shivaswrath said:
I think the next gen 18-135 VR lens should become a sharp staple like the 18-55 VR. . .

It already mostly exists in the 18-105VR, shivas. I love that lens. LR3's auto lens correction really takes care of all the faults besides aperture size—Nikon cut the right corners on that one.

I'm glad you like your new lens(es?), studio. Do you like the Tokina, as well? [edit: should have kept reading after shivas post. Disregard that last bit.]

spraynpray said:
So in the space of 1 week you went out and bought the Tokina AND the 18-55? WOW - neat!

Is the Tokina really that good? I'm thinking of one, but don't have your largess Studio460.

Ha! Yeah, I'm kinda re-building my lens inventory. In the last month, I've purchased four lenses (and I already had a bunch). It's the UWA and VR bugs that got me. Next, the AF-S VR 85mm f/1.4G (hopefully), and I'll be finished! The 18-55mm will be my lightweight, walk-around, I-don't-want-to-carry-a-big-hunk-of-glass, and I-don't-care-if-I-damage-it lens. The Tokina will be used for specialty shots.

Yes, the Tokina really is what everyone says it is. It's probably the most fun lens I now own. And, yes, it's very sharp, even wide open. Interestingly, both of my recent purchases, the AF VR 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6, and the AF-S VR 18-55mm kit lens are now two of the sharpest lenses I own! Surprisingly, most all of my older AF-D Nikkors (85mm f/1.8, 180mm f/2.8D ED, 80-200mm f/2.8D ED), are softer.

shivaswrath said:
the 18-55 VR is famed for that reason - it's a work of art, glad you like it Studio!

Thanks, shiva . . . I was just looking specifically for a VR wide-angle in a DX lens, and this was kinda the only option. There's also the 16-85mm VR, but it's kinda pricey for what you get. A lot of times I don't want to carry a large piece of glass (like the Tokina), and this really fits the bill!

the 18-55 VR is famed for that reason - it's a work of art, glad you like it Studio!

I sold mine when I sold off a D5000 body, sort of regret it, but I use my 35 1.8 and feet to make up for it. . .I think the next gen 18-135 VR lens should become a sharp staple like the 18-55 VR. . .

So in the space of 1 week you went out and bought the Tokina AND the 18-55? WOW - neat!

Is the Tokina really that good? I'm thinking of one, but don't have your largess Studio460.

TheGrunt said:
LOL thanks Studio;
my perspective of the kit lens is exactly that - as a walkabout lens because in a pinch, it can do many things - not the best tool for each situation but at least it's available like a P&S.

Agreed, Grunt!

And, guess who just bought a refurb kit lens . . . and LOVES it! Yup, the "kit-lens hater" bought an AF-S VR Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G DX. Super-cheap, and super-sharp, plus VR! I can't get over how really good this little lens is! It's even sharper than my stupid-expensive, AF Nikkor 18mm f/2.8D (no wonder Ken Rockwell hates this lens). Plus, it's way smaller and more compact than the my new Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. And, damn! VR is just awesome to have, even on a short lens! Although, I could really do without the plastic mount on this 18-55mm--that just doesn't seem to be a very good place to use PLASTIC! If only Nikon made this same, exact lens, except with a metal mount, and charged a few dollars more for it, I would be all over it!

NikonRumors members! I repent! Long live the inexpensive-but-darned-good kit lens!

LOL thanks Studio;
my perspective of the kit lens is exactly that - as a walkabout lens because in a pinch, it can do many things - not the best tool for each situation but at least it's available like a P&S.

Niko:

Funny. I join a Nikon forum, and I end up finding out I want to buy a Tokina lens!

hearty:

Although I love my 18mm for its compactness and almost-wide-enough FOV, I now realize that I want a true ultra-wide in my kit, and the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 appears to be the winner--in speed, optical performance, and even price. Go figure. I'll likely find many more creative opportunities with the Tokina ultra-wide, plus, it's just as fast as the 18mm Nikkor I just bought for nearly the exact same price. And, the Tokina is probably just as sharp, or better.

Grunt:

Your bullet points appear a bit contradictory (no problem, I seem to contradict myself every other thread). IMHO, I would think that the 18-200mm is the only kit lens you SHOULDN'T buy, expressly for the reason you stated in point '3.' I think the only reason to pack a kit lens like the 18-200mm is to take on vacation where documenting the day is the only goal.

I agree that the "18-105, etc. . . . [is] too restrictive." A short-tele kit lens, like the 18-105mm, I would never used past 18mm, since the longer parts of that lens would be so much better served by a faster 35mm, 50mm, or 85mm.

