Shutterstock Photographer Forum :: View topic - I'm not an expert, so I need your help with lenses...please

climberjak · Joined: 24 Feb 2008 Posts: 52

I'm probably going to get a nikon D60...so should I get the AF-S VR DX 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED OR get the AF-S VR DX 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G & AF-S VR 55–200mm f/4–5.6G IF-ED (all of those are Nikkor lenses, by the way)-------I want to mainly be using it to shoot sports shots and wildlife

So basically what I am asking is whether or not I should get just the one lens or if it is better to have two that add up to the same distance as the first lens.

Thanks for all your help!!!

kenny123 · Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 4:21 pm

AF-S VR DX 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G & AF-S VR 55–200mm f/4–5.6G Regards, Ken

climberjak · Joined: 24 Feb 2008 Posts: 52

if you don't mind me asking, why is it better to get those two?

kenny123 · Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 8:26 pm

vclements · Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 8:59 pm

If you are shooting sports and wildlife you may want to consider a faster lens at the long end.

The 70-200 2.8 VR is great glass if you can find it.
If needed you can add a 2x TC and still be a 400/5.6

If buget is tight take a look at the 80-200 2.8 used.
You can pick one up for around $600.00

I've had both and both are great glass.

jeffbanke · Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 10:07 pm

Don't know anything about the other lenses, but consider this: It is likely that you will eventually end up with a full 35mm sensor camera, if you buy any other lens other than the 70-200 F2.8 VR you will be selling it and buying the 70-200 F2.8 VR later, so buy it now or buy it later! Your choice!

AmeeC · Joined: 22 Mar 2005 Posts: 342

I have the 18-200 VR and I love it. It seems to be built well. It has taken over 50,000 photos without a problem. I also have the Sigma 70-200mm 2.8...I love it, too. I use it more for wildlife than the 18-200, because of the distance and time of day. I use the 18-200 for times when I don't know how close I will be to the subject (in case I may be too close for the 70-200), and it's a great walk-around lens. It's not near as heavy as the 2.8. However, if you are looking for a lens just for wildlife and sports, I would definitely buy a 2.8 lens. Unfortunately many sports are played in the evening when lighting is bad, and you can't depend on wildlife to be out when it's bright either. I like my 2.8 lens so much that I've been looking at 2.8 lenses with longer focal lengths. They get expensive after 200mm....sigh.

BTW-I'm not a fan of teleconverters, but you can use one on the 70-200mm 2.8 and you still have a 140-400mm 5.6.

jps · Joined: 08 Feb 2007 Posts: 4406 Location: Denmark

I have the 18- 200 and I love it.
it is extremely versatile.
And what is important, it can work at close range, which almost makes it a macro lens.
I can handhold it at 1/30- 1/60 at 200 mm
Its reasonable sharp.
Focusing is fast and precise.
I have no major problems with focusing in low light.

I have not had any problems with lack of sharpness, though its told to be soft in the extreme ends.
It has vignetting and purple fringing. But I dont care much, its not a problem.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm
and
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/lens-sharpness.htm

leemills · Joined: 05 Apr 2008 Posts: 28

I have a D300 with a 17-55 2.8, Its a great lens but a bit pricey.

Everyone is recommending the 70-200 2.8, so thats my next lens too. If your shooting wildlife then a telephoto lens like this is a must!!

May I suggest checking out review on sites like fredmiranda http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

Happy Shooting :)