I just got my D5000 yesteday and it came with the 18-55 kit lens. I already have the 18-200 VR lens. So would it be worth keeping the kit lens for anything? I know obviously it is just overlapping the first part of my 18-200 lens. Would I be better off selling it and getting the 35 mm prime?
18-55 VR kit lens worth keeping?
(48 posts) (24 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
Yes, the 35/1.8 is a great lens and would give you enhanced low-light capabilities, as well as shallower DOF. On the other hand, the 18-55, while not Nikon's most robust lens is very small, light and sharp. You might want to carry it when the 18-200 feels too bulky.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Yeah, you can't really sell it for all that much anyway, so I would keep it.
Posted 3 years ago # -
It is one of Ken's 10 Best
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/10-best.htm
Not stating that he knows anything about lens quality
Pete
No sell it to me, considering the lack of quality etc, what about $20.00
Posted 3 years ago # -
ted2001 said:
Yes, the 35/1.8 is a great lens and would give you enhanced low-light capabilities, as well as shallower DOF. On the other hand, the 18-55, while not Nikon's most robust lens is very small, light and sharp. You might want to carry it when the 18-200 feels too bulky.After holding the camera for a while with the 18-200 lens on it I see what you mean. I had originally just thought about keeping it to have especially during the holidays and things when nephews are running around and I don't want my other lens on. I am leaning toward keeping it.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I would keep it since as stated above you are not going to get very much for it. Also as stated the 18-200mm lens can be a bit front heavy on a D5000 body. There are times on trips when carrying the camera all day the 18-200mm will begin to be ackward and heavy and you will then simply want to go light with the 18-55mm.
I would also highly recommend the DX 35mm lens as well.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Keep it and get the 35 f/1.8 anyway. It might seem strange to have 3 lenses with overlapping ranges, but I find that I use the 35 and my kit lens in very different situations, so it doesn't feel like an overlap at all. I don't own the 18-200, though.
Posted 3 years ago # -
It's good to have a backup. Both the 35mm f/1.8 and the 50mm f/1.8 are great lenses too
Posted 3 years ago # -
I think the 18-55 does better macro and is probably sharper than the 18-200.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I second the 18-55 for Macro. It's probably the best cheap macro lens you can have.
It goes to 1:2.6 working distance of about 10cm.
I've seen craigslist ads for it going around $100 but i guess not many succeed, so selling seems to be a no go.
Posted 3 years ago # -
heartyfisher said:
I think the 18-55 does better macro and is probably sharper than the 18-200.I bought a 3100. First DSLR. yesh! It came with the 18-55 and I have now also bought the 18-200. Based on comments on this thread, I will keep the 18-55, if for nothing else then a back up. I was wondering however about the IQ comparison between the 18-55 and the 18-200 for shooting around the house? Or at these level/price point of camera and lenses does it really matter?
Posted 2 years ago # -
Yes lenses do still matter even on entry level cameras. They are both good quality lenses. Keep the 18-55 for when you want to travel with a smaller and lighter camera. Keep the 18-200 for everything else.
Posted 2 years ago # -
fully support Niko's answer - keep the lens and use it when traveling light
Posted 2 years ago # -
One other thing to keep in mind (besides the IQ issue) is that sometimes it's easier to get lazy with an all-in-one lens, whether it's on an SLR or on a P&S. Sometimes limitations -- whether you're shooting with primes, or with a narrower-range lens -- can be a good thing in that they force you to be more mindful of how you compose and shoot, rather than just using the zoom capabilty for everything.
Just a thought.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I sold the lens a while back. I never used it. For a little more then I sold it for I got the 35 f1.8 which is useful to me. I tried it out a couple of times, but it didn't really fit my shooting style.
Not that it was a bad lens, but if you have the 18-200 there isn't really a use for it. Also I scraped the backup thing. If something happens to my 18-200 lens then I will just got buy the 17-50 Sigma lens I want.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I would also recommend keeping it simply because if you ever plan to sell your D5000 and move up to a different body, having the kit lens also helps add to resale value. Remember to keep original box/manuals/cds too!
