Choosing a DSLR - Help! (Nikon lens issues)

[SebC]

Hey guys,

I need help buying a DSLR. I was thinking something like a D90, but reading about lenses has started to put me off... I'll explain. Hopefully I won't get too many TLDNRs.

I've been reasonably into photography for a while, although mostly when I travel. I've had compacts with significant manual features and when I've had them, I've tended to use them. EV compensation to avoid blown-out skys, exposure bracketing, burst mode, manual ISO overrides with tripod + long exposure to avoid noise for night photography etc, live histogram for figuring out exposure in tough situations instead of judging it by how bright it looks on the LCD, self-timer to avoid camera shake etc.

Using these cameras I've also run into their limits... mainly, horrible quality if you ever need to go above ISO 200. Long end of the zoom sucks, flash sucks, etc. I'm off to Japan on the 20th and I feel like I know enough about photography to move to a DSLR. The trip has given me the impetus to buy, though I've been researching for a while having anticipated this.

You can see some of my stuff in the photo contests to get an idea of what sort of stuff I do, but I'll describe it as well. Most of my photos are from vacations. Landscapes, architecture primarily. Oh and I love shooting sunsets, sunrises (not so much) and at night (with a tripod, obviously). Every once in a while a pretty flower or a snapshot with people. So I know I need a lens/camera that's decent at the wide end.

I'm thinking something like a D90. By all accounts a very good camera. Lots of room to grow, and I liked the ergonomics better than the T1i or D5000. One of the things I thought would be an advance was the kit lens is better... 18-105mm vs. 18-55. Also found a D90 18-200 kit for a whopping $550 more than the 18-105. That seems excessive considering I generally avoid the long end of zoom in favour of lower ISO + reasonable shutter, though this may be a bad habit born out of an inadequate camera.

Then I remembered that lens quality is critcal so I decided to read some lens reviews. Assuming I go with Nikon, for low light/people I will probably pick up the 35mm f/1.8 that's $280 at some point. Maybe not for this trip, although if the BestBuy package that has is for $200 was in stock I certainly would.

Specifically, the things to keep in mind are that this will be a first lens, and a travel lens... things that would point to a wide zoom range (apparently, changing lenses can be bad).

So here's what I've got:

Started at dpreview.com...

The 18-200mm has bad distortion especially at the wide end, which makes it bad or architecture. I don't do much editing, so I'm highly obsessive about getting my horizons straight when I'm shooting. A distorted horizon may drive me nuts. dpreview also notes poor image quality at 135mm.

They also have a review for the 18-55mm. This lens gets torn to shreds for its build quality in a few different places, and has flare, poor manual focus, and a rotating front element (which means the lens hood sucks). I swear by my polarized sunglasses, and have even tried shooting through them to reduce glare from water (with not great effects). I could definitely see myself picking up a polarizing filter at some point, and as far as I know this is the only one that's orientation dependent.

So how's the 18-105? dpreview doesn't have it, so I turn to Google. First review that turns up is this one, which rates it as the second worst mid-range in the Nikon lineup with the only one worse being non-VR. Apparently, it's less sharp than even the 18-55, significantly worse than the "not much more [expensive]" metal 16-85. The 16-85 though is significantly more expensive than the 18-55 for the same optical quality, and he likes the 18-200 more than the 16-85. But the the 18-200 is not good for architechture.

All this is putting me off buying a DSLR. I'm open to making compromises, but it seems like there's nothing that really suits my needs. And these are supposed to be the top lenses as far as I can tell. It's supposed to be one of Nikon's advantages over Canon, (at least according to Neeper, and I consider him a credible source on this matter - as you can see, I read the other DSLR threads). Should I be looking at other brands? Am I reading too much into the limitations of these lenses?

I guess what I'm looking for is a little advice, and probably a little reassurance as well before parting with over a grand.

Sorry about the length, but I think it's necessary to get the kind of advice I need.

[OBCT]

I am NOT even close to being an expert on this subject. I did find Ken Rockwell's (a highly respected photography critic) brief comment on the subject:

The D90 works with every AF lens made since 1986.

The 18-105mm VR is a swell idea, and even the cheapest 18-55mm kit lens is also excellent.

The 18-200mm VR does everything; if you get it, you won't need any other lenses unless you're an ultrawide junkie like me.

My take is that the reviews you're stumbling upon are just being picky, and that you are likely reading into all of it a little too much.

Also, Mr. Rockwell LOVES this lens (and it's only $2000 CDN). The good thing about buying a DSLR body (like the D90) is that you can grow into lenses as you grow into the camera, and into your enthusiast photographer status. And if you buy an expensive lens, it will retain it's value pretty well (if you take care of it), so you can think about "trading up" rather than "adding on" to your lens catalogue down the road.

I'd be interested in hearing others' views on these lenses.

[Regulator75]

I shoot with a Nikon D80 and have a few lenses.

My first lens was the 18-200 VR (two years old now, I was considering selling but decided against it), it does have it's limitations but as an all around walk around lens, it's fantastic.

My pros: large range is covered, VR for stability, less lenses needed to carry when traveling light, built Nikon strong, never had any issues at 18mm what so ever.

My Cons: Lens creep when looking straight up or down, a tad heavy, not f/2.8, high ISO noise, not the greatest in low light and some vignetting.

I have since added a few lenses to my bag, Nikon 50mm f/1.8, Tamron 90mm f/2.8, Nikon 80-200 f/2.8.

Currently on the hunt for the Tokina 11-16mm (destroys the Nikon 14-24mm) regardless what Ken Rockwell says.

Have a look at my flickr page for examples.
Send me a PM if you have any specific questions related to the pics or anything else.

Good luck!

[ah123]

First of all, be careful with the reviews - some of them look for a perfect lens and that is a tough spot to start from (i.e. highlighting all the bad).

My sister-in-law took her 18-200 to Africa and absolutely loved it for landscapes and people shots (she also had a 70-300 VR for safari purposes).

Regarding changing lenses while travelling, is not really not a big deal, just have a CCD cleaner with you to remove the occasional (and I mean occasional) dust particle.

Regarding the 18-105, I am not a big fan of Rockwell, so I avoid his site all together. Thom Hogan has quite a few reviews on his site -- he is very candid about lenses, but also looks at "bang-for-buck" (i.e. value)

Here's his review:

http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor18-105lensreview.htm

He also has some articles dedicated to lens combinations (e.g. which lenses he would travel with in particular situations: http://www.bythom.com/DigRecs.htm)

You might want to check this site as well - it has some of the most in-depth lens tests I have seen:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html

You might also want to look at NikonLinks (www.nikonlinks.com) for more reviews...

Hope that helps...

[SebC]

Thanks for the help guys... I'm leaning towards the 18-105 just because I've never been a heavy zoom user and the 18-200 adds $500 to the package. Seems like all the lenses have similar performance though with regard to distortion. Also, how annoying is the zoom creep on the 18-200? It seems to me like it would be nuissance if shooting flowers or something. It's not like I can really miss a shot by not having more zoom... I'll just get it at lower resolution, right?

[SebC]

I'm thinking Tamron 18-270 VC might be the way to go. All the superzooms have the same distortion pattern, so might as well go for the one with the 15x zoom, right?

A bit pricey in Canada though, but if the only thing it sucks for is sports and indoors, it's probably the lens for me. I can pick up a fast prime as a complimentary lens for indoor. AF is a bit slow, but I think I can live with that too.

Maybe. Curses. Can't decide again.

[SebC]

Last bump.

Just if anyone's interested... I ended up picking up the Nikon 18-200 VR. Mine doesn't creep, at least not yet.