Need some quick advice on first DSLR purchase

[methocl]

I need some advice on my first DSLR purchase. I know I want to get the Nikon D50. Here are the options I am looking at.

W/ 18-55mm lens kit and additional Normal-Telephoto 55-200mm Lens:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=cart&A=details&Q=&sku=381587&is=REG

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=cart&A=details&Q=&sku=381797&is=GREY

-OR-

W/ 18-55mm lens kit and 55-200 DX Zoom lens
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=381588&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

I plan on doing walk around shooting on both still and moving subjects, and I want the ability to do close up shots, which is why I want a good zoom lens.

I would like to keep the price around $800-1000. I already have a 1GB SD Card. What would you suggest?

 

[fugu]

If you're doing close up shots you want a macro lens, not a zoom.

It looks like those are the same lenses in both packages?

 

[BillLeeLee]

Seconded on the macro lens if you want real close up work.

I'd suggest getting the overall package if you want both lenses; it's cheaper. Not to mention the separate 55-200 mm you listed (same as the one that comes in the combo package) is an imported/gray market lens, and should anything ever happen to it, Nikon will refuse to repair it since they don't service or warranty gray market lenses in the states.

 

[methocl]

I'd suggest getting the overall package if you want both lenses; it's cheaper. Not to mention the separate 55-200 mm you listed (same as the one that comes in the combo package) is an imported/gray market lens, and should anything ever happen to it, Nikon will refuse to repair it since they don't service or warranty gray market lenses in the states.

I see, thanks for the input. Since I have not used one of these before, how is the zoom on the kit lens? Would it be worth it to get the second lens, the 50-200mm, with the package? Or will the 18-55mm suffice for decent shots? As I understand it, 50mm is equivalent to what the human eye sees.

Either way I will plan on getting a good macro lens in the future.

 

[BillLeeLee]

The 18-55 is an average kit lens, not bad, not great. However, it's the cheapest wide lens you will have initially, especially when you consider the crop factor of digital SLRs (1.5x on the D50, so the 18 mm at the wide end gives the same field of view as a 27 mm lens in a 35 mm camera). But it's definitely not the 18-70 that comes with the D70/D70s, which I would say is a very good, if not exceptional, kit lens.

Depending on what you want to shoot, the 18-55 can be a good starting point. It's wide enough for group shots and some landscape work, and can be used as a kind of portrait lens at the tele end. The lens is basically the equivalent of a 28-80 mm lens on a 35 mm camera. Not too long, not too wide, just one of those all-around semi-general purpose zooms.

The 55-200 does give you more reach, and is basically the equivalent of an 80-300 mm lens on 35 mm film, so it's better for isolating a single item and such, but not terribly useful for wide-angle shots. I've tested both the 18-55 and 55-200, they perform decently enough, though I found autofocus to be rather slow, even though they're AF-S lenses.

I really don't like one feature about the two lenses though - they place the focus ring in front of the zoom ring, basically right on the front of the lens, and it's just awkward manipulating it, especially since the ring is so thin.

I didn't get much shooting time with them though; I was testing a D50 in-store with the lenses just for fun. From reviews though, the images they produce are not bad at all.

 

[Rooster]

I have a 18-200mm lens that is also macro.
http://www.promaster.com/products/p...us&sm=sm2_2302&dir=&page=PROD&product=AF18200

Now does it give you those really crazy close shots that show you the hairs on a fly's leg? No. But it has a minimum focus distance of 17.7 inches, which keeps me pretty happy. I have a close-up filter set for it too, which can give me those crazy close-up shots. But you really need lots of light with them as you need an aperature small enough to enable a DOF long enough to capture the entire subject.

If your're into macro photography you should do more research before you buy anything. I like to take macros, but they represent about 1% of photos I take.

I read in another thread where people were raving about the 50mm f/1.8 and how crisp it was at such a low price. And I gotta say, it's the best $69 I've spent. Shipping was free at amazon. I have a ultra-wide that costed over $900 locally, and love the cheap lens just as much. Werd

 

[BillLeeLee]

I read in another thread where people were raving about the 50mm f/1.8 and how crisp it was at such a low price. And I gotta say, it's the best $69 I've spent. Shipping was free at amazon. I have a ultra-wide that costed over $900 locally, and love the cheap lens just as much. Werd

Definitely. I bought a Nikkor 50 mm lens roughly a month after I first bought my camera, and time-wise, it's been on my camera much longer than my 18-70 lens. Sure, it may be too short for real tele work, and too long for wide angle, but it's so fast and produces such nice images that I love shooting with it. Most of the shots I've made that are my personal favorites were made with my nifty fifty.

Also, slap a Canon close-up filter on it and you have yourself a very good macro capable lens, for around $150 rather than $360 for a 60 mm Nikkor Micro (or similarly priced for a 3rd-party macro lens).

Plus, I don't have to worry about the glass in the 50 mm. It's relatively cheap so I don't really worry about it breaking. It's recessed so much I never really have to clean it, plus I don't get all anal about it like I do with my 80-200 F/2.8, a lens that I'm afraid I will scratch on any moment's notice. Good thing lens coatings are relatively strong now.

 

[Joves]

I have the stock kit lense and, picked up the 55-200mm to round out for now. I find it works great for me. I still use the kit lense alot for wide shots.

 

[Rooster]

I went outside and took a few shots with my 18-200mm lens with a 10X close-up filter on it.

In the 1st one, I shot at f/40 to give the broadest DOF I could get. The sun was directly over head and extremely bright.

In this shot, I went on the other side with a f/7.1, although I thought I was at F/6.3, and have a shutter speed of 640.

This little flower is roughly the size of a dime in diameter. And I know these shots could've been done better if I would've put a little time into it, but I should be cutting the grass and if my wife sees me taking pictures she'll get all pissy.

I took this one a while ago and photoshoped it. I looks like a butane fire burning inside the clover.

 

[methocl]

Great pics rooster. Can you give me a link to the close-up filter you used?

 

[Rooster]

Thanks, and this is the exact set I have:

ebay

Serious macro photographers would require more than what's in those shots. But I'm happy enough.....for now.