Is Nikon 18-55mm kit lens enough?

[nibbo]

Hi everyone, new to this forum so go easy on me!

I have a Nikon D40 with just the standard 18-55mm kit lens at the moment. We're off to WDW in a few weeks time for 3 weeks and I've totally confused myself as to what additional lenses I need. Having read numerous threads on here I've come to the conclusion that my kit lens will be ok for the vast majority of shots but i could do with something a little longer. Now here's the problem i'm now facing...what to get! When I've been before I used a small p&s which was terrible in low light and not enough zoom for some of the shows. I particularly want to get good shots of shows indoors, night parades and fireworks this time. I've narrowed it down to the following and would like some advice as to what would be my best option.
Nikon 55-200VR to partner my existing kit lens.
Nikon 18-70 on it's own.
Nikon 18-135 on its own
Nikon 18-200...would really be stretching the budget
Sigma 18-200 os hsm
Sigma 17-70 hsm...would this be better for low light as it goes down to F2.8?

I don't want to keep swapping lenses all the time but don't mind swapping now and again and I don't want a lens that I have to focus manually so it has to be compatible with my D40.

Any help would be very much appreciated.

Nick

 

[YEKCIM]

That's a pretty good lineup of glass there. I used my D50 and the four lenses I own (see sig below) at WDW in July and was mostly happy with the results. I used the 18-135 and 70-300VR most of the time and most of my better shots came from the latter, but I tend to shoot at longer focal lengths, which may or may not be your cup of tea. The 18-135 is a really good all-around lens, but would be redundant in your case, from 18-55mm. The 55-200VR, at $230 or less, online (shipped) is probably the best bang-for-buck solution to your dilemma, as it would give you more total range for less money than any of the other lenses. The difference between the max aperture on the Sigma (f/2.8 @ 17mm) is only a half stop faster than the f/3.5 max aperture on the 18-55 or 18-135, so I'm not sure you'd gain that much, speed wise, and you'd still be limited on the tele end, something you'd sorely miss at AK, in particular, and probably elsewhere. If you could stretch and get a 70-300VR ($460 online, shipped), you'd be covered from 18mm-300mm with an insignificant (IMO) gap from 55-70mm.

Summarizing, my thoughts would be:

Most range: 18-55 + 70-300VR: $460
Most bang-for-buck: 18-55 + 55-200VR: $230
Best one-lens solution: 18-135 (and maybe sell the 18-55): $270

Use of a tripod will help, too.

~YEKCIM

 

[fan1080]

I have a D40 also. I had the 18-55, 55-200VR and 50 1.8 on our trip in July. It was a good combination, but I found myself changing lenses way too much.

So, my solution was to sell all of them, and buy the 18-200VR. This lens is fantastic and I can't wait to get to WDW with it in Feb. I was short on the fast side so being the crazy man I am I thought it would be nice to have something for low-light (indoor shows especially). So I treated myself to the 70-200VR 2.8. Very pricey, but if I find I don't use it much after we get back I can always sell if for pretty much the same price I paid it for, it holds it's value very nice.

I would suggest the 18-200 because you will not have to change lenses as much. And look for something in the low light range to compliment it. Sigma has a few that are supposed to be good.

 

[nibbo]

Thanks for the advise.
I'd love to be in the position to be able to buy the 18-200VR and a low light lens but unfortunately our trip to WDW from the UK has used up most of our money.
Would any lens at f3.5, whether it has VR or not, be able to take decent shots at low light in the shows and night time parades? I can't see VR being much of a help in these situations as to go down to such a slow shutter speed will just show movement from the performers. I'm finding the 18-55 kit lens is just too short and was hoping that the Sigma 17-70 would be an improvement in length, lowlight speed (f2.8 at 17mm) and general image quality. From pictures i've seen taken with the Sigma 17-70, it is an extrememly sharp lens..better than the Nikon 18-70.
If I was going to get a superzoom then I'd go for the new Sigma 18-200 os hsm but i'm just worried that it will be of little use in the low light.

Nick

 

[fan1080]

I'm no pro, but from what I've been able to understand, in order to get decent indoor shots, even a 2.8 will require high ISO and carefully choosing your shots when there is little or no motion. So I suspect 3.5 will not be enough for low-light, unless there is no movement in your subject.

Sigma makes a few nice lenses in the 2.8 range for the D40. I almost bought their 70-200 2.8.

Low light options for the D40 are not the best (unless you have some extra cash), but getting better.

 

[YEKCIM]

I'll chime in again, and say that the difference between f/3.5 and f/2.8 is only a half stop, so improvement would be minimal, IMO. Keep in mind, too, that unless you get a big-bucks lens, the aperture is variable, so the widest aperture is only available at your widest setting (17-18mm). As has been mentioned, in order to really capture decent low-light scenes (nighttime, shows, dark rides, etc) you need a really fast lens (f/1.2-f/1.4-f/1.8) AND high ISO. Even then it may not be enough. Haunted Mansion and Pirates of the Caribbean, for example, are dimly lit and are a challenge even for folks with fast glass. Same goes for Spectromagic. Subject movement, as well as camera movement are working against you in those situations. You may want to think about just relaxing and enjoying the ride/parade and not even fooling with picture taking in those circumstances, and concentrating, instead, on nighttime shots using a tripod or other sturdy support (WDW trash cans work fine, and I have used a lamp post or other vertical support to brace the camera against movement). You can get some wonderful nighttime shots of static subjects with some minimal bracing of the camera. Also, a little blur sometimes makes for an interesting picture. I think you would also find the difference between the 18-55 and 17-70 on the long end to be insignificant. IMO, you'd be better off to add a tele-zoom to your kit than to try to capture a shot in extremely low-light situations.

