Upgrading my camera??

[Sheryl]

Can someone please explain the differences and uses of these two lens: 18-55 and 55-200? What are they best used for? Thanks.

[Zoot]

What is Freecycle? Never heard of it. I could check E-Bay.

Freecycle is a site on which you give away unwanted items which still have some use in them - most areas have a local site.  You can also post "Wanted" items.

[Sheryl]

Thanks Zoot.

[shooters_desire]

Sheryl; the 17-270 Tamron vc lens is very good quality glass compared to the lenses on the D3100. The d3100 doesn't take the photo shot. the lens does. Its like this. Try to Read this thread closing your eyes. You can't because without your eyes your body can't see the thread. Good glass is very important to photography. the Fstop on the 18-55 is to big. Not only that you can forget about night shots unless you crank up your ISO which can diminish the quality of your photo. I'm going to step out of subject now. Pray about it and for 1 day don't even think about the cameras. then see what happens. Once you turn it over To God let it Go. Then when you get the money you will know what to do.

[BigAl]

Can someone please explain the differences and uses of these two lens: 18-55 and 55-200? What are they best used for? Thanks.

The lower the number, the wider the view taken. So the 18-55 lens would take wide views to mid-range whilst the 55-200 would take mid-range to very narrow views.

Now, you may be thinking that you want to have a wider view every time so that you can get everything in the picture. But what if you wanted to photograph a bird in a tree? Even at 55mm setting, the bird is still going to be a small part of the picture. But the 200mm zoom would allow you to get the bird to fill more of the frame as if you were standing a few metres away.

Proper bird photographers will go for an 800mm lens or more. They mount these huge lenses on sturdy tripods. With a 200mm lens you could not compete with the detail they could acheive; but you could crop the results down to get the same image albeit with a slight loss of sharpness in detail.

[busybee]

My husband always says 'a camera is for Christmas, but a lens is for life' - i.e. spend the money on the glass, you'll probably upgrade the body later.

I don't know anything about the specific lens you are looking at, the 18 - 270, but it has a pretty amazing range; IF the quality is good at both ends then it will meet most of your needs.  But I will be surprised if it is good quality at the extremes of the range.

It is always a compromise; one lens trying to cover both wide (18mm) and telephoto (270mm) is never going to be as good as dedicated lenses, or ones with a more restricted range - or it will be incredibly heavy and very expensive because of all the high quality glass and mechanisms required!

To cover that same range I now use a 28-105mm, a 100mm macro, and a 70-300mm, plus I borrow my husband's 17-40mm for a really wide angle. But that's a lot to carry around. The 18-270 will cover nearly the same as those lenses, and will give you really good experience of shooting at those different focal lengths. But don't expect exceptional quality throughout. It just ain't possible with a bargain!  I suggest that you read about both the camera and the lens on www.dpreview.com; they review just about every camera and lens there is and then you can get a good idea of what to expect. Bear in mind that every camera and lens combo is likely to have some disadvantages, but if you know what they are going to be, you can avoid the problems that are most likely to bother you, and at least you won't be disappointed.

Here's the link for the review of that lens
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_18-270_3p5-6p3_vc_n15/

It's a big investment for you, so be wary of rushing your decision because there is a good deal on the table. It's only a good deal if it's right for you.

[Harry7mc]

I have both of those lenses in my collection & am using the 55/200mm at presnt on an Olympus E-P1 with an adapter for garden bird photography>
 For a Good starting Outfit & not too heavy to carry about The D40X + the 18/55 & 55/200 will do moer than you need that is unless unless you are deeply into Nature Photography . If both lenses are by Nikon the you should be well satisfied
I have a D40 & a D90 thes two lenses are used on either camera at times.
Go for it you wont be disappointed I think>

[Sheryl]

Thanks so much for all your imput. The D3100 would come with the kit lens of 18-55 plus a 55-200 lens. The D40X comes with the 18-270 lens. The D3100 is brand new. The D40X is used. This is my dillema. Do I want 2 lens with a new camera or the one lens with the used camera? I won't be able to upgrade a camera for several years. I would however be able to invest in more lenses later on. All advise is welcome. And the prices are only less than $100 difference. And the deal on the D3100 I would have to do today if I want it. So you can see the problem I'm struggling with.

                    Sheryl

[RockArea]

I have a Tamron 18-270 which I keep on my Nikon D80 and it's a good general purpose lens which will give me the option of wide angle to capture a broad vista and will enable me to get close enough to capture birds on a tower or church steeple so for travelling it's a great lens. It's not as sharp as my Nikon 18-200 VR and tends to take longer for the autofocus to lock on to the subject. At the long end of the lens the largest aperture is f6.3 so you would be likely to need a tripod for any low light shots, but it will do a good job for you.

I took this lens with me on holiday to Madeira last year and this is a shot I took with it http://www.photography-cafe.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=11552&pos=154 There are some more in my gallery taken on the same holiday so this might give you an idea of what it can do.

The D40x as others have said is a good starter camera and I'm sure will serve you very well, but do bear in mind that it will be six years old and Nikon have made improvements since then which will be incorporated in the D3100.