To all:

The only kit lens I would personally recommend is the 18-55mm, only because it's the cheapest way to get a fairly wide-angle FOV into your DX kit. Pair that with any of the other lenses I listed in the post above, and I believe, the average beginner would be miles ahead, creatively, of anyone else starting with just the 18-105mm or 18-200mm "kit" lenses alone.

my 2 cents

1. IMHO, the only kit lens that's worth buying would be the 18-200 (for the DX body);
dunno about the fx side because I'm waiting for the d700 replacement.
*and btw- i enjoy the rumors and i check in EVERYDAY LOL*

2. the rest of the 18-105 etc seems to be rather restrictive;
sure it's cheap, and all the different variations would cater to different buyers (ie price points). In the long run, if their interests develop, they would find the other kit lenses to be "less" than the 18-200.
ie - from wide to telephoto.

3. to be honest, I don't use the 18-200 much now;
it's great as a walkabout lens - but like others have pointed - if I wanted to go for an artsy shot, the f-stops on the lens isn't great and aren't sharp enough (lotsa post processing sharpening --> or perhaps I don't hold the camera steady hahaha

4. bottom line - it really depends on the buyer, and whether he/she would spend more on the "hobby".
If more spending is anticipated - then the 18-200 should be the first choice.
If they didn't know and didn't care, they'd just go along with whatever price point that appeals to them.

Well I wasn't sure. Since the title of this thread is "Should I Buy The Kit With A Lens Or Body Only?" and your question was "Which body?".

NikoDoby said:
Yeah I don't understand why it would matter if it was an FX or DX body? You would keep the dx kit lens for a DX camera but not the FX kit for an FX camera?

??

I was just curious which body studio460 used with his set of 3 lenses.

heartyfisher said:
Which body?

Yeah I don't understand why it would matter if it was an FX or DX body? You would keep the dx kit lens for a DX camera but not the FX kit for an FX camera?

It's amazing how quickly the 50mm 1.4 dropped in price, at it's introduction it was almost $600.

Non-kit lens assortments:

If I were just starting out in photography, and was about to buy a new DX body and some lenses, here are some options that would offer the beginner far more creative options than just the standard kit lens that "comes with the camera:"

Ultra-low priced beginners' kit: $351

1. AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G DX short zoom ($99)
2. AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D ($114)
3. AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6G ($135)

That's a total of only $351 for a short zoom, a fairly fast normal, and a long tele-zoom. That's a lot of versatility for pretty darned cheap.

Moderately priced beginners' kit: $596

1. AF-S VR Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G DX wide zoom ($169)
2. AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D ($289)
3. AF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6G ($135)

The above kit adds VR to the short zoom, plus a super-fast, 50mm f/1.4D (which actually focuses faster than its AF-S sibling, and comes complete with a real aperture ring). Total damage: $596

"Pro-Value" priced beginners' kit: $1,620

1. Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 ultra-wide DX zoom ($599)
2. AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G ($429)
3. AF-S VR Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6G IF-ED ($589)

My so-called "Value-Pro" kit is actually a fairly "pro" assortment of pretty decent glass. It adds a fast, constant-aperture, ultra-wide DX zoom, a fast, AF-S 50mm f/1.4, and the AF-S/ VR version of the 70-300mm. All this for $1,620. Sounds like a lot of money? Think of it this way--each of these lenses, you will probably keep forever (save for the Tokina, should you switch to FX-only bodies), even as you add pricier, more exotic lenses to your collection later.

heartyfisher said:
Which body?

Which body do I own? I own a D90 and a beat-up old D70.

Which body?

If you only own DX bodies, I think DX lenses are a good thing. It saves on weight, bulk, and cost. I actually kind of regret not buying one of the new short DX zooms for my D90, rather than the extremely expensive, heavy-as-hell, AF 14mm f/2.8D I own (and never use, because it's heavy as hell, and its front element is ridiculously, precariously exposed).

As for kit lens debate . . .

I'll make one more point. If the beginning photographer ever plans to buy additional lenses, then, I believe the investment in good glass should start from the get-go. That way, every dollar is invested toward a complete set of good lenses. You can go two ways:

1. Fast zooms (photojournalism, sports, event, etc.)
2. Fast fixed-focal length lenses (walk-to-frame, or set-up shots)

Since either route is expensive, I just think it best not to waste a single dollar on a lens you "won't need" someday (I know, the short DX zoom, also, arguably falls into that category, should you choose to shoot FX exclusively someday). This, in addition to all of the "learning" and "seeing" arguments I've made previously.

