I am new to photography and trying to buy my first lens. I'm buying the d5100. The main subject will be my son who has just turned one. I will want to be able to take shots of him on the soccer field as well as maybe the odd portrait for the Christmas card. My wife is also a fan of landscape shots when we travel. I realize this is a lot to asK of one lens. So I guess my two main questions are 1. Is the 18-105mm enough zoom to capture the soccer game? 2.Is the plastic mount on the 18-105 problematic? Is the extra money for the 18-200 worth it? Is a 50mm prime a must for portraits?
Thanks for the input
Cheers
Frank
18-200mm or 18-105mm??
(44 posts) (22 voices)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
Frank_lll said:
.Is the plastic mount on the 18-105 problematic?No
Frank_lll said:
. Is the extra money for the 18-200 worth itYes, ever penny
Frank_lll said:
Is a 50mm prime a must for portraits?NO. use the 18-200 between 85mm and 200mm @ f8 . You can try f5.6 but it may be a bit soft
For shots of your son on the soccer field, the 105mm may be a bit short
for landscapes, your wife might like somthing wider than 18mm but an ultra wide angle such as the Sigma 10-20 can come later
Posted 1 year ago # -
in Your case I'll stick to the regular 18-55, than if You need I'll add 70-300, much more useful than 18-200 and much better in IQ - especially up to 200mm, as for the wide end - the sigma 10-20 is a very nice lens for all dx cameras.
BTW: please do a forum search, as this topic has been covered already many, many times :)Posted 1 year ago # -
Adamz, I did a Forum search before posting and got 10 pages of similar threads but none of the ones I read would specifically compare ONLY these two lenses. I'm not trying to be an ass because I do appreciate you taking the time to reply but you didn't answer any of my questions.
Posted 1 year ago # -
1. Is the 18-105mm enough zoom to capture the soccer game?
Possibly...2.Is the plastic mount on the 18-105 problematic?
Not really...Is the extra money for the 18-200 worth it?
AbsolutelyIs a 50mm prime a must for portraits?
I think so but the 18-200mm is still a nice lensI will say that optically any of the 18-XXX lenses are pretty similar though
Posted 1 year ago # -
Hi Frank and welcome to the forum. As far as not answering all or any of your questions, you'll just have to get used to it. Many times you'll find members giving answers/suggestions that are completely not inline with the original questions although the advice Adamz gave you was a very good one...
Peace
Posted 1 year ago # -
Like i said, i do appreciate the advice but perhaps i should have been more clear. My wife will also be using the camera and she assures me that she will not have any part in changing a lens. So, i have narrowed it down to these two as my options for an "everyday" lens. One of the concerns my wife has with the 18-200mm is its weight(and,of course, its price).
Posted 1 year ago # -
If you want a single lens that you don't have to change then the 18-200 is the way to go. It is worth the extra price and is built well. It seems a little heavy at first, but it really isn't compared to some of the more expensive pro lenses. It is however heavier then the plastic bodied lenses. 105 mm is not long enough to capture a soccer game even if you are fairly close. 200 mm would be a minimum and 300 is probably better.
IMO spend the extra money and get the 18-200 if you want a one lens that does it all. A prime lens might be a good idea for portraits, but you can take them with the 18-200. You will have to work a little harder to get a nice blurred background though. The 35 or 50 F1.8 lenses are fairly cheap and are great additions to a zoom lens. Or even the new 40 F2.8 macro lens that could be used as a dual purpose lens.
Posted 1 year ago # -
frank
as everyone said, the 18-105 does not have a problem with the mount unless you are very very clumsy. the plastic mount was just to keep the weight and cost down.
land scapes, you can do with 18mm, the alternatives are expensive and I will suggest you wait until you have more experience with the 18mm before looking to buy a wider lens. wider can always come later.
18-105 is a good walk around lens, it also covers the lenghts that you will use for portraits.
50mm is not a must for portraits, however for low light situations a f1.8 of the more expensive f1.4 is a must. look into the 35m and the 50mm with the 50 being the cheaper in cost but not in quality.
as for covering your son playing football, can I suggest you look into the 55-300mm.
this lens provides VR and has more "reach" than the 200mm.grab the 18-105 as the kit or discounted lens and you should be able to add the 55-300 with the price coming close to the price of the 18-200 alone.
if you can afford to stretch the budget a little, the 70-300mmVR would be the better buy than the 55-300mmVR.
add a monopod for the football game and you will be very happy.
welcome to the forum and good luck in your journey into the facinating world of photography.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Frank_lll said:
One of the concerns my wife has with the 18-200mm is its weight(and,of course, its price).Using a standard Camera strap on any DSLR can be uncomfortable. Do a forum search on straps, or "Black rapid" for everyone's advice
People are suggesting, even 200mm is not long enough for sports, so 105mm certainly is too short . If you only want one lens, the 18-200 is the only answer. The 55 -300 will be a bit too long for shooting the family indoors
The only other lens to look at is the 28-300mm but this is even heavier and more expensive
Posted 1 year ago # -
sevencrossing said:
Using a standard Camera strap on any DSLR can be uncomfortable. Do a forum search on straps, or "Black rapid" for everyone's advicePeople are suggesting, even 200mm is not long enough for sports, so 105mm certainly is too short . If you only want one lens, the 18-200 is the only answer. The 55 -300 will be a bit too long for shooting the family indoors
The only other lens to look at is the 28-300mm but this is even heavier and more expensive
I agree. You're pretty much all set with the 28-300
Posted 1 year ago # -
Soft said:
I agree. You're pretty much all set with the 28-300however
remember the 28 is really 42mm
28-300 is good for full frame / FX but usless on the cropped DX
well not usless but it is too long for his use, it means he will them have to invest in a wide angle zoom for the landscapes that his wife is intereted in doing.
this ends up being a very expensive option.
for you guys who are not married, remember before you can make major purchases you must involve your wife, so if she likes landscapes you have to please her if you want to keep adding equipment, and who does not want to keep adding equipment.