I'm conscious that nothing I've said above is likely to clarify the situation very much for you, I just hope it adds a little information for you to consider.

David

[Sheryl]

I was told the D40X was 3 yrs old. Now you're saying 6? That gives me pause. Thanks for the added information and the link. I'll be sure to check it out.
         
              Sheryl

[Sheryl]

Looks like the D40X came out in March of 2007. Is that too old?

[shooters_desire]

when i 1st heard about the d40x i wanted to see what it was. Come to find out it was an updated version of the d40. They did makes some key updates to it and no 3 years old is not old. Does it compare to the D3100. Not Quite but your buying a lence not necessarily a great camera. You can always save up 350.00 and trade in your camera later for a d3100 but to get the ball rolling with the funds you have to work with the d40x + the lens will get you started. The D3100 & the D40x are entry level DSLR's. Once you get better at it then will be the time to upgrade to a prosumer camera like the D90 or D7000 but you will need 1200.00 for the D7000.

[Seven_Wishes]

new v second hand (or older model) generally speaking I would go for new over second hand every time unless you are getting a 12 month warranty with the pre-owned.
Can three years in technology be classed as old ... six months is old, I would say three years was almost prehistoric ... this does not make it any worse a camera though. The biggest issue with pre-owned is, you could be buying some one else's problems, you don't know its history or how well the camera has been looked after. A lot has been said about the Tamron ultra zoom, most saying it is a more than adequate lens and being better than the kit lens ... I'm not sure how better is defined... zoom length yes ... quality of image well that is debatable, a choice between the two I'd go with the kit lens, it is a better lens at 18mm.   
For me though I'd go for the D3100 body with a 50mm lens and then save for Nikon 18-200mm F3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S VR II DX. One thing to take in to consideration when buying third party lenses, they are not guaranteed to work on future camera bodies and it is quite expensive to have them modified or have the chip replaced.
Given the option I'd buy new over old/pre-owned everytime. But only you can decide what is right for you, weigh everything up that is important in your image taking and go with what best suits it

[Hatter]

Sheryl; the 17-270 Tamron vc lens is very good quality glass compared to the lenses on the D3100. The d3100 doesn't take the photo shot. the lens does. Its like this. Try to Read this thread closing your eyes. You can't because without your eyes your body can't see the thread. Good glass is very important to photography. the Fstop on the 18-55 is to big. Not only that you can forget about night shots unless you crank up your ISO which can diminish the quality of your photo. I'm going to step out of subject now. Pray about it and for 1 day don't even think about the cameras. then see what happens. Once you turn it over To God let it Go. Then when you get the money you will know what to do.

If you're seeking divine inspiration, Zeus might be a better bet on this particular subject - after all, he's from Olympus. 

It's true the lens is important - but with digital, the camera is important too.  With a film camera, all the camera itself did was open the shutter and let the light in.  It was the lens and the film that made the picture. With digital, the sensor also plays a major part and high ISO performance can be a major factor if you're likely to do much low-light photography.   

I can't agree about the 18-55 kit lens not being suitable for night shots - the relatively "slow" maximum aperture just means you need longer exposures.  That's not a problem if you're using a tripod, which I'd regard as an essential for that type of photography anyway.  In fact, I often use F16 for night shots because I want the increased depth of field.



 

[Sheryl]

So what I'm hearing most of you saying is that if I'm going to spend the $ I may as well buy new. I can get the kit lens and the 55-200 lens with the D3100 for just a little more than it would cost me to get the used D40X with the 18-270 lens.And the D3100 has image stabilization built in so I wouldn't necessarily need a tripod .According to one source using a tripod with the D3100 can cause blurring because of the built in stabilization. I really do appreciate all your comments and all the info you have supplied me with to better help me make a decision. Its a tough one for me. If I start with the D3100 I wouldn't need to upgrade at all if I'm not looking to go professional, right? So why start with the D40X and then upgrade to the D3100 as has been suggested to me? Why not just start with the upgraded version of the D40X and go new especially if I'm getting 2 decent lenses?

            Sheryl

[scoundrel1728]

The 18-55mm lens covers a field of view between a mild (but real) wide angle and a long-focus length suitable for portraits when put onto a D40x or D3100.  This lens functions much like the 3:1 lens on many compact digitals, especially those who open up to about 28mm equivalent at the wide angle end as this one does.  In other words, this is your zoom for general-purpose photography.  For this reason, a lens of this focal length range is often included in entry-level photographic starter kits.

Fancier, more expensive starter kits often include a zoom that extends well into the telephoto.  In this particular kit, the telephoto range is done with a second lens, the 55-200mm.  This second lens is a general-purpose telephoto zoom.  The wide end of this particular lens, when put onto a D40x or a D3100, has a field of view more or less equivalent to an 85mm portrait lens on a full-frame digital or a 35mm film camera.  The long end of this lens functions something like the long end of a superzoom to pull in details from a distance.  Intermediate settings are for things like tighter head shots and for shooting architectural details.  As long as the 200mm focal length seems to be, it is still a bit short for general-purpose wildlife photography or shooting at sports events played on a large field such as football (American or European) but you can get close enough, you might still be able to make such a lens work.  (Be careful about stressing the wildlife though.)

