| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Richard Barron
Joined: 09 Jul 2005
Posts: 1053
Location: Byng, OK, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:33 am Post subject: "What's in the Bag?" |
|
|
For anyone interested, I have updated my equipment pages...
http://richardbarron.net/equipment/
-Richard |
|
| Back to top |
|
Redpb
Joined: 19 Dec 2007
Posts: 214
Location: Lehi
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Richard
If I could pick your expertice for a moment...
I just picked up a Nikon D40x and it came with the standard 18-55mm lens. I've been looking at a Nikon 55-200mm VR as the next step up. I'm not doing anything professional, complete amateur stuff. But I would like a decent telephoto lens. Is this a wise decision? Would you suggest something else? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Alex
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2467
Location: SLC, UT
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I heard this is a better lens:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
Redpb
Joined: 19 Dec 2007
Posts: 214
Location: Lehi
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| just because it starts at 18mm? or does it perform better? for the double the cost just to get back to 18mm I'm not that concerned. For performance, I'll reconsider |
|
| Back to top |
|
Alex
Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2467
Location: SLC, UT
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So you don't have to carry two lenses. Ever since I was introduced to wide lenses, it sucks going back to narrower lens. With 18-200 you get the wide angle and the telephoto. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Richard Barron
Joined: 09 Jul 2005
Posts: 1053
Location: Byng, OK, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Redpb wrote: Richard
If I could pick your expertice for a moment...
I just picked up a Nikon D40x and it came with the standard 18-55mm lens. I've been looking at a Nikon 55-200mm VR as the next step up. I'm not doing anything professional, complete amateur stuff. But I would like a decent telephoto lens. Is this a wise decision? Would you suggest something else?
I have a friend in KC who just yesterday read my new equipment pages and got inspired to get an additional lens for her D40X. Like her, you asked, so here goes...
I like the AF-S VR Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED, since saying its name takes longer than actually buying it. ;>) Seriously, I like this lens for that little bit of extra reach that 300mm buys me. It's also definitely built sturdier than the 55-200. My friend Michael has the 70-300 VR, and I have the previous version (which you saw on my pages.)
The 18-200mm seems like it would be a really great travel lens, since it gives you about 90% of the view angles you will need, but since I haven't shot with one, I am inclined to think it might be taken to task in marginal light, like backlit or with point sources in or near the frame.
None of these lenses are sharp wide open, and that means stopping down at least a little - my 70-300mm isn't sharp until about f/6.3 - and that can be a serious consideration. Do you shoot a lot of existing light, marginal illumination, sports at night or in inclement weather? Definitely need more lens.
The 55-200 is really small, and according to my friend in KC feels and balances great on her D40X.
Of course, there's nothing wrong with your D40X that a 400mm f/2.8 won't fix.
-R |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
