Nikon Users - need lens help

[slk537]

DH just bought me a new Nikon D60 for my birthday and we're having so much fun learning how to use it. It came with the 18-55mm lens, which is grand, but we also want to be able to zoom with the 55-200mm. So today we stopped at a camera store to price them out and were shown another lens. I loved what the salesperson said it would do, but did not feel the love for the salesperson. So I wanted to come here and see if anyone could help.

Then lens is the Tamron AF18-250mm F/3.5-6.3 Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) Macro (can you tell I copy pasted this? ) The main draw behind this is the ability to sort of combine the other two lenses.

My questions:

1. Will this really eliminate us having to switch back and forth between the two Nikon lenses?
2. Is Tamron a good brand, or should we spend the extra to stay with Nikon?
3. Will this be a good "go to" lens on a WDW trip?

Thanks!!

 

[ukcatfan]

Lenses like that are good for convenience, but for better image quality, you should go with the two lens combo. It is tough for one lens to cover that much range without making some sacrifices. Tamron is a good 3rd party brand though. Be aware that a lens like that is also heavier, so walking around WDW could be more tiring on your neck.

 

[AustinTed]

You might also want to check out the Nikon equivalent of that lens...the 18-200mm VR. I have used that lens quite a bit and find it quite good for a superzoom.

This lens is very popular for WDW trips. It will allow you to keep one lens on the camera as long as you don't expect to be doing low light shots in moving rides or of moving performers on dark stages. As noted...generally speaking a two lens solution will offer better quality than a single superzoom. However, convenience is worth something too.

I would tend to go for the Nikon lens over the Tamron...but there are plenty of reviews out there to help make the right choice for you.

 

[RCDisneyFan]

You might also want to check out the Nikon equivalent of that lens...the 18-200mm VR. I have used that lens quite a bit and find it quite good for a superzoom.

Ditto - I leave the 18-200vr on my camera almost all the time... I only use other lenses for special purposes. If you can take RAW pictures with your camera, you can get software to undo the distortions (which are NOT terrible with the Nikon 18-200vr.)

The only note I would say about the Tamron is this: Look for another lens if that one doesn't have some kind of image stabilization. You'll otherwise get very frustrated with blurry pics 100mm+ (unless you use a tripod constantly).

 

[ukcatfan]

If you can take RAW pictures with your camera, you can get software to undo the distortions (which are NOT terrible with the Nikon 18-200vr.)

It is not distortion that you need to worry about that much. It is the resolving power of the lens at long focal lengths. If the details are not captured, there is no software that can add them. It becomes the most evident on the corners at long focal lengths.

I do not hate those types of lenses, but feel like you might as well just use a super zoom p&s if that is all you want out of your DSLR. It would probably be cheaper.

 

[AustinTed]

I do not hate those types of lenses, but feel like you might as well just use a super zoom p&s if that is all you want out of your DSLR. It would probably be cheaper.

The superzooms have their place. Here is one shot with the 18-200mm. Doubt a P&S would do as well.

 

[handicap18]

DH just bought me a new Nikon D60 for my birthday and we're having so much fun learning how to use it. It came with the 18-55mm lens, which is grand, but we also want to be able to zoom with the 55-200mm. So today we stopped at a camera store to price them out and were shown another lens. I loved what the salesperson said it would do, but did not feel the love for the salesperson. So I wanted to come here and see if anyone could help.

Then lens is the Tamron AF18-250mm F/3.5-6.3 Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) Macro (can you tell I copy pasted this? ) The main draw behind this is the ability to sort of combine the other two lenses.

My questions:

1. Will this really eliminate us having to switch back and forth between the two Nikon lenses?
2. Is Tamron a good brand, or should we spend the extra to stay with Nikon?
3. Will this be a good "go to" lens on a WDW trip?
Thanks!!

My answers:
1. Yes.
2. Yes Tamron is a good brand. Some people choose only to go with Nikon lenes, other (like myself) have a mixture of Nikon, Tamron & Sigma lenses.
3. Yes.


