Is it worth the investment if I already have a 18-200? HI - I am an advanced amateur shooting a D5000 with a 18-200 VR II. For porttraits, is the $450 investment in this lens worth it?Thanks Is it worth the investment if I already have a 18-200? HI - I am an advanced amateur shooting a D5000 with a 18-200 VR II. For porttraits, is the $450 investment in this lens worth it? » Read More Is it worth the investment if I already have a 18-200? HI - I am an advanced amateur shooting a D5000 with a 18-200 VR II. For porttraits, is the $450 investment in this lens worth it?Thanks « Show Less
1736482
For me, yes (well, I bought mine used for $360).However, you're the only one who can decide whether it's worth it to you. How much do you value control over out-of-focus background (bokeh) or having a "3-dimensional" look? Do you like being able to shoot indoors and in other low-light situations without using a flash or high ISO settings?If these characteristics or important to you, then the $450 may be worth it.
1736483
It's worth every penny, especially if you take portrait shots. I do not have the 18-200, but I have the 16-85 VRII. While the 16-85 is a great lens for outdoor shots, landscape and group photos, the quality of portrait I get from the 85 1.8 (or any prime lens for that matter) is way above any all around zoom. Most pictures I take with this lens are worth keeping.
1081449
If you have a D5000, you will have to manually focus the 85mm f1.8D lens. To get an Auto Focus lens for this level of camera would require the 85mm f/1.8G lens. It is important to know whether your camera has an autofocus engine or not.
1736484
I have both the 18-200 and the 85 mm f/1.8 among others. These two are the lenses I most use (I photograph people and places). The 85 mm is great for head shots, particularly indoors without flash. If $450 is a reach, try eBay where you'll see lots of them.
2096571
It is hard to say.... I am very satisfied with the 18-200mm. The quality is impressive and i don't mind the weight of the camera. It is the only lens I use. If I need additional detail, I can use the available computer software to provide additional zoom. Overall, I am very happy with the camera and lens.
582400
i found its a better piece of glass and you will only need one lens for all scenarios. I was constantly switching from one kit lens to the other, now I ack one lens and im good to go in most scenarios. I sold my kit lenses and got a nice 50m 1.8 for portraits and use this 18-200 for all other instances.
1582486
Brandon. It doesn't say when you asked this question but I figured the answer out. First, I just purchased the last one that a storefront had for $289, so i'm sorry if I stole the lens from you :X. Second, the price is going to be interesting on this lens from here on out. It has been discontinued due to a recently announced new model. The question is how much will this new model cost? To my knowledge that hasn't been answered. I decided to snag it at this price because if the new model is upwards of $400 then it out of my price range anyway. If the new model comes out sub $400 this older model might tank in price. Supply and demand will dictate based on that information. As for big stores, I don't see you having much luck. Most did firesales and liquidated their stock already to mitigate the price risk. I can tell you that this is my first fixed lens for general photography. It hasnt even arrived yet, but when it does I plan to test it out. If its not to my liking I can resell it to you at the price I purchased + the tax I paid + shipping. I would generally just return it but that lowers your chance of it ending up in your hands. If this was a recent post just come back to me and I can show you proof that it hasn't even arrived yet :). Take care!
582403
Before I bought my 18-200, I was often disappointed that I'd miss that great shot because I had the exact wrong lens on my camera (If I had the 18-55, I'd inevitably see something moving in the distance that I'd wanted to shoot,etc..). By the time I'd switched, the opportunity was often gone. The 18-200 meant less missed shots.
