First Lens for a Nikon?

[dmw16]

The wife and I decided that frivolous spending needs to stop. However, I already bought my new camera (Nikon D70) but I have yet to buy a lens. So we reached the agreement that I could buy one lens.

Originally I was going to get the 50mm and the 18-55mm VR. However, now I need to pick one. I am new to SLR photography and I am leaning towards the 50mm as that seems to be THE lens that everyone must own.

Any thoughts pro or con? I am interested in taking pictures of family/friends, monuments (in DC), and buildings.

Thanks.

 

[pennylane]

While the 50mm f/1.8 is a lens that everybody that should have, if you only have one lens, I would not JUST get the 50mm f/1.8. You will want something that goes wider. What is your budget?

 

[jpeyton]

18-55VR

 

[dmw16]

~$150.

 

[pennylane]

18-55mm VR sounds good then.

 

[dmw16]

Would there be another suggestion if the budget was more like $200? Just trying to get a feel for what my one lens solution options are. Granted long term I will get more, but it may need to wait till xmas.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: dmw16
Would there be another suggestion if the budget was more like $200? Just trying to get a feel for what my one lens solution options are. Granted long term I will get more, but it may need to wait till xmas.

used 18-55 VR and 50 f/1.8.

 

[dmw16]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: dmw16
Would there be another suggestion if the budget was more like $200? Just trying to get a feel for what my one lens solution options are. Granted long term I will get more, but it may need to wait till xmas.

used 18-55 VR and 50 f/1.8.

She would be very unhappy if I came home with 2 lenses. Yes, it would fit, but she said one lens and hell hath no fury...

 

[jpeyton]

Always buy used. Last time I checked, both lenses used are:

18-55VR: $130
50mm: $80

 

[996GT2]

Yep, 18-55 VR and 50mm are the two best beginner lenses you could have. The 50mm in itself is something every photographer should have, whether it's the f/1.8 or f/1.4 version. The 50mm f/1.8 works wonders in places with dark lighting and where flash is not practical (in a dimly lit museum that bans flash, for example).

When you get advanced enough to warrant buying a more expensive lens, then you can sell the 18-55 VR (keep the 50mm) and get a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or Nikkor 18-200mm VR.

 

[pennylane]

You might want to check out the thread titled "Nikon Lens Guide" located just above this thread.

I don't think your options for a standard-zoom range expand much if you increase your budget to $200. At about $300, you might be able to get the Nikon 18-105mm VR (that just came out) used from someone getting a D90 kit and not wanting the lens. Some third-party options (that are probably more than $200 used) might be the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm Macro, and Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8.

If you have a limited budget, getting the 18-55mm VR and 50mm f/1.8 later would by no means be a bad idea. You could also get a cheap telephoto if you see fit.

 

[soydios]

First and foremost, get the AF-S 18-55mm VR. Then, if the wife allows it, get the AF 50mm f/1.8D.

 

[virtuamike]

I'd go for a used 18-70 over the 18-55.

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: virtuamike
I'd go for a used 18-70 over the 18-55.

The 18-70 costs considerably more ($175-200+ USED), is heavier, doesn't have VR, and the optical performance isn't really better (according to Ken Rockwell, anyway).

It does have a few advantages, such as full time manual focusing without the need to flip a switch, internal focusing (lens does not extend), and a slightly faster aperture at the tele end.

However, it lacks VR, is heavier, and the few advantages it has aren't really worth an extra $50-100 premium USED over a BRAND NEW 18-55mm VR.

Btw, OP check your PM for sample shot that I took recently with my 18-55mm VR.

 

[soydios]

Originally posted by: 996GT2

Originally posted by: virtuamike
I'd go for a used 18-70 over the 18-55.

The 18-70 costs considerably more ($175-200+ USED), is heavier, doesn't have VR, and the optical performance isn't really better (according to Ken Rockwell, anyway).

It does have a few advantages, such as full time manual focusing without the need to flip a switch, internal focusing (lens does not extend), and a slightly faster aperture at the tele end.

However, it lacks VR, is heavier, and the few advantages it has aren't really worth an extra $50-100 premium USED over a BRAND NEW 18-55mm VR.

Btw, OP check your PM for sample shot that I took recently with my 18-55mm VR.

I second that on the 18-70 image quality: it's the same in my experience as the 18-55mm. The 18-55 is smaller, lighter, cheaper, and has VR. The 18-70 and 18-135's replacement, the 18-105VR, would be a great lens if it's optical performance is up to snuff with the 18-55, but it's out of the OP's budget.

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: 996GT2

Originally posted by: virtuamike
I'd go for a used 18-70 over the 18-55.

The 18-70 costs considerably more ($175-200+ USED), is heavier, doesn't have VR, and the optical performance isn't really better (according to Ken Rockwell, anyway).

It does have a few advantages, such as full time manual focusing without the need to flip a switch, internal focusing (lens does not extend), and a slightly faster aperture at the tele end.

However, it lacks VR, is heavier, and the few advantages it has aren't really worth an extra $50-100 premium USED over a BRAND NEW 18-55mm VR.

Btw, OP check your PM for sample shot that I took recently with my 18-55mm VR.

55mm at f/5.6 is ridiculously slow for that focal length, not very fast focusing, and the 18-70 has better build quality of the two. And no, I wouldn't worry about buying an 18-70 used. Most of them are used by beginners and parents; they're not going to be very rough on their gear. You can find them for under $200 easy.

As far as opinions go, I trust Thom and Bjorn more than Ken.

Thom
Bjorn

 

[ZOXXO]

Not seeing a $50-100 premium USED over a BRAND NEW 18-55mm VR.

The 18-55 vr is $190 shipped from Adorama. I can currently choose from six different 18-70s costing less with the buy it now option on eBay and more than forty have recently sold for less than $190. The least expensive (described as "in great condition") went for $120 shipped.

Having never owned a lens with the feature, VR is the only reason I would consider the 18-55 over the 18-70. However if the build quality of the 18-55 is on the same level as my original 55-200, the 18-70 would still win out for that reason alone.

YMMV

 

[dmw16]

I have had trouble finding good used deals, maybe I just need to wait it out.

Thanks for all the advice.

 

[troytime]

there's a like new 18-135 in fs/ft for a little over 200

its a great lens

 

[dmw16]

got a link?

 

[996GT2]

Just go search in FS/FT for "Nikon" and you'll see it there. I PM'd the seller, but unfortunately he is not selling for anything less than $250 cash at the moment.

The 18-135 is nice, but without VR it is going to be hard to get sharp shots at full telephoto zoom unless you are shooting in a very brightly lit area.

 

[dmw16]

I am going to keep searching for deals on either one. Ebay has been kinda disappointing at the moment.

 

[dmw16]

well I don't have to choose afterall. I scored a 50mm for $50...so now I just need to find a deal on the 18-55.

 

[996GT2]

Nice deal on the 50mm...btw check PM

 

[troytime]

Originally posted by: 996GT2
Just go search in FS/FT for "Nikon" and you'll see it there. I PM'd the seller, but unfortunately he is not selling for anything less than $250 cash at the moment.

The 18-135 is nice, but without VR it is going to be hard to get sharp shots at full telephoto zoom unless you are shooting in a very brightly lit area.

it doesn't need to be that bright at all
at iso 400 at full zoom i can shoot in below average light without any problem
sure i can't use it in dim lighting...but how often do you use a big zoom indoors with dim lighting?