nikon af-s dx 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6g vr if-ed 18-200 vr vs. nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 g ed-if af-s vr dx zoom-nikkor lens Which one is a better lens? I am not a professional, just want a great lens to take to the Grand Canyon without having to switch back and forth between lenses. Any advice would be most appreciated. I only have the D40 DX SLR. Thanks! nikon af-s dx 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6g vr if-ed 18-200 vr vs. nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 g ed-if af-s vr dx zoom-nikkor lens Which one is a better lens? I am not a professional, just want a great lens to... » Read More nikon af-s dx 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6g vr if-ed 18-200 vr vs. nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 g ed-if af-s vr dx zoom-nikkor lens Which one is a better lens? I am not a professional, just want a great lens to take to the Grand Canyon without having to switch back and forth between lenses. Any advice would be most appreciated. I only have the D40 DX SLR. Thanks! « Show Less
1413146
I think you just picked up the DX somewhere. The lens is DX with or without that in the seller's description. Note though that the new model is a VRII.
465671
VR is handy in low light when your subject is relatively static because it allows you to shoot with a lower ISO, which theoretically delivers better color, less noise, etc. VR won't help freeze action, however, so your wiggly kids will still look blurry. I have VR on my 16-85mm DX Nikkor, which I only occasionally use indoors without a flash. Also, a basic relationship still exists between focal range and image quality. At a given price point, the lens with the greater range will deliver the poorer results; it's simply more expensive for a manufacturer to engineer the more complex optics and mechanics for a big-range lens, which leaves less money available to finely tune a more simple system. My 16-85mm zoom has notably better image quality than Nikon's 18-200mm, and they're nearly the same price at $600. Along the same line, 3rd-party vendors typically trade-off build quality for image quality. So you can find Sigma, Tamron, or Tokina lenses with pretty nice image quality at prices considerably cheaper than a Nikon or Canon lens, but they aren't built as well. And in the end, yes, a pro Sigma will look cleaner than an amateur Nikon, but the comparable pro Nikon will almost always perform better in every category than the pro Sigma. You get what you pay for.
1773126
Nikon 85mm f/18.G is really a great lens . I really enjoy , specially in low light condition . It gives so much details . In this price its really good. I'd say its one of the best lens of Nikon if we consider Quality:price .
931878
Depends... if you are a pro, then the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 VRII are obvious choices. If you are just shooting family and friends, then the kit lenses are just find 18-55mm, 70-300, etc. You can also shop for bargains in used glass such as the older pros such as the 20-35mm f2.8, or my favorite, the 24-85mm AF-S G. Note: I didn't include any "other" brands other than Nikon... Why use second rate glass?
1346986
d80 offered a bit more but i don't is worth it unless budge is not your problem. D80 has same spec as d40x in most area except that older lens life the af and prime lens that can do auto focus in d80 while d40/d40x only manual, which is important if you wanted shoot in portrail then d80 might have advantage since it can use more lens in auto focus. Also d80 has better body has metal material mix with plastic but result more heavy. Also i think shuttle speed is longer in d80 then d40/d40x. U shoud invest lens like 18-200mm vr over d80 body because it does more for your bucks.
990747
depends on your usage, i'd say the 35mm f1.8g because its a better all rounder and is a lot sharper than the 55-200 ( i have both of these ) the 35mm is great for indoors i chose the 35mm 1.8 over the 50mm 1.8 because its wider. The build quality is not that great on the 55-200 and the vr motor gives a noise also the focusing speed is slow on the 55-200mm
2092439
Different lenses have different minimum focus distances. The minimum focus distance of an AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6G VR lens is 0.28 m or 0.92 ft. (a little over 11 inches; this information appears on the lens as &#8734;-0.28 m/0.92 ft.). AF-S NIKKOR 50mm F1.4G AF-S NIKKOR 50mm F1.4G Minimum Focus Distance The minimum focus distance is the shortest distance at which a lens can focus. In the case of digital SLR cameras, the distance to the subject is measured from the focal plane mark on the camera body, not from the front of the lens. The minimum focus distance of an AF-S NIKKOR 50 mm f/1.4G is 0.45 m (about 1.5 feet or 18 inches; the minimum focus distance is shown in the lens focus distance display).