Both of these lenses should be considered entry level.  As such, they are both small, light in weight, and inexpensive; but, like any lens, they don't do everything.  Neither is especially good at gathering light, nor does either have Vibration Reduction (VR) which is Nikon-speak for image stabilization.  This is a liimitation especially with the 55-200mm because telephoto lenses also magnify the effects of camera shake along with the image.  You will therefore need some bright light or some support to use this lens, especially at the long (200mm) end.  This means you cannot really expect to shoot handheld at 200mm in any light weaker than outdoors in daylight.  Shooting in open shade or heavy overcast is about the limit without some kind of mechanical support.  Resolution tends to get a bit weak at the long end of inexpensive telephoto zooms; the 55-200mm is no exception to this.

The Tamron 18-270mm VC is an "all-in-one" lens much like a true superzoom, covering fields of view in the focal length range from 27 to 400mm on a full-frame camera.  This lens functionally covers the ranges of both the 18-55mm and the 55-200mm lenses and more and without the necessity of a lens change.  The Vibration Compensation (VC) feature, Tamron-speak for VR or IS, also makes this lens more capable in lower light.  However, at the long end, this lens opens up to only f/6.3 - the smaller the f-number, the brighter the image on the imager - which may cause the autofocus feature to struggle or even to fail to work with this particular combination of lens model, camera model, and zoom setting.  In general, this lens can be expected to perform better overall than the 18-55mm and 55-200mm it would replace.  It should; the Tamron costs noticeably more than both the 18-55 and 55-200 put together.  The Tamron is a comparatively new design so I would not expect it to need rechipping for a while.

[scoundrel1728]

So what I'm hearing most of you saying is that if I'm going to spend the $ I may as well buy new. I can get the kit lens and the 55-200 lens with the D3100 for just a little more than it would cost me to get the used D40X with the 18-270 lens.And the D3100 has image stabilization built in so I wouldn't necessarily need a tripod .According to one source using a tripod with the D3100 can cause blurring because of the built in stabilization.

The in-camera stabilization feature of the D3100 is news to me!  I suspect that it may also be news to Nikon and the current D3100 users as well.  You'd better check that bit of info before relying on it for a buying decision.  I've heard that Canon has put design hooks into its system to allow for body-based stabilization in the future; but as far as I know, all current Canon and Nikon bodies rely on the lens for image stabilization.

I do not necessarily agree with the consensus that a new camera body is necessarily better than a secondhand one.  Although the D70 and D70S models are older even than the D40, the D70 and D70S are not really entry-level models but sell for about the same price as the D40 and are worth considering.  If you are careful to check out the vendor's competence, honesty, and return policy, you can buy an inexpensive but capable camera body with reasonable safety.

[Sheryl]

Thanks Scoundrel for helping me to understand the lenses and their functions better. So what I hear you saying is the Tamron 18-270 is the better lens. And I will check on the image stabilization info I got and you disputed. Which is the better camera in your opinion? Is 3-4 yrs too old for a used camera? I'm not looking to upgrade cameras in the next couple of years. I  want a camera that is going to last awhile. You said the kit lens and even the 55-200 lens woiuld not be adequate for wildlife; would the 18-270 be any better as far as wildlife photos? And you're sure that neither the kit lens nor the 55-200 lens has image stabilization ? That's definitely a downside. So no matter which I choose , I'll still need a tripod?
    Appeciate your imput very much,
        Sheryl

[RockArea]

The deals I've seen comprise of Nikon D3100 Digital SLR 18-55mm VR and 55-200 VR Twin Kit so both lenses are VR (vibration Reduction) lenses. I think this is the Nikon kit and would assume that this is the same worldwide but you'll need to check.

David

[scoundrel1728]

As far as body recommendations, I am a Canon shooter who is planning to keep my 40D (a "prosumer" model) for a while, so I haven't been keeping up with the latest in Nikon bodies.  However, you can get some good deals in some of the camera bodies with designs in the 5-10 year old range and can even get a good secondhand prosumer body for what a new entry level body would cost.  If the D70 or D70S is too old for you, consider looking at models like the D80, D200, or D300 or D300S.  (Actually, I think the D200 is a rough contemporary of the D70 but it is a higher-end camera model.)

If your cup of tea is wildlife photography at the pro level, you are looking at thousands of dollars in lenses.  Some of our more committed people use things like the Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 (non-stabilized, aka the "Bigma") and I have heard some good thing about the Tamron 200-500mm lens, also non-stabilized.  However, these lenses, like other non-stabilized lenses of similar focal length range, pretty much require mechanical support (e.g., a tripod) to be used effectively.  Others whose specialties are more tilted toward wildlife photography may also chime in, but suitable lenses for wildlife start at about 300mm for the imager sizes typical of Nikon entry-level and midrange dSLRs.