You can then sell it to another person wishing to own their first DSLR and they'll need a lens and will find it easier to buy the body and lens together.
Posted 2 years ago # -
My vote is to sell it and get the 35mm f1.8. I love the 35mm for almost everything indoors and with available lighting. I have also seen some camera shops take that lens in on trade which would be even better.
The speed of the 1.8 can make a major difference in keeping the speed fast enough for sharp photos.
Posted 2 years ago # -
krevlingoodspeed said:
I would also recommend keeping it simply because if you ever plan to sell your D5000 and move up to a different body, having the kit lens also helps add to resale value. Remember to keep original box/manuals/cds too!You can then sell it to another person wishing to own their first DSLR and they'll need a lens and will find it easier to buy the body and lens together.
On the other hand, a general rule when selling used gear is to buy bundle and sell individual items.
bundles generally sell less than the sum of their part while selling items individually yeilds more.
But i guess this might not apply as well to low end gear.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I guess you already sold it? I would have kept it. It is a remarkable and small lens. It is fairly good at close ups. I don't own one. They are not very good to sell due to the low price they command. The 35mm f1.8 although very nice I would use less than a zoom. The only primes I use in the field are Micro-Nikkors. I just shoot in too many places that backing up or moving in is dangerous or just costs time.
Posted 2 years ago # -
DaveyJ said:
I guess you already sold it? I would have kept it. It is a remarkable and small lens. It is fairly good at close ups. I don't own one. They are not very good to sell due to the low price they command. The 35mm f1.8 although very nice I would use less than a zoom. The only primes I use in the field are Micro-Nikkors. I just shoot in too many places that backing up or moving in is dangerous or just costs time./shrug I got $130 for it and it was basically free with my body as the kit. I didn't have any problems with the lens, but it was taking up room in my camera bag and I wanted the 35 f1.8. I plan on getting one of the micro lenses anyway, so the macro aspect of it isn't a selling point for me. Like I said, nothing wrong with the lens...I just didn't find any use for it personally. Eventually down the road I will get a f2.8 in a similar range, but I think I want the micro first.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Hear you there on the micro lens. I cannot operate without them. Maybe the "normal" lens are OK close, but the micro lens are sharper etc., question is how many can you afford to use and own? I have the 60mm and the 105. I use the 60mm micro very often. The 105mm I use strictly when I am not close enough to the subject. The 105mm doubles as a very good portrait lens providing your subject can tolerate that degree of sharpness. The 200mm Micro Nikkor I do not own and I have never even personally seen the lens.
It is supposed to be superb. If I had to chose a lens for FX as a prime it would be the 24mm not the 35mm. I assume you are using that on a DX so that is pretty much a normal prime. I am sure I would really like that lens! I do think you got about what a 18-55VR would sell for and that was from an individual? B&H or a great company to BUY from would not be where to sell a lens like that!
The 60mm Nikkor is rated as one of the best Nikon ever made according to what Nikon has told me. But which micro you get depends on what you are shooting. I also owned several other brand close up lens and the results there were so bad I will not get into to all the details. Some are once in awhile mentioned on NR as being very good and less money. For my purposes the Nikkors have been very trouble free and I have never had a Nikon lens quit ever. I have owned them in the dozens. I have also owned more non Nikon lens and the view camera lenses were usually very good. The non-Nikon 35 lens were usually money wasted. I finally switched to Nikon due to the f mount and the lens that were available. I only after that began buying Nikon cameras. I only sent one back for repair.
I guess I tend to keep lenses any more. View camera and medium format lenses though I could not afford to own and not use.Posted 2 years ago # -
I have gone back and forth on the micro lenses. They are all so different. The 105 is obviously the best built and f2.8, but it costs the most. The 85 would be the next choice, but it is only f3.5. The 60 is probably be my last choice just because I have the 35 f1.8 and they are kind of close to each other. Plus the 60 has the worst working distance, but it is f2.8. I really wish they had made the 85 a 2.8 for a little more money. I do plan on doubling the micro as a portrait lens, but I don't do many of them so that isn't a big concern.
I like the 35 1.8. It is actually built better then I thought it would be for the price. I still haven't had a chance to use it much, but from what I have I like it.