468418
Do you have olympus lenses or will this be your first slr? If it's your first I would say go with the 520 if you have the extra cash. I have the e 510 and use it for everything. I just used it for a wedding and the pictures were amazing! I would put the e-510 up against any other camera on the market in the under $1000 class. The 520 has some features that are tying to attract more point-n-shooters, like face detection with the live view. It also has upgrades that ofcourse we haven't seen so we won't know if they make a big enough difference. If you can wait get the 520, if not the e-510 with the 14-54 lens is a great combo, you can't go wrong with either one. Do you have olympus lenses or will this be your first slr? If it's your first I would say go with the 520 if you have the extra cash. I have the e 510 and use it for everything. I just used it for a wedding and the pictures were amazing! I would put the e-510 up against any other camera on the market in the under $1000 class. The 520 has some features that are tying to attract more point-n-shooters, like face detection with the live view. It also has upgrades that ofcourse we haven't seen so we won't know if they make a big enough difference. If you can wait get the 520, if not the e-510... » Read More Do you have olympus lenses or will this be your first slr? If it's your first I would say go with the 520 if you have the extra cash. I have the e 510 and use it for everything. I just used it for a wedding and the pictures were amazing! I would put the e-510 up against any other camera on the market in the under $1000 class. The 520 has some features that are tying to attract more point-n-shooters, like face detection with the live view. It also has upgrades that ofcourse we haven't seen so we won't know if they make a big enough difference. If you can wait get the 520, if not the e-510 with the 14-54 lens is a great combo, you can't go wrong with either one. « Show Less
1037163
I have to respectfully disagree with the recommendation for a 16-85mm VR. I have that lens, use it with my D90 and it's great for outdoor situations. Indoors, the 16-85mm is fine if you are using a flash. I can see using the 16-85mm for some interior church shots, but most of wedding shots are going to be of people. things, little details like bouquets, etc. You will want a lens that can handle low-light and can isolate a subject well (subject in focus - remaining areas blurry). You should check out primes. Fast zooms are nice, but they will defintiley set you back a lot of money. Look into these lenses: 1. Nikkor 50mm 1.8 - The poor man's lens for low light, decent bokeh, depth of field interestingness. $100 Everyone should have at least one fast lens and since this one is cheap, it's a good place to start. 2. Sigma 30mm 1.4 More money, but since it's wider than the above lens, a little more versatile, especially with DX sensor. $300 or more 3. Nikkor 85mm 1.8 - Like the 50mm but is more telephoto, so this is good if you are standing far from your subject but want to fill the frame with your subject. Good for concerts, theater, etc. 5. Nikkor 85mm 1.4 - This is a money-making lens for pro wedding photographers and portrait photographers. People fall in love with and worship this lens. Do a web search and you'll find out why. Very, very pricey. $1K but worth it. One thing about primes is that there is a definite learning curve to using them - especially at the wider apertures since the depth of field is SO narrow. You have to really work on learning to use them to maximize the number of keepers you have. BUT, these fast lenses help you to examine more work more critically, to look at your composition, technique, etc in ways that your kit lens never will :) Good luck with your photography!
1672482
Hi Eric,Thanks for your reply. I've already went ahead and bought the D3100 (got advice from some other people somewhere else on the internets ;)I received it yesterday and it does seem to be a very solid camera with lots of features that have me overwhelmed to say the least since I am a beginner in the world of photography.I do have one question: why is it that everyone recommends those lenses? How vastly different are they from the lens the comes with the camera? For example, what would a 35mm 1.8g do differently or better than the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens?~ Dan Hi Eric,Thanks for your reply. I've already went ahead and bought the D3100 (got advice from some other people somewhere else on the internets ;)I received it yesterday and it does seem to be a very solid camera with lots of features that have me overwhelmed to say the least since I am a beginner in the world of photography.I do have one question: why is it that everyone recommends those lenses? How vastly different are they from the lens the comes with the camera? For example, what would a 35mm 1.8g do differently or better than the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6... » Read More Hi Eric,Thanks for your reply. I've already went ahead and bought the D3100 (got advice from some other people somewhere else on the internets ;)I received it yesterday and it does seem to be a very solid camera with lots of features that have me overwhelmed to say the least since I am a beginner in the world of photography.I do have one question: why is it that everyone recommends those lenses? How vastly different are they from the lens the comes with the camera? For example, what would a 35mm 1.8g do differently or better than the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens?~ Dan « Show Less
1264580
Well there are two different "kit" lenses the 18-55 and the 18-135. Now the 18-55 is not a "bad" lens but most people skip that and buy either a different Sony lens,a Sigma or Tamron lens. Pretty much because the 18-55 is a "ok" start out lens but not even a year down the road you will most likely want to upgrade. Now the 18-135 alot of people seem to be happy with, it is more money, but it will probably save your money in the long run. But remember this item is BODY ONLY , so no lens came with this one!!! Make sure you find one with the lens included if that's the route you want to go! Well there are two different "kit" lenses the 18-55 and the 18-135. Now the 18-55 is not a "bad" lens but most people skip that and buy either a different Sony lens,a Sigma or Tamron lens. Pretty much because the 18-55 is a "ok" start out lens but not even a year down the road you will most likely want to upgrade. Now the 18-135 alot of people seem to be happy with, it is more money, but it will probably save your money in the long run. But remember this item is BODY ONLY , so no lens came with this one!!! Make sure you find one with the lens included if that's... » Read More Well there are two different "kit" lenses the 18-55 and the 18-135. Now the 18-55 is not a "bad" lens but most people skip that and buy either a different Sony lens,a Sigma or Tamron lens. Pretty much because the 18-55 is a "ok" start out lens but not even a year down the road you will most likely want to upgrade. Now the 18-135 alot of people seem to be happy with, it is more money, but it will probably save your money in the long run. But remember this item is BODY ONLY , so no lens came with this one!!! Make sure you find one with the lens included if that's the route you want to go! « Show Less
1192316
I have had the 18 to 200. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that lens. If you're predisposed towards it, I won't try to talk you out of it, BUT . . I really like the 18 to 140 on my daily carry D5200. Fits the job and fits my hands. VERY sharp with great contrast and saturation. BTW, my fair, civic gathering lens in my D300s is almost always the 18 to 300, so ya makes your choice and you take your chances. IMHO, as long as it says "Nikon" on, you can't go wrong. Pick one.
