Do I really need the lens kits on a D80?

[Chaotic42]

I've been using my trusty Canon A620 for a few years, and it has served me well. I really enjoy photography and I think that I've done just about everything that I can with it. I'm ready move up.

I notice that there are the following packages available out there:

D80 Body Only - $730

D80 with 18-55mm ED II AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens - $869

D80 with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX VR Nikkor Zoom Lens - $879

D80 with 18-135mm AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor Lens - $1015

I'm torn about what to get. Unfortunately I like to take pictures of everything. My dogs, the beach, my flowers, macro shots... I'm all over the place. It seems like the 135 mm lens would be more versatile, but how easy is it to just get by with the camera body? Will not having the lens destroy any hope I have at taking great pictures of everything?

I really appreciate any advice you all can give. Thanks! :beer:

**Update 7/31**

I ended up getting:
-Refurbed D80
-Tamron 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical Autofocus Lens for Nikon
-Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD Macro Autofocus Lens for Nikon
-Nikon SLR System Case
-16GB SDHC

It was $900 shipped. That's a lot, but I've been wanting a new camera for a long time and my computer upgrading days are over.

 

[jpeyton]

Don't buy a D80 now when the replacement is just around the corner at Photokina.

You *need* a lens of some kind with any DSLR. Yes you can buy it body-only, but you will need a lens to operate the camera.

The 18-55mm is a great general purpose walkaround lens; the 18-135mm gives you a lot more reach.

What is your budget?

 

[dug777]

I love my D80, and I love my 18-135mm :thumbsup:

The lens is insanely flexible and arguably the perfect everyday/travel lens at that price point, the range means you've always got the right lens on your camera, and I've produced some fantastic results with it.

It's light, it's reasonably robust and well-built, and the AF-S is very accurate, quick and silent.

It's saved me spending a fortune on lenses because I've had something that does relatively wide angle to medium telephoto in one convenient package, and while I'm sure faster/better glass through the range would produce marginally better shots, it wouldn't be groundbreaking for the all purpose shooting I do.

If you're planning on doing lots of indoor work in dim lighting then it's not ideal (I have to use ISO 800 or 1000 at plays, which looks fine to me, but would be nice to be able to get away with less), you'll want something f2.8 or faster and probably VR.

Some samples for you that I've taken, which should give you an idea of how versatile it is:

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/dug777/AnythingGoes.JPG

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/dug777/Flower1.JPG

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/d.../FrontVerandahView.jpg

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/dug777/Jetty.JPG

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/dug777/Primary.JPG

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/dug777/StirlingRanges1.JPG

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/dug777/Sunrise.JPG

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/dug777/SanfordRock.JPG

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/dug777/Cott.JPG

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/dug777/Dalyellup.JPG

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Don't buy a D80 now when the replacement is just around the corner at Photokina.

You *need* a lens of some kind with any DSLR. Yes you can buy it body-only, but you will need a lens to operate the camera.

The 18-55mm is a great general purpose walkaround lens; the 18-135mm gives you a lot more reach.

What is your budget?

Eh, I'd like to keep it under $1000 if possible, but I wouldn't have a problem with going a bit over if it would really make a difference.

Dug: Unfortunately for some reason I haven't been able to access bbzzdd for more than a year.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Don't buy a D80 now when the replacement is just around the corner at Photokina.

You *need* a lens of some kind with any DSLR. Yes you can buy it body-only, but you will need a lens to operate the camera.

The 18-55mm is a great general purpose walkaround lens; the 18-135mm gives you a lot more reach.

What is your budget?

Eh, I'd like to keep it under $1000 if possible, but I wouldn't have a problem with going a bit over if it would really make a difference.

Dug: Unfortunately for some reason I haven't been able to access bbzzdd for more than a year.

Have you tried clearing your cookies? From another computer? Using another browser?

I'm blowing my own trumpet, but I think you'd enjoy them a lot.

 

[jpeyton]

Take my word for it, Dug's pics are very nice.

If you do want to get a D80, which is still a fantastic camera, go used. A used D80 body in great condition goes for around $550 these days.

 

[helpme]

If you don't have any existing lenses, you're going to need at least one... It sounds like you're asking if you can just buy the body without a lens?

I have Canon stuff, so I can't comment on the packaged lenses you listed. However, Nikon does have an 18-200mm that covers a huge range, so you can take pictures of all the things you listed.

Edit, I'm slow, see previous posters.

