What DSLR lens do you prefer?

[Scottl]

I only took out the 70-300 on the safari and when my family was going down splash mountain. It is kind of a pain to switch lenses for one ride. There were plenty of times I wish I had a 100-150 reach and definitely needed an 18. I think it's worth the extra $ to have the VR. My neighbor is going to Disney in 2 weeks and she is buying the 18-200 this week so I'll get to play with it at least before I buy one.
Thanks for commenting.
Scott

 

[Ratpack]

The 18-200 VR is a good lens but since you have the 70-300 already, you can save some money by going with the new 18-135. It is about half the price of the 18-200.

 

[Scottl]

The 18-200 VR is a good lens but since you have the 70-300 already, you can save some money by going with the new 18-135. It is about half the price of the 18-200.

Great recommendation. I've been looking at the lens and actually thinking about getting the D80 which comes with it. Do you think there isn't much benefit between the 135 and 200 range for a carry around lens? Also it isn't VR which I think is beneficial.

 

[Ratpack]

I too would like to have the D80 but my DW would kill me if I asked to upgrade after only a year with the D50. As far as the lens, Tamron has a focal length comparison program that you can play with and the difference from 135 to 200 isn't worth the extra couple hundred dollars in my opinion. Now the VR would be nice, but again, is it worth the extra money? I think I would rather buy the 18-135 and then get another specialty lens for the same price as just one 18-200. But, that is just my opinion.

 

[lap3]

Scott,
If you're looking for a good mid-range lens with VR, I've been using the Nikon 24-120mm VR lens for a few months now and, for me, it's been great. I find it's easier to tote around the parks. I haven't used the 18-200 VR so I don't can't comment on that. Just something to consider...

 

[Scottl]

Scott,
If you're looking for a good mid-range lens with VR, I've been using the Nikon 24-120mm VR lens for a few months now and, for me, it's been great. I find it's easier to tote around the parks. I haven't used the 18-200 VR so I don't can't comment on that. Just something to consider...

Thanks Danny,
I'll check that one out as well.
Scott

 

[handicap18]

Great recommendation. I've been looking at the lens and actually thinking about getting the D80 which comes with it. Do you think there isn't much benefit between the 135 and 200 range for a carry around lens? Also it isn't VR which I think is beneficial.

I've played around with the D80 a bit and it is a great camera. A buddy of mine just upgraded from the D70s. He got the body only as he has plenty of lenses in his bag.

As for the lenses. This is my plan:
I currently have the 18-70mm, a 70-300mm as well as the 50mm f/1.8.
I've preordered the new Nikkor 70-300mm with VR to replace my old 70-300 Quantaray. Next year I'm going to replace the 18-70mm with the 18-135mm. IMO, the VR is great, but not necessarily need with the 18-135. I've found the need for VR more on the longer length like 300mm and for Macro shots that are handheld.

The 18-200mm VR lens retails for $750, but it is VERY hard to find one for that price. The cheepest on ebay is running about $850, but more so closer to $900. Amazon had it in stock the other day at $999 (but I believe they sell it though Cameta Camera).

The 70-300mm with VR is $550 and the 18-135 retails for $400. Totaling just a little more or right around the price for the 18-200 VR. I've read great reviews about the 18-135. I think that for a general purpose walk-around lens that is a great focal length. The new 70-300mm VR also is ED-IF and has AF-S for focusing which should make it better than previous Nikon 70-300 lenses. We'll see for sure in a month.

Taking things 1 step further, in a few years I should be able to have enough saved for the 80-200 f/2.8. This lens runs about $850 or so. Almost $1000 cheeper than the 70-200 f/2.8 with VR. I figure use the 80-200 with a tripod yet still have the VR with the 70-300. For me its a good compromise and a significant savings (if you compare to the 18-200 and 70-200 VR lenses).

Some may say it might be overkill with the number of lenses, but not me. I can find enough different situations to use them all. I'm even thinking of adding a few more 1.8 primes (ie: Sigma 28mm and Nikon 85mm) depending on which direction the kids go with their activities as they get older.

Of couse all this changes if I hit the lottery for the big jackpot, but we'll save that list for another time.

As for the ExposurePlot. I'm having trouble getting a proper analysis. I think I have to many duplicate photos in to many folders. I'll try it again so I can post my findings.

 

[handicap18]

Ok, finally got the album straightend out and the analizer in ExposurePlot to analize correctly.

Here is what I got:

It took from 1392 pictures. I don't recall having that many, I thought it was closer to 1340 so there may be a few duplicates.

Looking at the aperture part of the analisys, 20 pictures were taken with the 50mm f/1.8 (18 at f/1.8 and 2 at f/2.5, hmmm f/2.5, interesting). I thought I used it more. I SHOULD have used it more. For some reason I never thought to use it for the SpectroMagic Parade. It would have made a big difference as I ended up only taking about 5 or 6 pictures of that parade. POTC was closed, so we didn't ride that so I think I just used it on IASM and TGM.

Just a refresher, I used the 18-70mm Nikkor, 70-300mm Quantaray and 50mm f/1.8 Nikkor.

 

[mabas9395]

Some may say it might be overkill with the number of lenses, but not me. I can find enough different situations to use them all. I'm even thinking of adding a few more 1.8 primes (ie: Sigma 28mm and Nikon 85mm) depending on which direction the kids go with their activities as they get older.
QUOTE]

There is no such thing as lens overkill if your new one does something your old ones can't. I've just been converted to the power of primes eventhough I have zooms with the same focal length. I shoot a Canon XT with the kit lens, 50mm f/1.8 and 28mm-135mm IS, but I just got the 85mm f/1.8 a few weeks ago and I cannot believe how great it is, so fast and sharp. Its my new favorite toy. I would use it all the time if I could but its not wide enough. I was warned that once you get a taste of a quality lens its hard to settle for less. It just makes you want more. Now I'm eyeing the 70-200 f/2.8 (non-IS). Do you think my kids would mind going without any Christmas presents so daddy can have a new toy?

 

[Scottl]

My pics of spectro magic were terrible. They were blurry, dark, etc. I would have loved to have the 50mm 1.8 lens, especially because it's only about $100. I have a D50 with an 18-55, 28-80 and 70-300. I am thinking about selling the camera and the lenses and getting the D80 with either the kit lens (18-135) or the body and the 18-200. I like handicap's thought process though. Maybe I'll go down that path.

 

[Master Mason]

Now I'm eyeing the 70-200 f/2.8 (non-IS). Do you think my kids would mind going without any Christmas presents so daddy can have a new toy?

I just got this lens... It is fantastic. I have mostly been using it for football pics, but I can't wait for baseball season to start.

Its a heavy sucker though.

 

[lap3]

I just got this lens... It is fantastic. I have mostly been using it for football pics, but I can't wait for baseball season to start.

Its a heavy sucker though.

I have this lens as well and I love it! Yes, it does have some weight to it but I actually like it as it helps to keep the camera steady when I'm panning. Here's a pic using this lens...

 

[Rob_rebel]

I am also thinking of taking the 28-135IS when I go in the next 18 months. I plan to also bring my 20/2.8 prime for the low light and wide shots. I usually shoot a little tighter, but my next lens I am thinking about is either the 17-40 or the 10-22 (would be a crazy perspective) . I think at Disney, one of the above new lens and the 28-135 would be enough (plus the prime) [3 lens total] I could cover 10 [16 mm on cropped] to 216 [cropped]