Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am a complete novice but my interest with my point and shoot has been increasing greatly over the last year and I am about to purchase my first DSLR.
The first step is complete as I have decided on the Nikon D60. Now for the lens.
The D60 is available in a bundle package that includes an 18-55mm and a 55-200mm lens for roughly $850.00. The 18-55mm seems to get good enough reviews for the price with the biggest flaws being the material and distortion below 24. The 55-200mm seems like a waste of money even with its attractive price from what I have read. Same goes for the 18-200mm.
So, I am considering the 18-70mm and the 70-300mm. They are a little more in price but still very affordable compared to say the 17-55mm and 70-200mm. The only problems is the 18-70mm still gets similar distortion problems below 24 as the 18-55mm according to some of the reviews I have read. So, it is worth the extra $200?
At this point, I mainly enjoy taking pictures of architecture. Including residential, commercial, low rise, mid rise, and high rise from both close up and far away. I also like capturing skylines from as close as possible as well as from greater distances and everything in between.
So, will the lenses above meet my needs as a beginning DSLR user? Also, all the lenses I mentioned above are Nikons. Should I consider another brand even though the body will be a Nikon?
Hey there Nikon guy LOL
I'm a Nikon person, but i shoot mainly people, pets, etc.
For your purposes, have you considered Fisheye lens?? It can be VERY handy in your type of photography. I have 18-200, it is my "walk-around" lens, it fits me well for stuff that i shott just for fun (sweet spot is about 100mm on that lens).
You want to get wide angle lens, i'm not very much familiar with those, as i don't do that kind of stuff.
Do you know what kit lens does D60 comes with? You might want to check that out first, then add more to it.
No, I have not considered a Fisheye lens. Great more research to do. haha. The D60 kit comes with the 18-55mm but the problem from what I have been reading is the distortion on it below 24. It seems that will hurt the quality of the types of pics I enjoy taking the most. It is a very inexpensive lens. I think sold separately it goes for just over $100
I guess I am trying to find out how bad the distortion is on the 18-55 as well as the 18-70 since it keeps coming up in the reviews I have read.
I have the D40x. Basically, the D60 before they decided to call it the D60. Mine came with the same lens you mentioned here. My 55-200mm is also the VR, vibration reduction, and I use it when there is the need. I couldn't justify the $$ for the 18-200mmVR lens. $800.00+ used on ebay. Maybe someday. I bought the 18-135mm as my walking around lens. I found I hardly zoomed out over 135. Your camera actually records the zoom setting in each photograph, if you didn't know this. I shoot architectural subjects and I bought the 12-24mm lens and I love it. It was pricey! $800.00+ used on ebay. Check out the comments on Ken Rockwell's Web Site. I'm a resurrected professional photographer after being out of it for 30+ years. I have a Photo Web Site Here. I choose to stick with Nikon lens. Back in the 60s I worked at a camera shop in Dallas and the 3rd party or after market lens just didn't cut the musterd in clarity and lack of distortion.
Ken Rockwell also prefers the D40 over the D60 (and D40x) - his basis for this opinion is interesting and his advice, if followed, makes for a cheaper camera purchase and allows more money to be put towards a better lens. Read here:
If I had known about Ken's web site before purchasing the D40x, I probably would have gone with the D40. I bought the D40x for the higher pixel count but you know what, almost every photo I have taken I have had to size it down. Not to mention, those 10mega-pixel images can certainly take more time to edit on the computer! But I sure love taking photos with my D40x! The only thing I wish my camera had was the ability to remote control an off camera TTL flash like the D80 (and above) can.
I am a complete novice but my interest with my point and shoot has been increasing greatly over the last year and I am about to purchase my first DSLR.
The first step is complete as I have decided on the Nikon D60. Now for the lens.
The D60 is available in a bundle package that includes an 18-55mm and a 55-200mm lens for roughly $850.00. The 18-55mm seems to get good enough reviews for the price with the biggest flaws being the material and distortion below 24. The 55-200mm seems like a waste of money even with its attractive price from what I have read. Same goes for the 18-200mm.
So, I am considering the 18-70mm and the 70-300mm. They are a little more in price but still very affordable compared to say the 17-55mm and 70-200mm. The only problems is the 18-70mm still gets similar distortion problems below 24 as the 18-55mm according to some of the reviews I have read. So, it is worth the extra $200?
At this point, I mainly enjoy taking pictures of architecture. Including residential, commercial, low rise, mid rise, and high rise from both close up and far away. I also like capturing skylines from as close as possible as well as from greater distances and everything in between.
