Is there a good reason to have two lenses instead of one?

[psykon99]

Ok, is there any particular reason that I would want two lenses (18mm-50mm / 50 - 200mm) over one single lens that covers the spectrum (18mm-135 or 18 - 200mm) aside from having more zoom over the 135mm? Is there a question of sharpness at all? Just trying to decide which lens packages I want.

Related/Unrelated question: any reason to have a shorter lens (ie 18-50mm) for a walkaround over say a 18-135mm? Also, is using a 50-200mm as a walkaround advisable for a walkaround lens given the longer minimum focal distance (like about 3 feet as opposed to 1 foot with an 18mm)?

Thanks again!

[jdepould]

The wider the range, the more optical compromise (generally). Especially when you're going from extreme wide to tele. I would recommend sticking with a wider lens for walkaround, 55-200 isn't a very useful range for general shooting, it's more specialized. Besides, you'll scare people and look like a voyeur.

[psykon99]

The wider the range, the more optical compromise (generally). Especially when you're going from extreme wide to tele. I would recommend sticking with a wider lens for walkaround, 55-200 isn't a very useful range for general shooting, it's more specialized. Besides, you'll scare people and look like a voyeur.

So if I were looking at one kit with an 18-135mm lens and another with two lenses: 18-50mm and 50-200mm you would recommend the second kit over the first? And you would typically carry the 18-50mm lens on the cam?

[baseballboy828]

Nikon offer an 18-200 an an 18-55 and 55-200. The 18-55 and 55-200 will be altogether much cheaper and optically stronger. There is only the inconvenience of removing lenses. Just buy a rocket blower for any dust that may settle and your fine. Always be sure to shut the camera off before switching lenses.

[psykon99]

Nikon offer an 18-200 an an 18-55 and 55-200. The 18-55 and 55-200 will be altogether much cheaper and optically stronger. There is only the inconvenience of removing lenses. Just buy a rocket blower for any dust that may settle and your fine. Always be sure to shut the camera off before switching lenses.

Nikon also offers the D40 with an 18-135mm, but it sounds like the two lens combo is better in terms of optics. Are we talking about a huge difference here? What about in size and weight?

[ELAY]

The 18-55 kit is actually pretty good, but I really don't like using my 55-200 much. Ergonomically it is not a nice lens to use, it is quite slow (f/5.6 at the long end), and I just don't find my pics are pleasing. I use it when I have to (sports mainly) but otherwise I use a 24-85 or the 18-55 kit.

Everybody I know who has bought the 18-200 has become addicted to it. And why not -- it is just so convenient. As far as giving up optical performance, I don't have an 18-200, but those who do say it is a pretty good performer -- and I would expect it to be at that price.

If it were me, and I were doing it over again I would take a decently built 18-135 (or maybe the 18-200, though it is out of reach price-wise for me) over the two lens combo. I would then save for maybe a 70-300 AF-S.

You would give up reach for sure with the one lens -- say 5% of the shots you might want to make become harder or impossible -- but I think you will have more fun and be happier with the other 95%. (Disregard all of this if you are a sports/wildlife/voyeur photographer -- then you would need the reach.)

EL

EDIT: Just googled the 18-135. No VR. Might be an issue for some.

[psykon99]

*sigh* I still haven't settled on a camera. I keep thinking about lens setups (which I guess is really where the meat is anyway).

I get kinda anal about wanting to be able to take any shot at a given time - so I get uneasy about having to change between two lenses all the time (18-50+50-200). Nikon's 18-135 is ideal (the 18-200 for Nikon AND Canon are both out of my reach) for that but if I give up alot in lightness and optical quality, then I'll shy away from it.

Alternatively, with Canon, I'm stuck with a two lens solution unless I get the Sigma 28-70mm going for $130. I could add that to an XT and be in a nice comfortable price range - or add to an XTi and just stretch to it. I would probably like it better than the kit lens for sure. Longer zoom but not giving up much in the Wide Angle.

*sigh* One of these days I'll decide.

[ELAY]

Whoa slow down. The 18-135 isn't all that heavy at 385g -- less than the 18-55 and the 55-200 combined. And don't overreact to the comment above about optical quality -- most reviews of the lens are positive, if not effusive.