1418844
> D40kit with 18-55 lens PLUS the 55-200 VR lens - 578.40Where did you get the above kit at this price? Thanks.
916481
I have been very happy with the 18-200mm. It was my first lens and remains a workhorse. I have since acquired a 28-135mm as part of a used setup and have yet to try it - there's been no need as the 18-200mm exceeds it in range.
98598
I bought this lens but then returned it because it did not autofocus. I can't speak regarding its performance. You can pick up a 50-200mm autofocus VR lens on amazon for relatively cheap - I got one used for $100. It's a good lens.
784399
If you have VRI and a DX camera, I think you should keep it, unless you shoot directly at a light source (the new one has N - Nano coatings which reduces flare) or want to utilize the benefits of VR II. that means you should be shooting handheld at really slow shutter speeds. If you have a FX body and shoot landscapes with VRI lens, you may not see corner to corner sharpness. The new version is essentially viewed as an upgrade to FX shooters (mostly pro shooters at the moment) who want corner to corner sharpness in all their shots. Save yourself some money and enjoy your old one. Get a good wide angle lens for that cost. Again, all this, if you are on a budget. If you are a Nikon fanboy, you wouldn't have posted this question here.. Gud luck with your choice...
1441507
i have the d80 with the 18-70 dx, the 70-300 ed, and the 50 1.8 d nikkors, plus the tokina 12-24 and the tamron 28-75 f/2.8. what glass you put on your d80 to start with should depend on intended uses and experience level. if all you want is an all-in-one lens, go for the 18-135 kit, unless you can afford the 18-200 vr. the 24-120 VR is another sweet after-market option if you go body-only and just want one lens, but you'd probably be better off, however, with either the 18-55 or the 18-70, plus the 55-200 vr. for the size, weight, and cost, they're very good for plastic consumer lenses. the downside is they're fairly slow for (D)SLR lenses, due to narrow apertures at the long end. if low-light photography or action sports is your bag, skip the nikkors altogether unless you can afford the 17-55 2.8 and/or the 70-200 VR. get the d80 body and grab a sigma or tamron 2.8. if w/a is your thing, i'd get one of the 18s (-55, -70, -135, -200) and pair it with the tokina 12-24 or the sigma 10-20. if you're more of a telephoto person, get the 18-55 or -70 and pair it with the inexpensive 70-300 non-vr g lens. the money you save over the ed or vr versions can go toward a good tripod -- unless you really think you're gonna be doing a lot of handheld shooting at 300mm. for macro and portrait work, consider again going body-only with the d80, getting the $100 50 1.8 prime, and maybe the sigma 30, the nikkor 60, and the tamron 90 to round out your selection, which would give you a nice, sharp range. if all of this seems too complicated, look at a fixed-zoom P&S or the d40/18-55 combo.
863040
I actually own both, and it's obvious that the lens is amazing. I shot a wedding with this combination and my other camera is a d7000 with a 17-55mm 2.8. My experience was hit and miss, just because the ISO is horrible on the D3100. In all honesty it all depends on what kind of shooting you are doing. If you will be shooting outside and in very low ISO - 400 or less - then you won't ever complain about too much noise on your images. The VRll is a monster of a lense, I would go for an used VRl. In my opinion this lens or the VRl are a great addition to any camera. Hope this helps
194931
The biggest difference with this lens isn't the VR II, but that you shouldn't get the vigetting with the FX sensor like you do with the current 70-200 f/2.8G VRI. The improvement of the VRII isn't the selling factor for this lens, its the rummor that it is more compatable with the FX. Now, whether they have fixed the vigetting on this lens is not certain, no one i know has had the chance to test it. If you have a 700, D3, or D3x, wait and see if they have fixed the problem. If you personally don't have a problem with your current lens, don't waist the money.