So, will the lenses above meet my needs as a beginning DSLR user? Also, all the lenses I mentioned above are Nikons. Should I consider another brand even though the body will be a Nikon?
Thanks in advance.
Well, the reasons to get an 18-70/70-300 combo (I'm assuming that you're looking at the VR version of the 70-300) are as follows:
- much better build
- more reach
- better VR on the 70-300 VR compared to the 55-200 VR; also the 70-300 works on FX (or film) as well.
- ring AF-S which offers FTM
I would not consider the 55-200 (either VR or non-VR) a waste of money--by all accounts I've seen (I don't own either), it's a rather remarkable lens for the price, with the only major drawback being its rather poor build.
The 18-70 (and really all of the Nikon 18-xx(x) lenses) are known for rather bad distortion at their wide end. It won't do very well for architecture, unfortunately. The 18-55 is the least bad of the bunch, but it's not great at 18mm, either.
For architecture, you should consider wide angle zooms, such as the Nikon 12-24 (very costly), Sigma 10-20, or 12-24. The Sigma 12-24 is actually an FX lens, so it's rather slow and bulky.
Tokina also make a 11-16 and a 12-24, but Tokina does not build lenses with built-in motors, so they will not AF on a D60. Tamron's newer lenses now sometimes come with a built-in motor, but you should check for that. In any event, I do not believe that they ever made any of their 11-18 with a motor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cityconvo
Thanks for your repsonse ShepsMom.
No, I have not considered a Fisheye lens. Great more research to do. haha. The D60 kit comes with the 18-55mm but the problem from what I have been reading is the distortion on it below 24. It seems that will hurt the quality of the types of pics I enjoy taking the most. It is a very inexpensive lens. I think sold separately it goes for just over $100
I guess I am trying to find out how bad the distortion is on the 18-55 as well as the 18-70 since it keeps coming up in the reviews I have read.
Note that both the Nikon DX fisheye lens (the 10.5mm) and the FX fisheye lens (the 16mm, which is a lot less exciting than the 10.5mm on a D60) will NOT autofocus on a D60 because they lack a built-in motor. You'll have to opt for a Sigma 10mm or 4.5mm to get AF on a D60. However, I'm not quite sure why you're looking at fisheye lenses if your interest is in architecture.
The only lenses that will AF on a D60 are Nikon AF-S lenses, Sigma HSM lenses, and some newer Tamron lenses that will note on the box that they have a built-in motor.
No Tokina lenses and many older Nikon, Sigma, and Tamron lenses will not AF on the D60, even though they might be AF lenses.
Given the low price of an 18-55 (especially when bought with a kit), you might consider just buying it and see how you like it--if you don't like it too much, not much harm done, just buy a Sigma 10-20 (or another wide angle zoom). Also, I believe that the D60 is packaged with the 18-55 VR, so that's definitely a plus over the 18-70.
A final note--buying a D60 will somewhat restrict your lens choices (as I've noted throughout my response). You might also consider a D80 which autofocuses with (virtually) all AF lenses made for Nikon if you plan on adding many more lenses (the D40(x) are limited in the same way as the D60). Realistically, though, most people don't really need (or desire) more than the kit lenses the camera comes with; in that case, the D80 is complete overkill.
You want the best lens you can afford. When it comes down to it you can have the most expensive camera on the planet but if you have a low quality lens your pics will show it. If your just talking about family shots the lens the camera comes with is fine but I assume if your spending the money for a good camera your hoping for abit more than that.
The lens with the whole shooting match in one lens like a 18-200mm, unless you want to spend a ton of money for a good one it's better to start with something like a 18-70mm which gives you a nice wide-angle and normal focal lengths.
Sigma and Tokina make some nice lens but again they make diferent quality of optics just like Nikon and Canon. In general for a good quality 18-70mm lens go for $300-$500. The extra $100 bucks for the kit lens sounds enticing but they are usually low quality lens.
I would not consider the 55-200 (either VR or non-VR) a waste of money--by all accounts I've seen (I don't own either), it's a rather remarkable lens for the price, with the only major drawback being its rather poor build.
You're correct.
The 55-200 VR lens is actually a very good lens optically, for the price (average around $229).
I'm typically a Canon person but use a D40 as a lighter weight carry-around camera, and got the 55-200VR with it. I was very surprised at how good that lens is for the cost. Not perfect of course, but it performs better than my 70-300 I.S. Canon lens which cost twice as much, and is lighter weight. The build quality isn't going to withstand being dropped on concrete or anything but it's not THAT bad.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