Here's what I suggest. Put an end to the agonizing, and get your camera (D40 or XT or whatever) and a basic 18-55 or so kit lens. You will then have a serviceable walkaround lens that gets you pretty wide, and you can get a sense of how your camera works and what you like to shoot. The Nikon version of that lens is surprisingly good for the price. If you go Nikon, you should still be a couple hundred dollars ahead of where you would be if you bought the two lens set up or the 18-135. In a few months, once you have figured out your photographic style, buy yourself a new lens -- whether the 18-200, 18-135, 55-200, 70-300 or a macro or something. Even if you end up replicating the 18-55 focal length you'll be in good shape -- worst case you spent $100 or so you didn't have to.

EL

[RexK_Cozumel]

Actually I think optically the 18-135 is a better lens than the kit lenses that come packaged with the nikon. You will have some more barrel distortion but as far as color and sharpness I think the 18-135 is a better lens. But dont quote me on this since I have not done a direct comparison between the lenses in question. I do know that my tamron 18-250 has replaced both my nikon kit lenses and is better as far as color and sharpness but there is more barrel distortion and vingretting.

[psykon99]

Whoa slow down. The 18-135 isn't all that heavy at 385g -- less than the 18-55 and the 55-200 combined. And don't overreact to the comment above about optical quality -- most reviews of the lens are positive, if not effusive.

Here's what I suggest. Put an end to the agonizing, and get your camera (D40 or XT or whatever) and a basic 18-55 or so kit lens. You will then have a serviceable walkaround lens that gets you pretty wide, and you can get a sense of how your camera works and what you like to shoot. The Nikon version of that lens is surprisingly good for the price. If you go Nikon, you should still be a couple hundred dollars ahead of where you would be if you bought the two lens set up or the 18-135. In a few months, once you have figured out your photographic style, buy yourself a new lens -- whether the 18-200, 18-135, 55-200, 70-300 or a macro or something. Even if you end up replicating the 18-55 focal length you'll be in good shape -- worst case you spent $100 or so you didn't have to.

EL

Normally, ELAY, I would say the above is a great plan. In fact, it's the way I would prefer it. However, I have to get what I'm going to get in the same purchase because once I have, then I don't get to spend anymore big bucks until after my wife gets a new couch and possibly even a new kitchen table *gasp*!!! So, I need to get my lens combo together.

Really, I've been doing alot of shooting with my Finepix S700 (10x) and I know that I do everything from Macro to far out zoom. I know I'm gonna need more than 50mm. The question just comes down to how much more and in what combinations.

If I go Nikon D40, then I'm pretty sure the 18-135 is going to be my lens. The hitch comes with the XT/XTi. There is no 18-135 (that I can find-affordable anyway). The 18-200 is too much for now too. So then I'm looking at the Sigma 28-70mm or the kit lens + Sigma 50-200mm.

BTW, thanks for all the help ELAY. Tight budgets make camera buying a bit more tedious and difficult. All the info helps to put things in perspective.

[inkista]

For the XT/XTi, there's the Tamron 18-250 (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=309&sort=7&cat=43&page=1), as well as the Sigma 18-200 (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=332) as superzoom possibilities :)

[RussHeath]

I always get mixed reactions when I make this suggestion, but here goes:

You need to read Ken Rockwell's site (http://www.kenrockwell.com)?

If you peruse his pages you'll find several good points. One is why he loves the D40, which it sounds like you're considering. Next is why he loves the 18-55. Next is why the 18-200 is a godsend (I know it's out of your price range now, but keep it in mind).

Last, and most importantly he has a great page about managing obsolescence (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/obsolescence.htm) which does a nice job of making the point that any camera you can have now and make great pictures with is worth more than any other camera you don't have now becuase you're not making anything! In short, go buy what you can afford and add to it later. This hobby is expensive and addictive, no sense in fighting it. :D

Also, it's probably shortsighted to make your decision of Canon vs Nikon based on your initial lens set up. When choosing a brand, you're buying a lens system more than a camera, because if you really get into this you'll be on your 3rd or 4th SLR in 20 years but your original lenses should still work fine. Good luck with the decision and let us know what you bought! :)

[kirbinster]

I recenly posted a site that reviewed all the Nikon lens you are considering, it has a great video comparison of them and their features and pictures taken with all of them.