1790368
I have the non-VR version of both, and I personally prefer the 70-300. I got the gray market version of the 70-300 for $110...that's a deal right there. You can get that AND the 55-200mm VR and come out paying the same as you would for just the 70-300mm VR. Also, the focal range covered (55-200mm = 82.5-300mm) and (70-300=105-450mm) is much greater with the 70-300 on a DX. VR is important, yes, but with my D90 and its battery grip, I don't have much trouble getting sharp shots at 300mm and 200mm at 1/60 with either of them, respectively. The size difference is considerable in your bag as well. The 70-300 is rather large. I have the non-VR version of both, and I personally prefer the 70-300. I got the gray market version of the 70-300 for $110...that's a deal right there. You can get that AND the 55-200mm VR and come out paying the same as you would for just the 70-300mm VR. Also, the focal range covered (55-200mm = 82.5-300mm) and (70-300=105-450mm) is much greater with the 70-300 on a DX. VR is important, yes, but with my D90 and its battery grip, I don't have much trouble getting sharp shots at 300mm and 200mm at 1/60 with either of them, respectively. The size difference is considerable... » Read More I have the non-VR version of both, and I personally prefer the 70-300. I got the gray market version of the 70-300 for $110...that's a deal right there. You can get that AND the 55-200mm VR and come out paying the same as you would for just the 70-300mm VR. Also, the focal range covered (55-200mm = 82.5-300mm) and (70-300=105-450mm) is much greater with the 70-300 on a DX. VR is important, yes, but with my D90 and its battery grip, I don't have much trouble getting sharp shots at 300mm and 200mm at 1/60 with either of them, respectively. The size difference is considerable in your bag as well. The 70-300 is rather large. « Show Less
1111391
Dragoneer makes some really good points, particularly about go slow an buy quality. Master one lens before getting another. Personally, I think this is the best lens to start with due to its quality and versatility. Once you have a taken a lot of shots, you can determine from how you shoot what the next lens should be (if you even need another). If you find yourself in a lot situations where you wish the could go wider, get a 10-24mm zoom; if you find you're cropping a lot of shots when zoomed all the way in, get the 70-300 (if you have the 18-140, don't get anything that only goes to 200 unless you want to drop some $$ on something faster). This a lens you can keep on your camera and be ready for almost anything. With a wide zoom, mid prime and telephoto zoom, you'll have the ranges covered, but will likely be changing lens a lot. If you want another lens for a DX format camera - the 35mm 1.8 is fantastic and an extreme bargain - super-sharp, great for low-light and terrific for experimenting with shallow depth of field. If I could only keep 2 of my lenses, it would be this one and the 35mm.
423082
The 18-105 is definitely the sharper lens. In my opinion, even at F4 throughout the entire range, you get amazing results. The 18-200, like most zooms, you have to really stop it down some to get the best results and the telephoto ends tends to get soft focus. It's a good all-in-one but definitely can notice the difference in performance and image quality especially in lower light situations.
1010251
All Nikkor AF-S DX lenses will fit the D50 Nikon. Nikon says 17-55 f 2.8 and 18-55 f 3.5-5.6 are specifically identified for D50 but I am sure that the Nikkor AF-S DX ED VR 16-85 will work very well. I found it to be a very sharp lens.
2183425
There are two different lenses. The older one is the f/3.5-5.6G ED VR. Ken Rockwell reviews both on his web site. I have the older one which is not all that old actually--a couple years. It is an all purpose lens and I keep it on my camera much of the time. Check out the Rockwell reviews for a comprehensive and more technical discussion of each one.
423677
If you are going to stick with a DX sensor Nikon for a while, then I think the 18-300mm is your best value. The image quality is going to be very comparable to the 28-300mm, plus the 18-300 has these advantages for the DX shooter: - It starts at 18mm, so you have much wider coverage for landscape shots or tight spaces - It's smaller and lighter. Since this is going to be an all-purpose travel lens, this will be very helpful - It's about $150 less - If you ever go up to FX / full-frame, you can always sell this lens down the road and recoup about 65-75% of the original cost Enjoy!
547368
Be aware that the AF-S Micro Nikkor 85mm is a DX lens, whereas the AFS 60mm is FX, "full frame." If the camera is full frame, you should be comparing the 60mm to the AF-S VR 105mm (I think). There is also a 200 macro, which is a very good macro lens, but it is more suited for tripod work. I guessing they don't want a tripod in the operating theater.
369532
Generally, zoom's with a large range tend to be not so good at one end or the other.If you can afford it, go with the body only, and then buy 2 better lenses, such as an 18-50-ish wide-normal, and a 70-something telephoto.Don't forget third-party lenses such as Tamron or Sigma. Unfortunately, Nikon has their VR stabilization in the lens, so you pay more for them.
369538
One new lens to consider - the new 55-200 VR lens, as an addition to the kit 18-55 lens. The Vibration Reduction is an incredible asset. The lens is quite inexpensive as well.
1351164
I used the 55-200mm/4-5.6 lens on my DX format D200 and thought that it was an excellent lens. There are two things that would make me prefer it to the excellent 24-85mm/3.5-5.6 in your case. First, you would probably be using the lens at longer focal lengths, in which case both lenses would be operating at f/4.5 to f/5.6, so there is no advantage to having the 24-85mm in terms of low light capability. Second, the 24-85mm is designed for the FX format, so you'd be paying for a wider field lens than you need on a DX camera. If you ever go to FX format, the 24-85mm/3.5-5.6 is a real jewel to own.