understanding the nikon lens range????

O

oldson

Suspended / Banned
Messages
201
Name
simon
Edit My Images
Yes
simple question, but i suspect the answer wont be!
nikon do "entry level" lenses like the 18-105 kit lens i got with my d90. they also do "high- end" lenses, how do you easily know which is which?
is there any lettering or numbering on the lenses to tell which level they are?
cheers:help:
 
Yes you're correct - there's not an easy answer! I usually go by ££££'s!

I think it used to be that the 'pro' lenses had the gold ring, but I don't think that's the case now.
 
Nikon Pro lenses are the expensive ones.

The first 3 that pop into my mind are the 24-70 2.8,70-200 2.8,14-24 2.8

:)
 
davekiddle said:
Yes you're correct - there's not an easy answer! I usually go by ££££'s!
Click to expand...


:agree:

If you feel as if you may faint when you hear the price then it's "pro" glass :lol:

Seriously though, in general the f/2.8 and faster glass (with the exception of lenses like the 50mm f/1.8 and 35 mm f/1.8) is the "pro" stuff.
 
another gripe i have with nikon is:-
i bought the d90/18-105 kit for £743
body only was £685
18-105 lens sells separately for £215
i effectively got the lens for £58 , bargain! (or so i thought)

i now fancy the 18-200mm lens, which judging by it's price of £540 is high end.
if i buy one , it will mean the kit lens is surplus to requirements.(a nikon paper weight)
does the 18-105 have a re-sale value? i doubt it!
was my deal that "good value" in the end? dont seem like it now
 
Don't think of it as 'Entry', 'Mid' or 'Pro' level, think of a range of lenses each one offering something. Yes the faster more expensive lenses are often seen as being the 'Pro' range, and Nikon themselves class certain lenses apart from others for entry to their Professional Services club, but a lens is a lens, merely something to do a job.

Each of the letters and numbers mean something in the names, and I'm sure if you Google you'll find a full explaination for each one, but I wouldn't worry that a certain lens was 'Entry' level or not, it either does the job you want it to or not.
 
The Canon lot are gutted we don't need red rings and L marketing to decipher pro level glass from consumers stuffs.
If its fast, heavy and expensive its pro level..

in before Stewart


:lol:
 
oldson said:
another gripe i have with nikon is:-
i bought the d90/18-105 kit for £743
body only was £685
18-105 lens sells separately for £215
i effectively got the lens for £58 , bargain! (or so i thought)

i now fancy the 18-200mm lens, which judging by it's price of £540 is high end.
if i buy one , it will mean the kit lens is surplus to requirements.(a nikon paper weight)
does the 18-105 have a re-sale value? i doubt it!
was my deal that "good value" in the end? dont seem like it now
Click to expand...

I reckon you should be able to get at least £120 for this off ebay, quite possibly more,
 
oldson said:
another gripe i have with nikon is:-
i bought the d90/18-105 kit for £743
body only was £685
18-105 lens sells separately for £215
i effectively got the lens for £58 , bargain! (or so i thought)

i now fancy the 18-200mm lens, which judging by it's price of £540 is high end.
if i buy one , it will mean the kit lens is surplus to requirements.(a nikon paper weight)
does the 18-105 have a re-sale value? i doubt it!
was my deal that "good value" in the end? dont seem like it now
Click to expand...

Yes it was, but it is your decision to think about the new lens. The 18-105 split from kit is worth about £179.00......imo.
 
but if i buy the 18-200 what use has the kit lens?
 
cambsno said:
I reckon you should be able to get at least £120 for this off ebay, quite possibly more,
Click to expand...

seriously?!?!?!
i was'nt expecting that!
if that is the case then i will shut up and crawl back under my rock!:p

will look into tihs before i buy the 18-200.
 
obviously i need to familiarise myself with the nikon range by handling them. to prevent me from buying something online in error!
it would have been easier if the high end kit had been marked "pro". but at least i know now. thanks for the replies.
i do feel a bit happier after reading that there may be a market for re-selling my kit lens.
 
oldson said:
seriously?!?!?!
i was'nt expecting that!
if that is the case then i will shut up and crawl back under my rock!:p

will look into tihs before i buy the 18-200.
Click to expand...


When I bought my D80 the difference between body only and with the 18-135 was about £70, but I sold the 18-135 on Fleabay 3 months later for £170 ;)

Back under yer rock with ye :lol:
 
Flash In The Pan said:
When I bought my D80 the difference between body only and with the 18-135 was about £70, but I sold the 18-135 on Fleabay 3 months later for £170 ;)

Back under yer rock with ye :lol:
Click to expand...

point taken.

now that you mention it.
these rocks aint all they're cracked up to be either................... joke!

on a more serious note...
would i be wrong to think a "better quality" lens, in some ways , could make up (slightly) for my lack of experience?
cheers
 
oldson said:
would i be wrong to think a "better quality" lens, in some ways , could make up (slightly) for my lack of experience?
Click to expand...

