Ok, so I got the D40 & 18-55 - what other lenses do I need?

[the Interceptor]

@ mods: if you think this subject doesn't need its own thread, feel free to merge it with my previous one (to be found >here<). I however thought that this wouldn't get much attention there and might help others in the future, so I made a new one.

Anyway ... I got my Nikon D40 a few weeks ago. It works great, and I am very happy with it. So during making loads of pictures, I naturally gathered quite some knowledge about how things mesh together in photography. And one thing you run into while doing that is ... the lens.

Having bought a D40 kit, I got the Nikon AF-S 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 G ED II DX lens with it. It works flawlessly and copes well with the majority of situations, but still, I quickly noticed that I'd need other lenses for some situations. So, I started to read reviews and gather information on what's on the market, how much you have to pay for lenses and so on. I pretty much found out what they do, but I still have one problem: I'm lacking knowledge on which way is the best to go, meaning the question of which lenses I need. Here are some ways to go:

As an addition to my 18-55 lens:

• a Sigma 10-20 wide angle for indoor photography
• a Nikon 55-200 zoom lens with image stabilization

Replacing my 18-55 lens:

• a Sigma 18-55 f/2.8 zoom lens for all purposes (incl. low light situations)
• a Sigma 10-20 wide angle for indoor photography
• a Nikon 55-200 zoom lens with image stabilization

... and another compilation replacing my 18-55:

• a Sigma 18-125 zoom lens for all purposes
• a Sigma 10-20 wide angle for indoor photography

Then, there are other lenses, such as the zooms going up to 300 (everything above is too expensive), single-focal-lenses with a high light throughput and other versions. And I just don't know which is the best way for me. Obviously, I don't want to spend heaps of money, yet, I'm ready so spend a reasonable amount on a good set of lenses. Then, I'd like to do pretty much everything with my cam. But do I need to zoom up to 200? Or is that even not enough? Would a f/2.8 be vital for low-light indoor shots? And do I sacrifice too much picture quality with a cheap 18-125? Or is my thinking just a huge bunch of horse manure?

Can you cracks help me?

[mgkdk]

I use my 18-135 nikon 50% of the time, dunno if that is in your range, but I think it's great

I don't remember if the D40 supported the 50mm f/1.8 nikon, but that's a great cheap lense for low light.

[Solberg]

I think the most lens for the money would be the 18-135. If you get that, you can sell off the kit lens. Also, if you can spend a bit extra, you could get the 18-200 VR which is the best all rounder in my opinion.

[the Interceptor]

If I understood what I read right, the more focal length a lens has, the worse the pictures become, so I'm a little afraid that a 18-200 would be worse than my 18-55 in the specific range. Wouldn't it?

Don't take this the wrong way, I'm not trying to mock anyones ideas, I'm just trying to learn and gather information for taking over the world making good photos.

[Solberg]

There is a good review of the lens here including a video review

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikkor18200mm/

[the Interceptor]

Very interesting read, I'll dig through their reviews. Thanks mate!

[Solberg]

My pleasure

Also, if you want a really cool lens, look at a fisheye, but they are massively expensive for the amount you use them in my opinion.

[the Interceptor]

The Nikon 18-200 seems to be a very good lens. On the other hand, it is pretty steep at 550 Euros. Also, cameralabs says that you get just slightly worse results with the combination of the Nikon 18-55 (I have) and the 55-200, which is much cheaper at just above 200 Euros. Obviously this combination is not as practical, but it generates comparable results for much less money.

[Speedtouch]

^ I'm getting 18-55mm and 70-300mm lenses with my camera (used, so I had no choice). I will have the 18-55mm on most of the time I reckon. If I had the choice I would go with two lenses, because is it really that big a deal to change them over?

[the Interceptor]

Originally Posted by Speedtouch

If I had the choice I would go with two lenses, because is it really that big a deal to change them over?

The problem is that with every change, you'll be shoving a bit of dirt onto your sensor.

[mgkdk]

Originally Posted by Speedtouch

^ I'm getting 18-55mm and 70-300mm lenses with my camera (used, so I had no choice). I will have the 18-55mm on most of the time I reckon. If I had the choice I would go with two lenses, because is it really that big a deal to change them over?

My bf had that combo for a long time, and he was quite annoyed that he had to change all the time and that the 18-55 was too little and the 70-300 too much.