I did sell it to an individual. I would have got half that from a store like B&H. I have to say it just took some time to decide on what I wanted. I even made some of the threads about what lenses I should get, but after having my camera for a while you learn the limitations of what you have and what you want. I think the kit lenses are a great way to find that out. Also it probably is nice to have the lighter 18-55 for vacation or whatever, but on the other hand the 18-200 is really the ultimate walk around lens.
It is really kind of hard to get lens advice unless you know what you want. You are the only person that knows what you will use it for and what your budget is. Even though the 35 1.8 is a great lens for the price, some people might not find it of much use. Same goes for the 18-55 kit lens.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Despite the fact that I have some reservations about my 18-200VR I use it a lot. Today I am taking autumn photos with that and the D300. I could have used the D700 and a wide lens which is superb from my Nikon F5 (which I just keep as it is superb, but I don't shoot film at all now). If I did have a 18-55VR kit lens i would keep it just like I have the 18-105VR kit lens which I got from B&H when I bought a D90 as I was touting a camera that I did not own. I found the D90 would even work well for me some of the time. For the first time ever though I plan on getting my D7000 without a lens as only the 16-85VR Nikkor would I consider a satisfactory kit lens now with having shot and owned many. The 18-55VR is an amazingly compact lens and quite sharp. The problem with that lens for me is versatility. It isn't wire sharp. It is sometimes way to short for a subject that I might even find the 18-200VR right out to the 200 and be wanting more. A super sharp zoom that can really produce form very wide to tele though is asking for too much. I guess I always wonder though when someone describes the 18-55VR as adding too much to a photo bag. Heck, I might even be able to squeeze one of those into a Tamrac sling pack which are my real field bags.
Posted 2 years ago # -
DaveyJ said:
Despite the fact that I have some reservations about my 18-200VR I use it a lot. Today I am taking autumn photos with that and the D300. I could have used the D700 and a wide lens which is superb from my Nikon F5 (which I just keep as it is superb, but I don't shoot film at all now). If I did have a 18-55VR kit lens i would keep it just like I have the 18-105VR kit lens which I got from B&H when I bought a D90 as I was touting a camera that I did not own. I found the D90 would even work well for me some of the time. For the first time ever though I plan on getting my D7000 without a lens as only the 16-85VR Nikkor would I consider a satisfactory kit lens now with having shot and owned many. The 18-55VR is an amazingly compact lens and quite sharp. The problem with that lens for me is versatility. It isn't wire sharp. It is sometimes way to short for a subject that I might even find the 18-200VR right out to the 200 and be wanting more. A super sharp zoom that can really produce form very wide to tele though is asking for too much. I guess I always wonder though when someone describes the 18-55VR as adding too much to a photo bag. Heck, I might even be able to squeeze one of those into a Tamrac sling pack which are my real field bags.I have a small bag. So D5000 with 18-200 on it + SB400 flash + 35 1.8 pretty much takes up all my room right now. If I get another lens I will have to get a larger bag. Either way, why carry a lens you are never going to use? If worst came to worst I would put the 35 1.8 on if something happened to my 18-200. Plus the money went to a new lens. It wasn't like I just sold it to have some extra money.
I did keep it for about 6 months just to see. After a couple of times the 18-200 stayed on and the 18-55 stayed in my bag.
Posted 2 years ago # -
tcole1983 You are right of course. You should never carry a lens around you are never going to use, or even store it at home. So selling it to an individual was the right thing to do. I shot a few images with the D5000 and was impressed that there was not a big difference between that and the D90. The swivel LCD though was not my favorite feature there but it looks like that has been set aside in the D3100 and the D7000. The 18-200VR is a good and very versatile lens. I do prefer the 16-85VR or the 70-300VR but when you need the entire range and only one lens is the way to go I still trust the 18-200. I think the 18-200VR is way beyond the 18-55VR as a lens. One is a real workhorse, the 18-55VR is pretty much an entry level kit lens produced to have an attractive first purchase. So I think you have the best walk about lens I have used. I use mine without filters though and there is a thread on that topic.
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
