Starting Lens

[b00st4ddicted]

So I have decided to get the D200 instead of the new Olympus E-620. The D200 is only a body, so now I am in the market for a starting lens. I am not looking for a prime for now, but looking for a something that's more of an all around lens. Any suggestions? I am thinking about the 18-135 f/3.5-5.6, but I have no idea if it is worth the money or should I just save up a little bit more and something better. Thanks in advance.

[JimC]

Any lens choice is a compromise in one area or another (focal range from wide to long, sharpness, brightness, chromatic aberrations/purple fringing, distortion, size, weight, cost and more).

Usually, the greater the focal range from wide to long, the more optical compromises you'll have. But, convenience also comes into the equation, as does what you want to shoot more often.

In the Nikon lineup, you may also want to consider the 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G DX and 18-105m f/3.5-5.6G DX (both VR lenses with AF-S). You'll find reviews of them at slrgear.com (and they were using a D200 to test them with, which makes it easier to compare them for your camera).

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/13

You'll find more lens reviews at http://www.photozone.de

None of the above lenses are very bright (more suited for outdoors use in daylight, or indoor use with a flash). But, if you are looking for a general purpose walk around lens with better range than most kit lenses, those would be some to check into.

There are a number of third party lenses available, too. For example, Sigma makes an 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 OS (Optical Stabilization) DC HSM lens. Sigma also makes a 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC (no stablization or HSM), and Nikon has an 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 that's well liked.

If you want even more range from wide to long (keeping optical compromises in mind since these do tend to have more distortion, corner softness, etc.), Nikon makes an 18-200mm VR lens that's well liked, and you may also want to look into Tamron's latest "ultra zoom" type offerings (18-250mm, 18-270mm).

If you want a brighter zoom starting out relatively wide, with f/2.8 available throughout the zoom range, you'll need to go with lenses that have less focal range for best results (Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8, Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8, Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, Tokina 16-50mm f/2.8, etc.).

[b00st4ddicted]

thank you very much for the reply. having 18-200 would be a nice all around lens, but on the other hand I guess I will have to sacrifice quality. Between the sigma and nikon 18-105, which one would be a better choice?

[JimC]

b00st4ddicted wrote:

thank you very much for the reply. having 18-200 would be a nice all around lens, but on the other hand I guess I will have to sacrifice quality.

Well... what you want to shoot comes into equation, too. If you're not close enough (or can't zoom in enough) so that your subject occupies enough of the frame to capture the detail you want, sometimes a lens with more focal range from wide to long is a better choice *if* you are going to limit yourself to one lens. There are always tradeoffs with any solution.

Between the sigma and nikon 18-105, which one would be a better choice?

They both seem to get relatively good reviews for lenses of their type. But, I haven't used either one of them and you may want to see if any of our Nikon shooters respond with comments about them.