 

[virtuamike]

You can get a used 18-70/3.5-4.5 for under $200. I'd rather shoot with that than any of the lenses you have listed.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: virtuamike
You can get a used 18-70/3.5-4.5 for under $200. I'd rather shoot with that than any of the lenses you have listed.

I suspect that optically only the most dedicated pixel peeper could tell the difference between them in real world shooting conditions outside the lab between 18-70mm, and you get an very useful extra 65mm of range with the 18-135mm, as well as better magnification ratio for close-up

 

[ivan2]

Nikon's kit lenses are very good. However D80 is a bit long in the tooth though, I concur with jpeyton that used market is where you should be looking at for a D80. eBay's 25% off from MSN will get you a pretty good deal, got my 30D there and loved it.

 

[ghostman]

Originally posted by: dug777
http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/dug777/Sunrise.JPG

There were several outstanding photos there, but whoa! This shot is amazing. Just curious, any type of filters and/or post-processing done on it?

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: dug777

Have you tried clearing your cookies? From another computer? Using another browser?

I'm blowing my own trumpet, but I think you'd enjoy them a lot.

Heh, yeah, I've tried different computers, browsers, and ISPs. I just moved here from about 40 miles away with a different ISP and I couldn't get to it there either. What's its IP address?

Thanks for the replies, everyone. I'll have to see if I can fish out a good deal. I am, of course, very open to other cameras, I've just heard such good things about the Nikons. I'm going to get to play with my uncle's D2x tomorrow.

 

[Chaotic42]

Hmm... I'm looking at this D60 now. That would seem to be a better deal. I could get it and start collecting lenses, then upgrade to another Nikon later, but keep the lenses, correct?

 

[soydios]

Originally posted by: ivan2
Nikon's kit lenses are very good. However D80 is a bit long in the tooth though, I concur with jpeyton that used market is where you should be looking at for a D80.

QFT. my thoughts exactly. And you need to have a lens to work with an SLR. Nikon's kit lenses are pretty good.

Everyone is hoping that a D90 or other replacement for the D80 will be announced at Photokina in mid/late September. Nobody knows for sure though. Maybe Nikon will even introduce an 18-135mm AF-S VR with the D90, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.

If a D90 is announced and is what I expect/hope it to be, I'll be first in line. A D300 would be like a dream, but I can't justify spending that much for the amateur photography that I do. So, hopefully the D90 will have downgrades of all the important bits from the D300, such as: 12MP 12-bit CMOS sensor, VGA rear LCD, D200 AF unit, Live View, 5 FPS, etc.

 

[soydios]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
Hmm... I'm looking at this D60 now. That would seem to be a better deal. I could get it and start collecting lenses, then upgrade to another Nikon later, but keep the lenses, correct?

Yep. Although if you get DX lenses, then they work best on a DX body (D40/D50/D40x/D60/D70/D80/D100/D200/D300/D1/D1H/D1X/D2H/D2X/D2Hs/D2Xs). A DX lens will work just fine on an FX body (D3/D700) but at reduced resolution, as opposed to a Canon EF-S lens which won't work at all on an EF camera (1D/1Ds/5D).

I think that for the near future, FX sensors (same size as 35mm film, 24x36mm) will be above the $1000 mark, while DX sensors (same size as APS-C film, 16x24mm) will be relegated to the sub-$1000 market. DX sensors and lenses will always be cheaper to manufacture than full-frame FX ones.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: soydios
I think that for the near future, FX sensors (same size as 35mm film, 24x36mm) will be above the $1000 mark, while DX sensors (same size as APS-C film, 16x24mm) will be relegated to the sub-$1000 market. DX sensors and lenses will always be cheaper to manufacture than full-frame FX ones.

Well, say $600 for a body every four years is fine with me. I don't really have a need for a D700. I just don't want to invest $500 or more in lenses and have Nikon say "Look, we're switching to a new, slightly different yet incompatable lens model!" in a couple of years.

They have no new numbers to go to after D90!

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: ghostman

Originally posted by: dug777
http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/dug777/Sunrise.JPG

There were several outstanding photos there, but whoa! This shot is amazing. Just curious, any type of filters and/or post-processing done on it?

Other than some mild cropping, not that I can recall, it was an utterly amazing sunrise!

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: virtuamike
You can get a used 18-70/3.5-4.5 for under $200. I'd rather shoot with that than any of the lenses you have listed.

