joining the D300 club...

[cryssi]

We are upgrading!

Should arrive this week...we have ordered the D300 with 18-135mm. woo hoo!

 

[Gdad]

Congratulations- I'm sure you will love it.

What are you upgrading from?

 

[cryssi]

Thanks! We are upgrading from the D200...lol

 

[handicap18]

SWEET!! I'm hoping to get there one day myself.

 

[Furgus]

Congrats! I so want a D300 it hurts....lucky!

 

[TinksDH]

Congrats! Looking to do the same as you. Currently have a 2+ year old D50 could really use the expanded ISO and better image tracking...

 

[cryssi]

Thanks you guys...we were extra-motivated b/c we had a buyer for our D200...

oh and I forgot to add that we threw the 50mm/1.8 in our b&h order b/c hey, what's another $100 so I will finally have one! woo hoo! lol

 

[AZ JazzyJ]

You are going to love the D300. I didn't think there would be much difference between the D200 and the D300 but I have quickly fallen in love with the metering system of the D300. I took it out last week to a downtown sculpture exhibit. It was the first time with the camera and the new 18-200mm lens. I really didn't think I would like that lens as I just love my 17-55mm/f2.8 but after walking around shooting a few shots I was surprised. The lens is pretty nice. I may actually leave it on the D300 when I can only take one lens with me. I thought I would miss the speed of the 17-55mm but with the noise reduction of the D300 at higher ISO settings, I didn't really find it to be a problem.

 

[cryssi]

Jeff, your lens post reminds me that I wanted to ask you guys what you thought of this...

We currently have the 18-70 and the 70-300. We've ordered the new body with the 18-135. DH thinks that we don't need the 18-135 b/c we will have overlap with the 70-300. Which is a better lens? Either the 18-70 or 18-135 will go with the D200...

 

[TinksDH]

There are some folks who claim that the 18-70 is better than the 18-135, and there are some folks who claim that the 18-135 is better than the 18-70. I guess the 18-70 IS slightly faster as it only goes to f/4.5 while the 18-135 goes to f/5.6. And I believe the 18-70 has less distortion at the wide end than the 18-135. However, I do not think that either one is conclusively better than the other, so what will matter more is your shooting style IMHO.

I had the same set-up as you do now - the 18-70 and a 70-300. I figured I had the whole range covered. But after shooting for a while I found that I was constantly swapping between the two, and what I REALLY needed was a mid-range zoom. So I got the 24-120 VR and found that focal length range to be much more to my liking. If the 18-135 was available at the time, I may have gotten that instead, but it wasn't. The 18-200 WAS, but it was still in high demand and going for $900 - $1000. The 24-120 was softer than the 18-70, but the VR and focal range made up for the softness (to me anyhow).

I'd go with the 18-135 and 70-300 for the D300, and let the 18-70 go with the D200, as I believe that the overlap is more of an advantage rather than a disadvantage. When I am in "Disney mode", I don't have the time to swap lenses like I would like. But that's just me...

 

[YEKCIM]

I have the 18-135 and 70-300vr and have to agree with TinksDH that the overlap is nice. However, let me add that I'm having some thoughts about selling the 10-20 and maybe the 18-135 to finance one of the new 16-85vr's. Just in the scheming stage right now, but definite possibility. The 18-135 *is* a very sharp lens that covers a very useful range and it is more likely that I will keep it than sell it.

Congrats, too, btw, on the D300; from all accounts, it is a superb camera.

~Ed

PS: Jeff (Jazzy, not Gdad), don't you need to update the camera in your sig?????

 

[cryssi]

Thanks...I told him that we'd probably want that extra reach in one lens just because. Plus I've been wanting the 18-135 ever since I saw Ed's pics last year...

He, of course, likes hard-core review sites to tell him that's the case, so if anyone has a link to a review site that will say keep the 18-135, it would be much appreciated...

 

[YEKCIM]

... if anyone has a link to a review site that will say keep the 18-135, it would be much appreciated...

Here's one. Keep in mind, it *is* a consumer lens and not pro glass. From my perspective, the extra reach of the 18-135 would trump the 18-70.

~Ed

 

[cryssi]

Here's one. Keep in mind, it *is* a consumer lens and not pro glass. From my perspective, the extra reach of the 18-135 would trump the 18-70.

~Ed

LOL, thanks I'll send it over to him...

 

[TinksDH]

LOL, thanks I'll send it over to him...

Here's one. Keep in mind, it *is* a consumer lens and not pro glass. From my perspective, the extra reach of the 18-135 would trump the 18-70.

~Ed

I'd have a tough time distinguishing between the 18-70 and 18-135 on image quality alone. They both are, after all, consumer lenses (not that there's anything wrong with that - that's all I own at the moment!). I think the bigger determinant would be the reach that you want. The 18-70 was Nikon's first foray into DX lenses I believe.

