A naive question
 

Okay so I am leaning towards going DSLR, so I am looking at the Nikon D50. No long lenses yet but the camera and I have my choice of two lenses:

W/18-55 F/3.5-4.5G (SD - 799.00
W/NIKKOR 28-80 LENS(SD - 699.99

Why is the 18 -55 more expensive? Is it more desireable for closeups and would it be that much different from the 28*80? Thanks

I think I may have been on here too long today..........
I will have a look at them but when it comes to the range of focal lengths which are described in 35mm terms, you need to take into account the x1.5 magnification effect of the sensor on these.

If you have not used 35mm before to recognise them it would be helpful for you to briefly describe the type of subject you will be shooting.

I have a D100 and 2 lenses in this sort of range
18-35mm f3.5-4.5D ED - gives a wide enough angle for me to get fairly large views in through to the view a fixed lens camera would give. In 35mm terms this would equal a 27mm - 52mm.
28-105mm f3.5-4.5D with Macro setting - gives a view that extends in scope from the lens above through to slight telephoto. In 35mm terms this would equal a 42mm - 157mm with close up facility.

Don

Thanks for this Don. I guess I should have prefaced this request with the statement that for the last 3 years I have been digiscoping and I love it but I am becoming more and more frustrated missing the shots on quick moving birds and of course flight shots. Very little 35mm slr experience behind me. It has all been digital for the last 6 years though I do shoot only in manual modes. I will be also getting a longer lens in the hopefully not to distant future.

Just been to Nikon USA site, should have gone there first before replying.

The 18-55 is a DX lens so no x1.5 factor - that makes this a seriously wide angle through to standard lens. The high price will be down to an ED element and Hybrid aspherical element and the fact that superwides are of more complex construction. Without looking at the results or even through a viewfinder I would not know how well it has been corrected for verticals. At the edge of the frame there is a tendancy for verticals to be bowed out ( barrel distortion ) on less than pro quality lenses.

The other lens you mention is not DX so my previous posts comments apply.

Don

You were replying at the same time as I was on so we missed in the ether.
Now I know where you are coming from I think it would be helpful to understand your budget ( a link to a suitable web site would be helpful ) and what you initially expect to use the camera for.
For birds you are really in the 400mm lens bracket, but if you want to do some general stuff as well that is not a practical option.

Don

LOL, I don't dive into anything. I usually try to get my feet wet first and then wade for quite awhile ;) so that is why I was planning on going ahead and getting the camera with either of the two lens mentioned and just spend time learning the camera and its options. I suspected that I would be going for the 400mm lens before long and hopefully a lens with AF. I suspect that this setup will run me close to 1800 to 2000. At least that's what I am hoping for and I hope you don't tell me I am dreaming with this monetary expectation. The long lens does not specifically have to be nikon.

Don't know prices but this lens 24 - 85 is slightly wider angle faster aperture and probably better built worth a look $100 rebate as well. http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php...productNr=2141

When it comes to the long lens most on the BirdForum seem to favour Sigma. Oddly I was on Andys site this evening admiring the quality of the robbin in his Sigma review. Now that picture is SHARP.

Don

Don, I want to thank you so much for the time you have given me along with your detailed explanations. Copying and printing out all info to take with me when I go shopping. Thanks again.

It is interesting to read this tread as i am looking at getting this camera as my first dslr with a 18-55 mm lens for general use and a 100-300mm lens for aircraft photography.

Just to clarify an earlier point,all Nikon DSLRs use the same physical size sensors so the 1.5x increase in apparent focal length has to be applied to all lenses when comparing them with a 35mm system.

Hi KC

If you are looking for a single Nikkor lens you must check out the new 18-200 VR which should be due in stores anytime now at about the same price you quote for these others. It appear to have width, length and stabilisation + good reviews.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm

I really appreciate all these suggestions. Keep 'em coming ;)

Last night I think my brain was getting a bit frazzled so would leave looking for reviews until today.

The snag is I keep looking at the unaffordable. D2X etc......... :(

Following Nigels posts I checked the Ken Rockwell link but no example pics. I treat a lot of what KR says with a fair degree of scepticism ....... ie If you really care about distortion you ought to shoot a 4x5" view camera as I do,

A statement that I regard that as utter rubbish.

So I was hoping to see sample pics.

Found some here http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/Nikkor_18200VR.shtml and this does look a good lens with no obvious distortion within the boundaries of a digital sensor. It would also give a first level bird lens.

I'll go and look some more info.

Don

Temporary thread hijack
 

KR talks an awful lot of self-contradictory stuff. He also advocates that you "throw away your tripod". Do you think he uses his 4x5" hand held. I posted a thread with a link to KR web site where he spouted his advice. It ran and ran.....

Sorry about that diversion, just saw KR mentioned and had the urge to get something off my chest. You can go back on topic now.

Duncan.

I'm not a fan of Rockwell either, I think he and his site are now exposed for what it is.

OK - I wasn't aware Rockwell had such a poor reputation but my purpose in posting the link was because it was the only review I have seen for the new 18-200 VR Nikkor lens which was launched at the same time as the D200 - other than Nikon's own advertising blurb.

Bottom line therefore is, is my recommendation to KC for an apparently all encompasing first lens for around $700 a valid one.

Well at least it seems as if KR has actually tried this piece of equipment... which is a lot more than can be said of most of his 'reviews'.

Anyhow, it does look a great multi-purpose lens and good to see Nikon using VR cheaply with their new lenses

cheers

I think members should thank you for posting the link if only because they will now not just blindly accept what is being said.

Without you posting the link I may not have gone elsewhere looking for info and found sample pics. The lens does look to be a good one.

Interestingly last night I was in DP review and followed a link to the D200 ' live ' review he is doing. Fairly sure he had said D200 renders D2X obsolete, so before posting the above I clicked on the link you gave to get to his site ( thought I'd wind Andy up ) and my browser crashed. Just gone back to DP Review and the link in that post has now been deleted. ODD!

Don

Bottom line here in the States or at least in my area, this lens hasn't even been shipped to any of the camera stores here yet so will have to wait on this one.:(

Hi Kc, I was chatting a guy with the Nikon and his friend had the 350d Canon , he reconds thats better. I do not Know if its correct as I use a Fuji Baz