I suspect that optically only the most dedicated pixel peeper could tell the difference between them in real world shooting conditions outside the lab between 18-70mm, and you get an very useful extra 65mm of range with the 18-135mm, as well as better magnification ratio for close-up

From Thom

Maximum aperture doesn't change the way you might expect with focal length. The relevant values are:

* 18mm f/3.5
* 24mm f/4
* 35mm f/4.5
* 50mm f/5
* 70mm and higher f/5.6

You're right - you probably can't tell the difference in terms of optics. But it's very easy to pick out which lens is faster

Sometimes range isn't all that it's cracked up to be, not when you're stuck at f/5.6.

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
Hmm... I'm looking at this D60 now. That would seem to be a better deal. I could get it and start collecting lenses, then upgrade to another Nikon later, but keep the lenses, correct?

Huge problem with the D60 is that AF only works with AF-S lenses. If all you're buying are AF-S lenses then obviously it won't be an issue. But if you intend on buying solid AF lenses like the 50/1.4, 85/1.4, etc then you're better off going with a body that'll actually focus them (because manual focus on a D60 with AF lenses is no fun).

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: virtuamike
Huge problem with the D60 is that AF only works with AF-S lenses. If all you're buying are AF-S lenses then obviously it won't be an issue. But if you intend on buying solid AF lenses like the 50/1.4, 85/1.4, etc then you're better off going with a body that'll actually focus them (because manual focus on a D60 with AF lenses is no fun).

Any recommendations?

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: virtuamike
Huge problem with the D60 is that AF only works with AF-S lenses. If all you're buying are AF-S lenses then obviously it won't be an issue. But if you intend on buying solid AF lenses like the 50/1.4, 85/1.4, etc then you're better off going with a body that'll actually focus them (because manual focus on a D60 with AF lenses is no fun).

Any recommendations?

Which way do you want to go?

If you don't need too many options, then you can probably get by with a D60 and sticking to consumer AF-S lenses.

If you want options beyond just AF-S (like fast primes), then go with a D80 (or a used D200, or a used D2h, or whatever actually works with AF lenses).

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: virtuamike
[If you want options beyond just AF-S (like fast primes), then go with a D80 (or a used D200, or a used D2h, or whatever actually works with AF lenses).

Well, the AF-S lenses would still be usable with future cameras, correct? If so, the D60 might be the best bet for me. I could use it with the lower-end lenses and then upgrade the body and buy some better lenses later on.

 

[jpeyton]

The D60 is a nice camera; I have one. LMK if you want any samples.

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The D60 is a nice camera; I have one. LMK if you want any samples.

I certainly wouldn't mind a few samples of outdoors pics if that wouldn't be too much trouble. I really appreciate all of the help that you all are giving me.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: virtuamike

Originally posted by: dug777

Originally posted by: virtuamike
You can get a used 18-70/3.5-4.5 for under $200. I'd rather shoot with that than any of the lenses you have listed.

I suspect that optically only the most dedicated pixel peeper could tell the difference between them in real world shooting conditions outside the lab between 18-70mm, and you get an very useful extra 65mm of range with the 18-135mm, as well as better magnification ratio for close-up

From Thom

Maximum aperture doesn't change the way you might expect with focal length. The relevant values are:

* 18mm f/3.5
* 24mm f/4
* 35mm f/4.5
* 50mm f/5
* 70mm and higher f/5.6

You're right - you probably can't tell the difference in terms of optics. But it's very easy to pick out which lens is faster

Sometimes range isn't all that it's cracked up to be, not when you're stuck at f/5.6.

That's not quite true, according to photozone it's f/5.3 at 70mm

Even if it's faster at 70mm, that it doesn't magically make up for the extra 65mm of range.

I'm not a pro like you, but I'm very happy with the results I get out of that extra 65mm even if it is limited in aperture. It's also usually bright enough here that I'm targeting f/8 or above even at 135mm.

I've personally never noticed a CA issue, which Thom lists as the only reason he'd prefer the 18-70mm over the 18-135mm in his conclusion (and which is child's play to fix as I understand it).

Thom's conclusion with regard to the 18-200mm makes very little sense if you throw price into the equation, the 18-200mm is at least twice the price of the 18-135mm. You'd damn well hope it did EVERYTHING better (which it doesn't, it's not as sharp at least).

He wants a good-value all purpose lens. In my opinion the 18-135mm is a more flexible and versatile lens than the 18-70mm, and in the real world I haven't felt 'hamstrung' by it's relative lack of speed very often, and I certainly appreciate the extra reach.

Using both side by side would be the best way to see if it really bothered you I suppose, and I've only used them in separate instances.