[dj_mocok]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eagle_Driver /img/forum/go_quote.gif The combo would be quite nose-heavy, in this case. However, I don't need any focal length above about 100mm. Perhaps I should get a body-only version of the next model up (D40x or D80) and something a bit more versatile than the 18-55mm kit lens?

Other lenses that are more versatile than 18-55mm are of course, 18-70mm or 18-135mm.
Not necessarily more versatile, but there are quite a few more zoom lenses which are pretty good around those ranges, too lazy to remember each one of them. eg. you have Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, 17-50 f/2.8, Nikon 35-70mm, etc... There are many options to choose from, depending on your personal preference (and willingness to spend).

Did you also have a look at Canon range? Canon 400D is ridiculously affordable now compared to a few years ago when 350D was introduced. But I'm not that familiar with Canon lenses, but Canon is worth considering since it can also perform very well and cheaper than some Nikons.

I don't know, this is just from out of my head and looking through the lens selection - from what I see, looks like you can also consider something like 400D body only + 17-40mm f/4L USM? (this combo both new maybe cost around US$1,600-ish? that's quite good value IMHO) **edit: add: I just had a look at the samples from that 17-40mm, to my eyes, properly used, this lens deliver superb image quality, contrast and sharpness are top notch. **
Or do you mind to get used ones? Maybe a 20D or 350D or something?
If some of the lenses are too expensive, you can always get the Canon body and then get a Sigma or Tamron lenses. Really, there are so many combinations you can do if you are starting from scratch. There are a few Canon users here, I'm sure they can give you information about the camera or lenses.

 

[raymondlin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by laxx /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's an oddly shaped plate you're using. =T Or is that lense distortion (am I using the correct term?)?

It's a a funky plate.

 

[Mr_Penut]

I only use 2 lenses with my digital kit (20d)
17-40
70-200 f2.8 is

it works great for what I use it for (action/pj stuff), everything else I try to shoot on my mf camera.

in terms of getting an intro body, I'd suggest (for canon) a used 20d, or if you can afford it, a used 1dmk1. Both are larger, and much more egronomic than a rebel. Megapixles don't mean anything. Don't buy ef-s.

don't be afraid to buy used, imo the best places to do so are keh.com and fredmiranda.com (all of my film stuff is used, but I bought the canon body/lenses new)

have fun with it

 

[uofmtiger]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif Maybe a 20D or 350D or something? If some of the lenses are too expensive, you can always get the Canon body and then get a Sigma or Tamron lenses. Really, there are so many combinations you can do if you are starting from scratch. There are a few Canon users here, I'm sure they can give you information about the camera or lenses.

Like I mentioned above the 18-200mm Sigma is a nice lens. It only weighs 14.3 ounces compared to the 19.8 ounces of the Nikon 18-200mm VR. It is also a lot cheaper. Tamron also makes a similar lens that also gets good results (according to user reviews).

If you only want to zoom to 100mm, then Canon makes a Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 Image Stabilized that is highly praised (I don't own one, so I have no first hand experience). In your situation, you may just want to get the kit lens and see if it fits your needs. As was shown above, it is fairly sharp (on the Canon at least). I can't imagine only wanting to zoom to 100mm when it is just as easy to carry around an 18-200mm.

Here are a couple I took with the kit:

 

[jbd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok /img/forum/go_quote.gif Is money an issue? (well of course it's always an issue, but I mean do you mind to spend a bit more?) If you just want a zoom-and-that's-it DSLR, I think you can get away with Nikon D40 teamed with 18-200 VR. Of course if you don't mind that the size is more like a prosumer P&S instead of like DSLR.

Looks like that would fit Eagle_Driver's needs perfectly. I didn't know about that camera. I'm going to recommend it to my Mom.

 

[jbd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eagle_Driver /img/forum/go_quote.gif The combo would be quite nose-heavy, in this case. However, I don't need any focal length above about 100mm. Perhaps I should get a body-only version of the next model up (D40x or D80) and something a bit more versatile than the 18-55mm kit lens?

Why would it be noise-heavy?