Yes, you would be wrong. Talent, experience and hard graft are 99% of photography, the other 1% is kit.
 
oldson said:
does the 18-105 have a re-sale value? i doubt it!
was my deal that "good value" in the end? dont seem like it now
Click to expand...

I just bought an 18-55 kit lens to go with my spare body, there will always be a market but not necessarily a massive one. Your lens goes as high as 105 so your target market is even bigger, you should have no real problems selling it. Is is a VR model?

You will not be disappointed with the 18-200 it is a real corker!
 
keep the kit lens and get the 70-300 vr if you need more reach. :D
 
cowasaki said:
I just bought an 18-55 kit lens to go with my spare body, there will always be a market but not necessarily a massive one. Your lens goes as high as 105 so your target market is even bigger, you should have no real problems selling it. Is is a VR model?

You will not be disappointed with the 18-200 it is a real corker!
Click to expand...
yep, it is the vr model.
 
Your kit lens will fetch £150+, no problem. IMHO, I don't think you'll get better quality with the 18-200mm...just more range. If you just want the extra range why not go for the Nikon 55-200mm VR? You could even think about adding the 70-300mm VR. ;)

As the posts above state, any Nikon lens with the aperture numbers of f/1.4 or f/2.8 will doubtless be expensive.

Edit: Must type faster! :)
 
foggy4ever said:
keep the kit lens and get the 70-300 vr if you need more reach. :D
Click to expand...
hear what ya saying, but (as i am lead to believe) the 18-200 would probably be considered more "multi-purpose". i do like the idea of having the wider view, for landscapes, etc.

basically i see myself with 2 maybe 3 lenses in total.
a macro , the 18-200, and possibly a 50mm prime.
any advice on this choice would be appreciated , though!
cheers
 
oldson said:
hear what ya saying, but (as i am lead to believe) the 18-200 would probably be considered more "multi-purpose". i do like the idea of having the wider view, for landscapes, etc.

basically i see myself with 2 maybe 3 lenses in total.
a macro , the 18-200, and possibly a 50mm prime.
any advice on this choice would be appreciated , though!
cheers
Click to expand...

Sounds like my kit bag :) 105mm macro, 18-200 and AFS 50mm f1.8 !

I really like these 3 lenses they are great !!
 
oldson said:
hear what ya saying, but (as i am lead to believe) the 18-200 would probably be considered more "multi-purpose". i do like the idea of having the wider view, for landscapes, etc.

basically i see myself with 2 maybe 3 lenses in total.
a macro , the 18-200, and possibly a 50mm prime.
any advice on this choice would be appreciated , though!
cheers
Click to expand...

What about:

18-105mm VR
70-300mm VR
35mm f/1.8
Macro (any one will do tbh)

That way you get a good walkabout lens (your kit lens), an optically superior lens (70-300mm) for the longer stuff, a fixed prime (35mm) ideal length for cropped-sensor cameras IMHO and a macro lens.

Sorted! :)
 
sdb123 said:
Your kit lens will fetch £150+, no problem. IMHO, I don't think you'll get better quality with the 18-200mm...just more range. If you just want the extra range why not go for the Nikon 55-200mm VR? You could even think about adding the 70-300mm VR. ;)

As the posts above state, any Nikon lens with the aperture numbers of f/1.4 or f/2.8 will doubtless be expensive.

Edit: Must type faster! :)
Click to expand...

i have read/heard (cameralabs.com) that the 18-200mm is better quality than my kit lens and the 55-200mm vr!
have read reviews on the 70-300mm vr (which i fancy) but i want to keep lens changes to a minimum. hence the reason for getting the 18-200 and selling the kit lens.
maybe a 50mm prime and the 70-300 is the way to go?
i really cant decide, almost certainly due to my lack of knowledge.
not going to rush into anything though. at the moment just want to hear opinions/ advice and weigh up the options.
plus try and experiment and learn a bit on the way.
but its a slow process (for a semi- old git, like me)and mistakes are costly, as i'm sure you are aware.
 
sdb123 said:
What about:

18-105mm VR
70-300mm VR
35mm f/1.8
Macro (any one will do tbh)

That way you get a good walkabout lens (your kit lens), an optically superior lens (70-300mm) for the longer stuff, a fixed prime (35mm) ideal length for cropped-sensor cameras IMHO and a macro lens.

Sorted! :)
Click to expand...

This would also be a good selection :)

I really do think that the 35 f1.8 looks like a crackingly good lens. If it was FF then I would already have it (ready for my next camera too) but I think I will buy one anyway:).

You could get a reversing ring and use the 18-105 as a macro !

It is really down to what you want. I doubt you will be too disappointed with either the 18-200 OR the 18-105 + 70-300
 
oldson said:
i have read/heard (cameralabs.com) that the 18-200mm is better quality than my kit lens and the 55-200mm vr!
have read reviews on the 70-300mm vr (which i fancy) but i want to keep lens changes to a minimum. hence the reason for getting the 18-200 and selling the kit lens.
maybe a 50mm prime and the 70-300 is the way to go?
i really cant decide, almost certainly due to my lack of knowledge.
not going to rush into anything though. at the moment just want to hear opinions/ advice and weigh up the options.
plus try and experiment and learn a bit on the way.
but its a slow process (for a semi- old git, like me)and mistakes are costly, as i'm sure you are aware.
Click to expand...