Here is a review of each, both done by photozone.de:

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-nikon--nikkor-aps-c/235-nikkor-af-s-18-70mm-f35-45-g-if-ed-dx-review--test-report

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/46-nikon--nikkor-aps-c/241-nikkor-af-s-18-135mm-f35-56-g-if-ed-dx-review--test-report

They scored pretty much the same, although the 18-135 got dinged a little on mechanical quality due to its plastic lens mount.

 

[TinksDH]

I have the 18-135 and 70-300vr and have to agree with TinksDH that the overlap is nice. However, let me add that I'm having some thoughts about selling the 10-20 and maybe the 18-135 to finance one of the new 16-85vr's. Just in the scheming stage right now, but definite possibility. The 18-135 *is* a very sharp lens that covers a very useful range and it is more likely that I will keep it than sell it.

Congrats, too, btw, on the D300; from all accounts, it is a superb camera.

~Ed

PS: Jeff (Jazzy, not Gdad), don't you need to update the camera in your sig?????

Wow! I too have the 10-20 and would be hard-pressed to sell it. Although the 16-85 is a great focal length range (basically the digital equivilant of the 24-120 I had) I don't know if I could give up the 10-16mm range you'd be losing. I never thought I'd say that until getting the 10-20 and shooting with it, but once I got it I was amazed at what kind of images I was able to get at the ultra-wide angles.

If you're not getting any use out of the 10-20 however, that would be the smart thing to do. I do admit that the VR in the 16-85 would make it attractive versus the 18-135.

 

[YEKCIM]

Wow! I too have the 10-20 and would be hard-pressed to sell it. Although the 16-85 is a great focal length range (basically the digital equivilant of the 24-120 I had) I don't know if I could give up the 10-16mm range you'd be losing. I never thought I'd say that until getting the 10-20 and shooting with it, but once I got it I was amazed at what kind of images I was able to get at the ultra-wide angles.

If you're not getting any use out of the 10-20 however, that would be the smart thing to do. I do admit that the VR in the 16-85 would make it attractive versus the 18-135.

I bought the 10-20 primarily due to a once a year need to photograph groups at my company's annual meeting. I used a 24mm in film days so the 10-15mm range is a little overkill. The image quality is fine; I just have been underwhelmed by the shots I've taken at extreme w/a (~10mm). The only such shot that I really like is this one from ASMovies food court:

The "problem" is not the lens; it's the photographer. The 16-85vr would give me a total coverage of 24-450mm equivalent in two VR lenses, which would lighten my load considerably and would cover most any focal length I'd be likely to want/need. The new lens, at $600, is still a bit more than I want to pay, so I'll bide my time until the price comes down some.

~Ed

 

[handicap18]

Jeff, your lens post reminds me that I wanted to ask you guys what you thought of this...

We currently have the 18-70 and the 70-300. We've ordered the new body with the 18-135. DH thinks that we don't need the 18-135 b/c we will have overlap with the 70-300. Which is a better lens? Either the 18-70 or 18-135 will go with the D200...

Here's my story... When I got my D50 2+ years ago I also bought the 18-70. I already had a older Quantaray 70-300 so with that I had your focal range in 2 lenses. Eventually I upgraded the 70-300 to the VR lens.

After a year of using the 18-70 I realizied that the focal length range wasn't good enough for me. I also thought my copy was on the soft side. Then Nikon came out with the 18-135 (before that I had considered switching to the Sigma 18-125mm). The 18-200mm, for me, was/is to much money. Though I would definately get it if I could swing it (I love using VR lenses). Another member her on the Dis Photo Board upgraded to the 18-200 from the 18-135, so I was able to buy her copy. I love it. I find it sharper than the 18-70 and I really like the focal length range. I don't find myself needing to swap lenses nearly as often. I like having the overlap from 70-135mm.

I like YEKCIM's idea of switching to the 16-85mm VR. I do find myself using the longer end of the 18-135 pretty often, yet I also use the wide end a lot. For me I don't think the extra 2mm (4mm field of view with the crop body) is worth losing the 50mm length on the long end. But at the current cost of the 16-85, I'd rather spend the $100 or so more and get the 18-200 VR.

I still have the 18-70mm. I keep it as a backup. Unfortunately I have had to use it as a backup after my incident with the 18-135mm at Disney this past Dec. I dropped the camera. It fell lens first onto the ceramic tile floor of the lobby at Port Orleans: Riverside. 4 days later the front lens element fell off while I was switching lenses at EPCOT. Only cost $112 to fix. DOH!!

 

[cryssi]

DH was reading reviews and is concerned that the 18-135 will be too sharp...?

I told him to just try out both and keep the one he likes best, then...I will, of course, keep you all updated...lol

 

[YEKCIM]

DH was reading reviews and is concerned that the 18-135 will be too sharp...?

First time I've ever heard THAT one!

~Ed