[the Interceptor]

I have no problem with changing the lens once in a while, but thinking back to my short holiday I took loads of pictures at, I would have had very few chances to actually change the lens at all. That said, I might probably go for the 18-200 Nikkor. Yes, it is much more expensive, but it gives me the second generation of the VR image stabilizing (which seems to work very well) for all focal ranges and the opportunity to do everything with one lens. And the comparison of all the Nikkor lenses on cameralabs.com showed that the actual differences in picture quality are only minor.

I'm not so sure at the moment, but the situation seems to develop towards the 18-200, just because it covers 99% of my shooting at a good quality level and avoids trouble like changing lenses all the time. And I know I would be pissed if I miss a shot because I couldn't change the lens in time.

EDIT: nevertheless, I am of course still open for tips and suggestions!

[rootrider]

IMO, keep the 18-55 (which is a surprisingly good lens) and buy 55-200 vr or 70-300 vr. Both are exceptional lenses for their price and will compliment your 18-55 nicely. The 18-135 isn't quite as good as the 18-55 and neither is the 18-200. You do gain a lot more range with both lenses, and vr with the 18-200, but the 18-55 does its job very well. You can easily spend $200'ish on the 55-200 vr and be quite happy. It's a very popular 2nd lens to buy for new slr owners, and for good reason.

[Dr.Kamiya]

Sigma's 18-200 OS HSM is a very nice alternative to the Nikkor 18-200 VR

[the Interceptor]

Originally Posted by rootrider

IMO, keep the 18-55 (which is a surprisingly good lens) and buy 55-200 vr or 70-300 vr. Both are exceptional lenses for their price and will compliment your 18-55 nicely.

You're right, pretty much everybody agrees that the Nikkor 55-200 is the perfect second lens to accompany the 18-55. And it is very cheap indeed...

The problem is that I am a bit shuffeled. For a vacation, I think the 18-200 is the better choice, simply because it covers everything you need to do. However, it is way more expensive, and it seems it does loose some picture quality compared to the 18-55/55-200 couple. The verdict is that the 18-200 is the perfect travel lens, but not the perfect lens. That said, I'm seriously rethinking spending 550 Euros on it.

Originally Posted by Dr.Kamiya

Sigma's 18-200 OS HSM is a very nice alternative to the Nikkor 18-200 VR

The Sigma seems to be worse than the Nikkor, still, it is considerably cheaper (362 Euros).

Hmmm... I think I may stick with picture quality for now, get the 55-200 and buy a 18-200 when I plan the next holiday.

[rootrider]

The best thing about the Sigma 18-200 OS is that it's cheaper than the Nikon 18-200 VR, and it lets other dslr brands get to use the huge range just like Nikon owners . That said, the optics suck by comparison.

To put it bluntly, the Nikon 18-200 VR is arguably the perfect vacation do-it-all lens. It's optics are stunning considering the range and features. However, for the price and compared to other consumer lens options from Nikon, it ends up being overpriced and the optics are just so-so. It's definitely a give-and-take sort of thing. This obviously does not mean that the 18-200 is a bad lens, so if you really want that single do-it-all lens then this is just about your only choice. It does this job very well. Just don't try to compare its optics to other newer Nikon lenses, because, in general, they just won't compare.

[LeVeL]

I'm getting an 18-55 with the kit and then shelling out for a 70-250 IS (I think thats what it is). Its canon, not nikon, but just giving you an idea of what lenses Im getting. 18-55 seems like a decent all-rounder and the telephoto will come in useful for races and such

[Silverstar]

I bought the AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm. I love the lense so far, especially when I went out to the lake, good for mid range zooming. It was a decent price too (got it for $211USD). It is a downfall that I have to switch to the 18-55mm kit lense if I want wide angle shots, but I'll have to live with it.

The AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor 18-200mm looks very nice, but I wouldn't want to spend that much for it. Having to switch lenses for 55mm+ shots is a lot more worth it to me then paying that much to get 18-200mm in one lense.

[mautzel]

Originally Posted by mgkdk

I use my 18-135 nikon 50% of the time, dunno if that is in your range, but I think it's great

Second that, I think it offers great value for what it costs and would buy it again.

[the Interceptor]

Originally Posted by Silverstar