That said your "standard" lens will depend a lot on what you take pictures of. The lens that is on my camera 85+% of the time is my 55-200VR as most of my shots are from my car of animals. I think the lens is great and the VR makes a huge difference. Don't buy one of those kits Costco and others are selling that has the D40 with Kit lens and the old 55-200 Non-VR - get the newer VR lens.

[psykon99]

I recenly posted a site that reviewed all the Nikon lens you are considering, it has a great video comparison of them and their features and pictures taken with all of them.

That said your "standard" lens will depend a lot on what you take pictures of. The lens that is on my camera 85+% of the time is my 55-200VR as most of my shots are from my car of animals. I think the lens is great and the VR makes a huge difference. Don't buy one of those kits Costco and others are selling that has the D40 with Kit lens and the old 55-200 Non-VR - get the newer VR lens.

Thanks Kirbinster. Would you mind posting a link to your site? I'm not 100% yet, but I'm pretty sure I'll be getting the D40 with the 18-135mm lens. Then I'll start saving for a macro lens (I like photographing watches, and I'm starting on flowers) unless the 135mm is not enough. Then I'll go after the zoom lens.

Of course, all this is open to change still! :-)

[kirbinster]

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikkor_kit_lens_group_test/page7.shtml

The above is the link you asked for.

[wulf]

As of a couple of hours ago, I am the proud owner of a Nikon AF 70-300mm lens to complement the ones mentioned in my signature. It will be interesting to see what effect that has on my photography. However, for the past few months I've only had two to choose from - the 18-55mm kit lens and an old 50mm prime. What I have found is that I generally prefer the older manual lens - smaller, lighter, faster, sharper and easier to focus where I want. I bought it for about £30 on eBay and don't regret a penny of it.

Therefore, I think there is a lot to be said for just starting with one lens and then, when you have learned the camera, gradually expanding your collection. You can, after all, only shoot with one at a time. It might not hurt to be content with spending a bit less now and then, once you have delighted your wife by ensuring she has the treats she wants, you will be in a better position to get another (having said that, I might well have been tempted by the D40 + 18-135mm option if it had been available and if I knew then what I know now ;) ).

The other item I have in my arsenal is the Raynox DCR-250. Again, that was about £30 on eBay; that might be a much more economical way of getting into macro photography than buying a dedicated lens (check my <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/wulf/tags/raynox/">macro</a> shots for samples).

Wulf

[jdepould]

Did you go for VR?

[wulf]

Did you go for VR?
Me? No - I went for cheap ;)

I decided to dip my toe in the world beyond 55mm; if I get a lot of camera shake problems I may reconsider but managed to squeeze off some very sharp test shots in the shop.

Wulf

[sgrbear724]

*sigh* I still haven't settled on a camera. I keep thinking about lens setups (which I guess is really where the meat is anyway).

I get kinda anal about wanting to be able to take any shot at a given time - so I get uneasy about having to change between two lenses all the time (18-50+50-200). Nikon's 18-135 is ideal (the 18-200 for Nikon AND Canon are both out of my reach) for that but if I give up alot in lightness and optical quality, then I'll shy away from it.

Alternatively, with Canon, I'm stuck with a two lens solution unless I get the Sigma 28-70mm going for $130. I could add that to an XT and be in a nice comfortable price range - or add to an XTi and just stretch to it. I would probably like it better than the kit lens for sure. Longer zoom but not giving up much in the Wide Angle.

*sigh* One of these days I'll decide.


I totally get this. I have lost countless shots because of the need to switch lenses.

I never knew you had to turn the camera off to change the lenses. Hope I didn't cause damage or anything....

[praesentire]

I never knew you had to turn the camera off to change the lenses. Hope I didn't cause damage or anything....
I read on the intarweb that turning off the camera reduces the static electricity over the sensor thus leading to less dust on your sensor. I have no way of confirming whether this is true or not.

[jdepould]

Also, leaving the camera on when switching lenses can lead to file corruption problems, though I haven't the faintest idea why.

[Dr. WooD]

I've switched lens with the power on several times. I've always wondered what kind of damage I've done.

No problems yet, but I still hate it whan I forget to power down first.

[jdepould]

I've switched lens with the power on several times. I've always wondered what kind of damage I've done.

No problems yet, but I still hate it whan I forget to power down first.

Yeah, it isn't instant death every time, but it can happen.