 

[fureshi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbd /img/forum/go_quote.gif Why would it be noise-heavy?

i think he's saying this because the d40 has such a small body and if the 18-200mm vr lens were attached to it, the lens would be bigger than the camera! i have the nikon 24-120mm vr lens on my d50 and while it's not quite nose heavy, you can feel its heft. after having played around with my friend's d40, i can only imagine how heavy the 18-200mm vr would feel on it as my 24-120mm is about the same size.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eagle_Driver The combo would be quite nose-heavy, in this case. However, I don't need any focal length above about 100mm. Perhaps I should get a body-only version of the next model up (D40x or D80) and something a bit more versatile than the 18-55mm kit lens?

if you really don't need the focal length, the tamron 28-75mm has gotten a lot of good reviews and is reasonably priced. i'm not sure if the d40(x) will ship body only but still, i think the kit lens is pretty good for what it is. maybe you can try shooting with it for a while before moving to an alternate lens.

 

[jbd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fureshi /img/forum/go_quote.gif i think he's saying this because the d40 has such a small body and if the 18-200mm vr lens were attached to it, the lens would be bigger than the camera! i have the nikon 24-120mm vr lens on my d50 and while it's not quite nose heavy, you can feel its heft. after having played around with my friend's d40, i can only imagine how heavy the 18-200mm vr would feel on it as my 24-120mm is about the same size.

oh, nose-heavy. i mis-read it as noise-heavy.

 

[fureshi]

here are a few images that was taken from my nikon 18-55mm kit lens that came with my d50. the d40 has an updated version of this lens.

 

[Eagle_Driver]

Too bad I am not going to buy one anytime soon. This is because I have just gotten laid off, and I am still looking for work.

At any rate, I am limiting myself to something that I can locate locally. The truth is, I don't want a camera that I cannot try before buying.

Of the kits sold at big-box stores, I took a quick look at the Nikon D80 kit. Nikon USA actually distributes two D80 kits: one with the 18-55mm lens, the other with the 18-135mm lens. The kit selling at BB for $1300 came with the 18-135mm lens. (The 18-135mm lens would give me the 35mm film-camera equivalent of roughly a 28-200mm lens in terms of field of view.)

 

[fureshi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eagle_Driver /img/forum/go_quote.gif Too bad I am not going to buy one anytime soon. This is because I have just gotten laid off, and I am still looking for work. At any rate, I am limiting myself to something that I can locate locally. The truth is, I don't want a camera that I cannot try before buying. Of the kits sold at big-box stores, I took a quick look at the Nikon D80 kit. Nikon USA actually distributes two D80 kits: one with the 18-55mm lens, the other with the 18-135mm lens. The kit selling at BB for $1300 came with the 18-135mm lens. (The 18-135mm lens would give me the 35mm film-camera equivalent of roughly a 28-200mm lens in terms of field of view.)

sorry to hear about that eagle driver. i've been through that before so i know how bad it feels. good luck in finding a new job.

the 18-135mm lens that comes with the d80 is supposed to be another good kit lens from nikon. it's got a more usable focal length than the alternate lens. i'd take that over my 18-55mm kit lens anyday.

 

[Mr_Penut]

I can't use anything other than a 1d sized body with the 70-200, my hands are too big for the 20d and it, feels very unbalanced!

the 20d and no grip is awesome with the 17-40 and a reasonable flash (430ex) as a walk around setup for parties and the like.

the 18-70 nikon kit is actually pretty good, better than the horrid crap canon puts out. That and a d70s could be picked up new (or refurbished!!!!!) for cheap, and will provide a great cam with about 28-135mm focal length.

the canon 17-85 is ok, my dad has one. not super sharp, and a bit expensive for what it is (variably aperture zoom) but it IS a good walkaround lens.

 

[Mrvile]

If you're willing to spend a little more money, don't be afraid to look into third party lenses either. The Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 is a decent lens (much better IQ and faster than the 18-200) and the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is amazing. The Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 has been known to be one of the best budget high-speed quality walkaround lenses for a long time. All of these lenses cost less than half of the price of, say, a 24-70L.

 

[panik343]

Thanks to all. Very good information. My current budget is about 300 USD. Is there a good starter lens that can zoom more than the kit lens ive been learning with? Or should I just deal and save up for a real kickass one? If there is a specific lens that anyone could point out I would really appreciate it. It can be used or new.

Thanks.

 

[jbd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by panik343 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thanks to all. Very good information. My current budget is about 300 USD. Is there a good starter lens that can zoom more than the kit lens ive been learning with? Or should I just deal and save up for a real kickass one? If there is a specific lens that anyone could point out I would really appreciate it. It can be used or new. Thanks.

Prime lenses are good to learn with. I prefer primes over zooms. I really enjoy the high image quality, and I like being limited by focal length, in a way.