Do I need my 18-55 (kit) lens? Do you use yours?

B

benp1

Suspended / Banned
Messages
54
Edit My Images
No
I have a D40 that came with the kit lens

Since then I've bought the Nikon 18-200 lens and the 35mm f1.8 lens. I've also just bought a 70-300 in the classifieds.

Now I'm getting a bag so I'm considering what stuff to take out with me. Most of my stuff is snap shots as I'm only just getting into photography, I have no major preference of what I like just yet, I'd like to do more wildlife type photos. I've only done one motorsport day which I enjoyed but I only had the kit lens at that point.

So... my question is... based on the kit I've listed above, is it worth my carrying around my 18-55 lens? I hadn't planned on selling it because I was going to sell it when I upgraded the camera, whenever that may be. I tend to use the 18-200 lens the most but I'm enjoying using the 35mm one

Do many people with other lens actually use their kit lens and carry it when out and about with other lenses?
 
I would suggest that with the kit you have listed you don't need to carry the Kit lens with you, it may be worth taking if you are on hols for a week or so incase of failure. The kit lens we have lives in a box at home, but we do have the advantage of having 2 sets of kit.
 
benp1 said:
So... my question is... based on the kit I've listed above, is it worth my carrying around my 18-55 lens?
Click to expand...

Nope, no need to keep it at all. Stick it in the for sale section and someone will buy it :)
 
I have just got a D90 and my D40 get some use but if I were to sell it it would be better to have a lens with it. I would say leave it at home and if you ever sell the D40 you can add that lens.
Barry
 
I use my kit lens, an 18-55, as I don't have the 18-200. But if I had that there would essentially be no point in doubling up on the focal lengths.

Sometimes I don't want to take the bigger 17-55 f2.8, or the D90, so I bust out the smaller D60 with the kit and the SB400 and rock with that. Works great too.
 
This lens has excellent image quality according to reviewers. I, like you, have this lens, but will keep it with my D40 kit to sell as complete should I need to. I will probably use it on the D40 as well because it's lighter and smaller than the other lenses I have covering this focal length.
 
Thanks for the advice. I reckon I'll keep it but will leave it in the box, no point in doubling up for no reason
 
I would keep the 18-55 and sell the 18-200. The 18-200 is an expensive lens that gives mediocre IQ, IMO, you're better off putting the money towards a good tripod, flash or other gear as you already have that range covered. (The 55-70 gap is not that noticable in my experience.)
 
jomike said:
I would keep the 18-55 and sell the 18-200. The 18-200 is an expensive lens that gives mediocre IQ, IMO, you're better off putting the money towards a good tripod, flash or other gear as you already have that range covered. (The 55-70 gap is not that noticable in my experience.)
Click to expand...
:agree:
 
jomike said:
I would keep the 18-55 and sell the 18-200. The 18-200 is an expensive lens that gives mediocre IQ, IMO, you're better off putting the money towards a good tripod, flash or other gear as you already have that range covered. (The 55-70 gap is not that noticable in my experience.)
Click to expand...

I would agree that the money could be spent elsewhere but having both those lenses in the house and having used the 18-200 as my main lens for 18 months it is rather better than the 18-55 kit lens. I don't know if it is down to individual examples but mine was sharp with decent iq ESP at lower zoom. I would however suggest selling both and maybe getting a better lens in that sort of range would bf an advantage. Maybe a sigma 24-70 f2.8 or something similar. If op wants to keep the 18-55 to sell on later then there should still be around enough for something like that or maybe a prime of a relevant value.
 
I find my 18-55 that came as a kit with the D50 is the equivalent to the 18-105VR that came with my D90 IQ wise, and distorts less at wide angles.

The point really is that the 18-200 is expensive for what it is and you can get a lot more bang for your buck kit wise.
 
jomike said:
The point really is that the 18-200 is expensive for what it is and you can get a lot more bang for your buck kit wise.
Click to expand...

I have to pick you up on this Mike.

First of all, the lens that really does seem expensive for what it is, is the 16-85mm at £395. The 18-200 costs £449, for more than double the reach - if reach is your thing. By contrast, the 18-135mm seems like a bargain at £234.

Ok, you can save £150 by buying the two individual zooms (18-55, 55-200), but what price the lost shots switching between lenses? 55mm isn't very long and the need to swap frequently would be high. Think of all that sensor dust.

Granted, the 18-200 isn't going to win awards for its ultimate resolution. However, for travel, where a one-lens solution is ideal, the lens is a great choice. And to increase image quality to any noticable extent, one would need a collection of primes, or fixed-aperture limited-range pro zooms, which to cover a range 18-200 is going to cost just a bit more than that £449.

Which makes it a bargain, no?
 
If you get a buyer sell it, ive found people only want to upgrade bodies not downgrade lenses
 
martsharm said:
I have to pick you up on this Mike.

First of all, the lens that really does seem expensive for what it is, is the 16-85mm at £395. The 18-200 costs £449, for more than double the reach - if reach is your thing. By contrast, the 18-135mm seems like a bargain at £234.

Ok, you can save £150 by buying the two individual zooms (18-55, 55-200), but what price the lost shots switching between lenses? 55mm isn't very long and the need to swap frequently would be high. Think of all that sensor dust.

Granted, the 18-200 isn't going to win awards for its ultimate resolution. However, for travel, where a one-lens solution is ideal, the lens is a great choice. And to increase image quality to any noticable extent, one would need a collection of primes, or fixed-aperture limited-range pro zooms, which to cover a range 18-200 is going to cost just a bit more than that £449.

Which makes it a bargain, no?
Click to expand...

Any lens that costs £450 and gives mediocre IQ is not a bargain in my book.
Agreed about the 16-85, but at least you do get good IQ.
Nikon seems to sell enough of the 18-200 though, so the convenience factor must rank high for some people.
I travel quite a bit and I always take a 70-300, 18-105, 50mm 1.8 and 90mm macro along with my D90.
I cannot recall ever missing a shot due to not having the right lens.
My D50's sensor used to get dirty and I cleaned it when necessary, the D90 has not needed a clean yet after 8500 shots, the sensor cleaning seems to work well.
Even if you do not change lenses, the sensor on a DSLR will still get dirty and need a clean eventually.
If ultimate conveniance at the cost of some IQ is the aim then I would have thought a superzoom bridge camera would be a better buy than a DSLR with a never to be removed lens.
I suppose the super zoom lenses are a bit of a marmite thing.
 
I've just bought a 17-70 Sigma to replace the D50 kit lens after the plastic mount broke... £40+ for the part from nikon. (mark 2 of the lens is only £10+ for the part!!) and im well happy with my replacement. And im nervous of plastic lens mounts now....
 
It's the convenience thing on the 18-200 that appeals. The quality might not be there but I can pick up the camera and get pretty much any shot I need.

It is expensive but convenience is big on the list for me. For better quality I have the 35mm and the new 70-300. I am considering a better main lens but cost is prohibitive, ideally something like a 17-55 f2.8
 
benp1 said:
It's the convenience thing on the 18-200 that appeals. The quality might not be there but I can pick up the camera and get pretty much any shot I need.

It is expensive but convenience is big on the list for me. For better quality I have the 35mm and the new 70-300. I am considering a better main lens but cost is prohibitive, ideally something like a 17-55 f2.8
Click to expand...

The obvious choice here would be the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. Available in VC or non VC (Tamron's version of VR).
Just make sure it has a built in focus motor, the older ones don't.
 
My most used lens is my 18-55. When walking around I find its the lightest, handiest, most versatile of all my lenses. I think it's a very underrated lens and I wouldn't dream of selling it to be honest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top