Where abouts are you?

If you are in the north west then I have the 18-200 and several other lenses you could always pop round and have a play. I am sure there will be a member near you with it or you could rent it and try it at the shop. I went into Wilkinsons and tried about 5 lenses out of the door of the shop :)
 
sdb123 said:
What about:

18-105mm VR
70-300mm VR
35mm f/1.8
Macro (any one will do tbh)

That way you get a good walkabout lens (your kit lens), an optically superior lens (70-300mm) for the longer stuff, a fixed prime (35mm) ideal length for cropped-sensor cameras IMHO and a macro lens.

Sorted! :)
Click to expand...

thats 4 lenses though! that means a bigger kit bag:gag:
more money!
 
sdb123 said:
What about:

18-105mm VR
70-300mm VR
35mm f/1.8
Macro (any one will do tbh)

That way you get a good walkabout lens (your kit lens), an optically superior lens (70-300mm) for the longer stuff, a fixed prime (35mm) ideal length for cropped-sensor cameras IMHO and a macro lens.

Sorted! :)
Click to expand...

thats how im going, except i've got the 50mm 1.8, and not the 35mm
got the 18-105vr, and 70-300vr

thinking i want the af-s 35 1.4 and the af-s 105mm macro
 
Ste L said:
thats how im going, except i've got the 50mm 1.8, and not the 35mm
got the 18-105vr, and 70-300vr

thinking i want the af-s 35 1.4 and the af-s 105mm macro
Click to expand...
would you need the 50mm if you got the 35?
 
would probably get rid of the 50mm, as it's not af-s, so slower aufo focus on motor driven bodies, like the D90 you've got(i want this soon) or manual on the d40(what i've got at the min) D60 & D5000

but then again, you get a different field of view with each lens, so poss have both, if i feel greedy :lol:
 
or instead of the nikon 18-200/70-300 what about the sigma 18-250 f3.5-6.3 option.
priced between the two nikons?
its a bit of a minefield, unless you are experienced enough to know exactly what you are looking for.
 
Ste L said:
thats how im going, except i've got the 50mm 1.8, and not the 35mm
got the 18-105vr, and 70-300vr

thinking i want the af-s 35 1.4 and the af-s 105mm macro
Click to expand...

Remember the 35mm is f/1.8 not f/1.4.
 
oldson said:
thats 4 lenses though! that means a bigger kit bag:gag:
more money!
Click to expand...

True but essentially for the same money as the 18-200mm VR you would effectively have 18-300mm covereed with VR lenses. :)
 
oldson said:
or instead of the nikon 18-200/70-300 what about the sigma 18-250 f3.5-6.3 option.
priced between the two nikons?
its a bit of a minefield, unless you are experienced enough to know exactly what you are looking for.
Click to expand...

The 70-300mm is one of the unsung heroes of the Nikon lens lineup IMHO...the VR is very useful, particularly at the longer focal lengths. :) Not tried the Sigma however I wouldn't expect it to keep up with the Nikon lenses.
 
I'm about to commit heresy here, but....:naughty:

The 70-300VR gives me a higher hit rate of sharp 'keepers' than even the venerable 300AF-S f/4 that I sold on here a little while back. I compared them extensively side by side on my D80 - and the zoom's 300mm long end is probably nearer 285mm, but there's really very little difference on field of view.

My wildlife shots are often handheld due to the critters moving. Of course, most peeps buy the 300/4 for the same thing. It doesn't matter how sharp a lens is, if all I get are blurry shots. It doesn't matter how good at resolving detail a lens is if it's all out of focus, or out of the frame by the time I get set up. And f/4 often doesn't give me enough DOF, so I need to stop down to f/8; f/8 is the same sized hole no matter which lens I shoot with.

A fine wildlife lens needs to find focus quickly [HSM/AF-S/USM I'd consider essential if I don't want to rely on luck], and be easily manoeuvred [either handheld or via a great tripod head like a wimberley]. For me, with a battery grip on the camera for counterbalance, I don't fear handholding the 300mm long end of the zoom; I can lock on target quickly, and the VR lets me get away with silly shutter speeds.

So, IMHO, the 70-300 is a better bet for 90% of those who might buy either. Is it the better lens? No, not by a country mile.
 
If I were you I'd keep the 18-105 and add a 70-300 VR. I used to have the 18-200 and sold it for in favour of a walkaround (Sigma 18-50 in my case, your 18-105 in your case) and the 70-300 VR. I wanted the extra each and slightly better quality optics of the 70-300 VR. You'd then have a bit of cash to get and low light demon such as the 35 1.8 or perhaps even the Sigma 30 1.4.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top