I also believe my argument is supported by, and consistent with my everyday observations of those who buy slow kit lenses, and never buy another lens, period. I seem to see this a lot. Content with their kit lenses, they never "discover" what kind of photography a fast lens makes possible. Now, one way to justify a kit lens, is to get a short zoom. Since many wide-angle images require more depth-of-field anyway, a slower, UWA-zoom can be a good thing as a first lens--a lens which will remain a viable part of a more capable lens assortment later.

As an aside, I just went out on two, day-long, personal shooting excursions (both, daylight exteriors--two different locations). These are the only three lenses I took--an ultra-wide, a medium/macro, and a long zoom:

1. AF Nikkor 18mm f/2.8D.
2. AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D.
3. AF VR Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G.

Guys we're getting off topic. This is yet another reason why I hate DX lenses. Everybody gets confused about the 1.5X crop and what exactly it means. With 35mm (FX) lenses you don't have worry about all this calculating BS!

Anyway I'll start a new thread so we can confuse everybody even more :^)

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=2165&replies=1#post-36073

Now let's get back to whether I should buy a kit lens or just the camera body only.

So if 4/3 to DX is 2 stops, anybody know what FX to DX is? This is interesting.

4/3 sensors are weird in that I heard they're more 4:3, so it's more square than rectangular.

Not sure how that affects depth of field if anything.

Makes perfect sense to me PB. I am surprised by the 4/3rds sensor camera having such a deep DoF compared even to the DX though. Does this make the 4/3rds sensor really quite limited in it's usage on a day-to-day basis?

Depth of field is effected by the size of the sensor, just as light sensitivity is. Remember the FX sensor is bigger than the DX sensor, just as the DX sensor is much bigger than a compact digital camera. You can even see a distinct difference between the 4/3s crop sensors and DX sized sensors in terms of depth of field. On a 4/3s camera F4 gives you the same depth of field as F8 on a DX camera, and I know this from experience. I tested this by taking shots with an Olympus E410 that I used to own and my D300.

Niko said:
An f2.8 lens doesn't give you less DOF on an FX camera then on a DX. The only thing that changes is the "magnification". If you use a DX lens on an FX camera you don't get different DOF you just get less of the image. Crop mode on a 12mp D3 will give you a 5 megapixel image with no vignetting. Or a 12 mp image with lots of vignetting.

Adamz said:
"Niko, I came across one review, where they actually stated that there's app. one stop difference in the way DOF is recorder - so 1.8 on DX will give You the same DOF as 2.8 on FX - although I can't verify this, and honestly I don't care about this too much. Nevertheless, I've heard about this, so maybe others did too."

I am not convinced either that what you said is all there is to it Niko. There have been a few references to the D.O.F. of DX on this forum as being a problem when isolating subjects with larger apertures. If this was related to kit lenses being used so largest apertures being around 5.6 at medium lengths then OK but that wasn’t the context the statement was made in. I don't know, but it could be kind of like the exposure triangle in as much as it isn’t possible to change the relationship between magnification, sensor size and aperture without changing the D.O.F?

If putting a DX lens on an FX body gives vignetting it lust be because the image hitting the sensor is smaller than from an FX lens surely? Focal length for focal length, sensor size must affect D.O.F. surely?

As usual, I bow to just about everybody’s greater knowledge on photography related details than mine, but I just don’t think we have a clear enough understanding about the technical advantages/disadvantages of FX/DX yet.

towen7 said:
I mean no offense but I just don't get comments like this. There is sooooooo much more to good photography than an expensive lens and an FX sensor. To judge a photographer by his equipment is silly. The 18-200mm lens is IMO a pretty good lens if speed and DOF are not what you need for the shot you're after. Knowledge of how to use a lens and work around it's "limitations" is a mark of a good photographer.

Joe Mcnally with an iPhone can likely get better images than I would with a D3x and 14-24mm f/2.8 ED lens.

No, I absolutely understand where you're coming from. Composition is very important and gear shouldn't matter, but it just felt so odd that he paired a D3 with an 18-200, that's all.

NikoDoby said:
...An f2.8 lens doesn't give you less DOF on an FX camera then on a DX. The only thing that changes is the "magnification". If you use a DX lens on an FX camera you don't get different DOF you just get less of the image....

Niko, I came across one review, where they actually stated that there's app. one stop difference in the way DOF is recorder - so 1.8 on DX will give You the same DOF as 2.8 on FX - although I can't verify this, and honestly I don't care about this too much. Nevertheless, I've heard about this, so maybe others did too.