Should I Buy The Kit With A Lens Or Body Only?

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon Lenses

Should I Buy The Kit With A Lens Or Body Only?

(57 posts) (17 voices)

Tags:

Kit lens versus Body Only

« Previous 123 Next »

Rusty1963

senior member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 72
offline

I have a 10-24 aspherical DX lens that I use on my D700 and the vignette kind of adds a nice touch to the pictures, it makes them completely round which is very different.

@ Spraynpray, I stand to be corrected on all I post here.

Q) "Perhaps the deeper-than-FX depth of field of DX means that the format really isn't suitable for pictures where the subject is heavily isolated using a larger aperture?"

A) If you use the right combination of lens, aperture and zoom, you can get good variance in depth of field with both FX and DX. The difference between FX and DX is the size of the sensor. The FX is "true" in that a 50mm lens is just that, a 50 mm lens. In a DX camera, a 50mm lens is approximately, depending on the camera, 75mm.

It is not a depth of field thing, it is more a magnification issue.

Q) "Can someone tell me what happens when you use the DX facility of one of the FX cameras? Is it just a crop of the image size, or do the (for me) above benefits of DX become available to an FX user?"

A) To the best of my knowledge, it is just a crop, and you end up losing a large part of the file.

Posted 2 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

Towen7 I totally agree with you. "Kids" these days are so stuck on perceived quality and brand names that they forget it's not the tool but the person using it. They always think, for example, that an mp3 player is total garbage unless it's an ipod. Even if it's cheaper, has more memory, and plays all file formats including AAC, all they care about is whether it's an ipod or not.

Nikon does not distinguish it's "pro" lenses versus "amateur" lenses like canon does with it's "L" glass. I think that's a smart thing because they are saying that ALL of their lenses come from the "same" Nikon factory and are built to the "same" standards. Much like a person buying a D3000 feels "pride" when they see a "pro" using a D3S with the word NIKON on it too.

spraynpray said:
Perhaps the deeper-than-FX depth of field of DX means that the format really isn't suitable for pictures where the subject is heavily isolated using a larger aperture? I personally think it is a great format for landscapes, pano's and macro stuff where we benefit from the larger d-o-f.

Can someone tell me what happens when you use the DX facility of one of the FX cameras? Is it just a crop of the image size, or do the (for me) above benefits of DX become available to an FX user?

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.

Posted 2 years ago #
studio460

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 1,231
offline

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.

Personally, I would much rather have a $500 camera and a $2,500 set of various lenses, than a $2,500 body and only the kit lens to shoot with. While I wouldn't venture to judge this person, I would simply think he/she may have had better options, especially if this person plans never to buy another lens, but maintained the goal of someday becoming a more accomplished photographer.

An 18-200mm lens is great if I'm on vacation, shooting only in daylight, and I don't want to carry any other lenses. People certainly have differing goals in photography, and differing needs demand different lens selections. If I'm on vacation, and my only purpose is to document the day, I may take ONLY my 18-70mm kit lens. Of course, that's the ONLY time I ever use my kit lens.

I also believe there's an inherent value in shooting with fixed-focal length lenses: They impart a sort of discipline to your vision. They force you to re-position your camera for the "preferred" perspective for a particular scene. Your perspective choice (i.e., your camera position) then becomes a deliberate part of your picture-making process, not merely a result of zoom-framed convenience. Learning to shoot in specific focal lengths allows you to start "seeing" in those focal lengths, allowing you to pre-visualize scenes that are most appropriate for a particular lens, and that lens' specific amount of exaggerated or foreshortened representation of that perspective.

Posted 2 years ago #
psychophoto

new member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 3
offline

studio460 said:
I also believe there's an inherent value in shooting with fixed-focal length lenses: They impart a sort of discipline to your vision. They force you to re-position your camera for the "preferred" perspective for a particular scene. Your perspective choice (i.e., your camera position) then becomes a deliberate part of your picture-making process, not merely a result of zoom-framed convenience. Learning to shoot in specific focal lengths allows you to start "seeing" in those focal lengths, allowing you to pre-visualize scenes that are most appropriate for a particular lens, and that lens' specific amount of exaggerated or foreshortened representation of that perspective.

I agree. Though I mostly use the kit lens on the D40, I do have 50mm and 35mm primes. I'll go out to shoot and purposefully leave the zoom lens behind so that I'm forced to work within the FOV of the prime. This has greatly changed the way I visualize a scene, even if I am going to use the zoom lens. That said, I tend to shoot my 18-55 kit at 18mm anyway, it'd be nice if there were a prime at that focal length.

Posted 2 years ago #
PB PM

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 2,217
offline

There is, the 18mm F2.8D, but it would only be manual focus on the D40. I don't think you can buy them new anymore, either.

Posted 2 years ago #
studio460

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 1,231
offline

Good to hear, psychophoto! I think it's a good discipline! Whenever I had my 18-70mm kit lens on, I was on the 18mm end pretty much 99% of the time as well. So, I figured, what's the point of that? On a press tour to French Polynesia, I had my AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D on 90% of the time . . . then I dropped it. So, rather than replace it with another 20mm, I started my search for an 18mm Nikkor . . .

Though discontinued in 2006, they're still available on the used market. Luckily, I just picked up a mint-condition, AF Nikkor 18mm f/2.8D, from an estate reseller on Ebay for only $611 (they sold for over $1,000, new), and now it's my favorite lens. It's one of those "fancy" Nikkors with the crinkle-finished, metal barrel. Nice! KEH has several in inventory right now for about $800. I performed some tests last week, and it's impressively sharp, even wide-open.

Posted 2 years ago #
poster

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 779
offline

You should try tokina 11-16mm 2.8. It's pretty much like a prime lens too.

Posted 2 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

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.

Posted 2 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

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.

Posted 2 years ago #
spraynpray

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,514
offline

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.

Posted 2 years ago #
PB PM

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 2,217
offline

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.

Posted 2 years ago #
spraynpray

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,514
offline

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?

Posted 2 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

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.

Posted 2 years ago #
spraynpray

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,514
offline

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

Posted 2 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

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.

Posted 2 years ago #
studio460

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 1,231
offline

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.

Posted 2 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

Which body?

Posted 2 years ago #
studio460

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 1,231
offline

heartyfisher said:
Which body?

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

Posted 2 years ago #
studio460

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 1,231
offline

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.

Posted 2 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

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

Posted 2 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

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?

Posted 2 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

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.

Posted 2 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

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?".

Posted 2 years ago #
TheGrunt

member
Joined: Jun '10
Posts: 13
offline

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.

Posted 2 years ago #
studio460

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 1,231
offline

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.

Posted 2 years ago #