and it rather took over, making it a little awkward to handle.
Edited by adetri (03/12/2008 23:18)
|
JanS
newbie
Reged: 25/11/2008
Posts: 2
|
|
Thanks for all that help guys - I have now decided against the 18-135 and am veering towards the 55-200 VR, although I am still a bit undecided. One of my reasons for originally considering the 18-200 was that I would then only have to carry one lens around with me, especially while travelling. (I worry that I may miss the killer shot while faffing about changing lenses and am also neurotic about letting dirt in). If I get the 55-200 I would still have to carry the kit lens around as well and would also need to buy a bigger bag. Oh decisions, decisions!
|
Nod
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 08/04/2006
Posts: 4338
Loc: Devon, UK.
|
|
ISTR that the Sigma 18-200OS lens came out top of the group in a test in the not-so-distant past. Might be worth a look and test?
--------------------
MATWSIJ.....
To avoid being offended, please insert apropriate smiley.
|
Learning
Ethelred the Ill-Named
Reged: 26/09/2006
Posts: 2343
Loc: Nottingham
|
|
Does a gap in available focal lengths between 55 and 75 mm matter. This will depend on what you photograph. If the gap doesn't matter then the 75-300VR may be an option.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