Anyway, good luck to you. You'll have a blast, regardless.

~Y

 

[OJoyfulOne]

I own a D40x two lens kit. I, too, have been concerned about taking the night shots, mostly of those with movement, with the lenses that I have as they are not very fast lenses, but what you guys have said helps out and makes sense. My only problem is that I'm not able to afford any new lenses. So, I'm just going to make due with the ones that I have and bring my Joby tripod and hope that helps some??

Joy

 

[cryssi]

We took our 18-70 kit and 70-300. While the 70-300 was nice, I think a better bet would have been to procure an 18-135 for those times when you need just a bit of extra reach. I also still want a 50mm/1.8, that might have been nice to have...

 

[handicap18]

Any of the kit lenses are going to give you the same thing. The 18-55, 18-70, 18-135 and 18-200 all have an aperture range that gets smaller the more you zoom in. While f/3.5 would be ok for the shows, the problem you'll encounter is that f/3.5 is only available from 18-21mm or so. Once you get to 22-25mm the f/stop gets smaller. I believe f/3.8 is next. With the 18-55 and 18-70, they max out at f/4.5 at the 55 & 70mm end respectively. The VR on the 18-200 will only be helpfull for subjects that don't move, ie: the Castle, The Hat, SSE.

With the kit lens you'll get some great shots. If budget is an issue I would look at the new 55-200 VR. Its pretty good for its price and the VR will help you in some situations and it will also give you more reach at AK and for some of the other shows around the World, ie: Indiana, Lights Motor Action.

Unfortunately there is no 1 do it all lens. This is why many people will go with 2 lenses or more. Its just a matter of getting the right lens combination for you. Mine is similar to YEKCIM's. Others would prefer a more expensive 17-50 or 24-70mm f/2.8 as a walk around and not worry as much about the long end stuff. Some people perfer a prime lens that is fast, ie: 30mm f/1.4. Some like to shoot at the long end and like the speed so for them a 70-200mm f/2.8.

Everyone has their own idea of the perfect lens setup. Sometimes it takes a while to figure out what works best for your style of shooting.

Just make sure you have fun!

 

[nibbo]

Thanks for all your views. I guess it is all down to everyone's personal opinions and needs but it's good to see what other people use. Tbh, although the 18-200 looked a very attractive option due to convenience, I think separate lenses is the better long term option. I've now ordered the Sigma 17-70 which I know is a good step up in quality from the Nikon 18-55 kit lens and gives me a little extra reach.(should be here today)
We're planning on going to the Florida Mall in Orlando sometime in the first few days of our trip and I'll have a look in Ritz photo store. Depending on whether or not I feel I need it, I might be tempted to buy the Nikon 70-300vr as it is considerably cheaper over there than here in the UK.
I've also bought a tripod which I'll use for fireworks and motionless night shots.
As others have said, i intend to just enjoy the shows as much as possible without having my eye glued to the viewfinder. I found that the very first time I went I didn't see the shows very well as i was spending most of my time looking for photo opportunities and taking the shots. This time I'm going to concentrate on mainly outdoors.
Just over 2 weeks to go now and we can't wait!

Btw....what would be the best option for Discovery Cove camera wise? We're going there on Christmas day and I'm not sure if taking the D40 would be a good idea or not.

Thanks

Nick

 

[handicap18]

Thanks for all your views. I guess it is all down to everyone's personal opinions and needs but it's good to see what other people use. Tbh, although the 18-200 looked a very attractive option due to convenience, I think separate lenses is the better long term option. I've now ordered the Sigma 17-70 which I know is a good step up in quality from the Nikon 18-55 kit lens and gives me a little extra reach.(should be here today)
We're planning on going to the Florida Mall in Orlando sometime in the first few days of our trip and I'll have a look in B&H photo store. Depending on whether or not I feel I need it, I might be tempted to buy the Nikon 70-300vr as it is considerably cheaper over there than here in the UK.
I've also bought a tripod which I'll use for fireworks and motionless night shots.
As others have said, i intend to just enjoy the shows as much as possible without having my eye glued to the viewfinder. I found that the very first time I went I didn't see the shows very well as i was spending most of my time looking for photo opportunities and taking the shots. This time I'm going to concentrate on mainly outdoors.
Just over 2 weeks to go now and we can't wait!

Btw....what would be the best option for Discovery Cove camera wise? We're going there on Christmas day and I'm not sure if taking the D40 would be a good idea or not.

Thanks

Nick

I LOVE this lens. I am very impressed with how sharp it is and the VR is AWESOME.

 

[YEKCIM]

I LOVE this lens. I am very impressed with how sharp it is and the VR is AWESOME.

What he said. Love my 70-300VR. My best WDW shots this past July were from this lens. Here's one of my favorites:

~Y

 

[nibbo]

The Sigma 17-70 arrived and it's a very hefty lens compared to the original Nikon kit lens. I've not tried it out properly yet as the sun hasn't shown its face since i got it and it's been really dull and dreary. First impressions are very promising though. As i said before, i'll see how i get on with it and maybe get the Nikon 70-300mm when I pay a visit to ritz. I can't believe how much cheaper everything is over in the states, we're ripped off totally over here in the UK.