Like someone else mentioned, Nikon makes a great 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 ED-IF AF-S VR lens. Its only about $100 or so more than the Tamron you listed. Its made a little better though it doesn't have quite the reach of the Tamron. The Nikon version has been around for a few years so we know what it can do. It has very good image quality and has been used by hundreds of thousands of others. The Tamron is pretty new and we don't know much about it yet. IQ reviews are mixed, though more so pointing towards good IQ.

There are some good reviews over on amazon. Check them out.

 

[ukcatfan]

The superzooms have their place. Here is one shot with the 18-200mm. Doubt a P&S would do as well.

Based on the EXIF, I believe a p&s could have done just as well on that shot. Remember that it is the skills of the photographer that are much more important than the capabilities of a camera. My point was that the vast majority of shots that people can get with a super zoom lens could be captured just as easily on a p&s super zoom camera that is cheaper and smaller. Based on how expensive those lenses are, why not invest in a high quality normal zoom with f/2.8 that will take much better shots and then an average 50-200mm until a nicer one of those can be worked in the budget?

 

[slk537]

Thank you all very much for your feedback - it helps a lot. We went into the camera shop to look at the Nikon 55-200mm VR and the saleperson almost immediately jumped to the $500 and $700 lenses once he realized we were novices. I liked playing around with the lenses and I love the idea of just having one for vacation shots, but I was not thrilled with him and I didn't trust him. He also told us he'd give us a $60 trade in on the 18-55mm that came with the camera and while that might be normal business, (especially after pricing resells online) it felt low to me.

Not to mention, we don't want to give it up!

What we want are sharp, crisp, focused photos. We want to be able to shoot a photo of DS eating his lunch and then look up and get a good shot of EE across the water. If having both means switching lenses, we can definitely do that. We have a point and shoot for convenience, we want the Nikon to start learning to take fantastic photos that go beyond capturing semi fuzzy memories.

We did stop at (going out of business) Circuit City on the way home and found the exact Nikkor 55-200 VR lens there for $120 so we snapped it up. I love the differences between the two we now have, but still wanted to look into the third "do it all" lens for hauling around the parks. (We also bought the SLR accessories kit with the bag and extra battery for $45, so we considered our day quite the success!)

And sitting outside the camera shop, debating buying the Tamron lens, I knew exactly where I wanted to go for guidance. Thank you ALL!

Another question - are their threads on here or websites that help with night shots, specifically fireworks, etc? I have never been able to get good fireworks shots and it is a specific goal of mine for our next trip.

 

[ukcatfan]

Check the "Equipment Recommendations / Photo Techniques" sticky thread at the top of the page.

 

[slk537]

Check the "Equipment Recommendations / Photo Techniques" sticky thread at the top of the page.

Thanks!!!

 

[annnewjerz]

If you are still looking into a "do it all" type of lens for your trip to WDW, I can also recommend the Nikon 18-200 VR. I'm not sure exactly what types of pictures you are looking to take---but here are some that I took with my D60 and 18-200.

If you are looking to travel light and don't want to carry the 18-55, the 55-200 AND a lens for low-light, the 18-200 is a good option...it's heavier than the 18-55, but it is by no means a heavy lens. I have worn it out all day shooting (with my Nikon strap none the less) and haven't had any issue being uncomfortable.

If you want to travel light to WDW and want a wide(ish) lens, a telephoto and one that's good for low lighting inside the rides, I'd get the 18-200 (or Tamron equivalent) and the new 35mm f/1.8 that's being released in March or the 50mm f/1.8 if you can't wait the month to get it.

 

[handicap18]

Another question - are their threads on here or websites that help with night shots, specifically fireworks, etc? I have never been able to get good fireworks shots and it is a specific goal of mine for our next trip.

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1474329

That link should have everything you'll want to know about shooting fireworks, especially for WDW.

Before going there, know this.................... TRIPOD!