18-105 for landscapes, portraits, and everyday photography, add the 55 or 70-300mm for sports, dogs, wildlife and chidren playing.
or, as Adamz suggested, go for the 18-55mm and add the 70-300mm or 55-300mm
good cost effective starter package until you are ready to specialize.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Frank_lll said:
Adamz, I did a Forum search before posting and got 10 pages of similar threads but none of the ones I read would specifically compare ONLY these two lenses. I'm not trying to be an ass because I do appreciate you taking the time to reply but you didn't answer any of my questions.answering shortly:
ad 1.
no, it's not enoughad 2.
if You stick the lens on Your body than it's not a problem, if You gonna change the lenses quite often than YES it's a problemad 3.
no it's not worth to get the 18-200, get 70-300 instead - much better qualityad 4.
no 50mm is not a must for portraits. it's been said by some folks that 85mm on full frame is a portrait length (app 55mm on dx) but this are only guidelines. I've shot portraits with 300mm lens and with 10mm lens, it all depends on You and situation.summing up, You want a good and cheap setup. get d5100 with basic lens 18-55mm vr, get 70-300mm vr and if You will have some add money get 35mm/1.8 prime (IMHO more useful than 50mm/1.8)
Posted 1 year ago # -
Adamz
it seems we were thinking along the same lines.
Posted 1 year ago # -
You are trying to do 3 things - landscape, family and sports. That is very hard to do well with just one lens. Why not start out with a 16 - 85. That will be good for landscape and family but not quite long enough for sports ( in practice not that much worse than 105). Then down the road add a 70 - 300.
Wife will be happy - she can do landscape and family with just one lens. You can change lens for sports.
You will end up with a very good kit.
Posted 1 year ago # -
"1. Is the 18-105mm enough zoom to capture the soccer game?"
The 18-105mm will not be long enough for soccer... For outdoor soccer you'll want to have longer reach than 157mm(?) FOV. For indoor soccer, you'll run into low light and I would suspect, not being intimately familiar with your camera, that the lens won't be fast enough.
"2. plastic mounts"
No insight here, sorry.
"3. Is the extra money for the 18-200 worth it? "
Only if you really, really want it 'all' in one lens. Again, if it's indoor soccer, I'm betting it'll let you down.
"4. Is a 50mm prime a must for portraits"
I would say definitely not a 'must' for portraits. They are a must for cheap(er) access to larger apertures.
When I got my D300s I went with the 18-200mm and did enjoy the convenience, but I invested in some better glass and haven't touched it since. I gave it to my GF to use... but later lent her my 35mm 1.8 and now she shuns the 18-200mm in favor of the DOF and low-light performance f/1.8 provides.
There's a lot of good advice on lens alternatives here. There is not a single lens for the Nikon system (or any system?) that 'does everything' well, but it's possible to put a kit of cheaper lenses together that will deliver excellent quality for years to come.
Posted 1 year ago # -
The Nikon AF-S 18-105mm VR is a very sharp lens, believe it or not. It's my favorite walk-about lens for DX for several reasons. It's sharp, even wide-open and at all focal lengths. It has better distortion control than the 18-200 and is smaller/lighter.
Add the 70-300mm VR and a 35mm f/1.8G and you're set with a great basic starter kit. I would stay away from the 18-200. It's great lens, but not amazing, especially not amazing for the price. The 18-105 is a much better value and when you add the 70-300VR, you'll get much more useful range and less overlapping with better performance.
Posted 1 year ago # -
A lot of you are suggesting two, rather than one lens
With family photography, indeed most subjects
What Henri Cartier-Bresson described as "The decisive moment" is far more important than image quality
So if Frank is changing lanes when "the decisive moment" occurs he will have lost it
IMHO Frank should stick to one lens
Posted 1 year ago # -
@sevencrossing - a lot of us suggest more than one lens because that's what dslr is all about. if You wanna stick to one lens solution get a powerful hybrid such as FinePix HS20EXR and don't bother yourself with dslr. if You want dslr than swapping lenses is obvious decision.
Posted 1 year ago # -
adamz said:
if You wanna stick to one lens solution get a powerful hybrid such as FinePix HS20EXRI have to confess, I have never used a HS20EXR. My only experience of this type of camera is there a slight delay, between pressing the shutter and taking the picture, thus again missing the "The decisive moment"
Posted 1 year ago # -
Wow, lots of info. I think I like the sound of the 18-105 and adding on the 70-300. A friend is selling me his 50mm so that I am getting for sure. Is there a legit sight that icould get the 70-300 used? Either way I think my next step is heading to the store to see what each one feels like in my hand, and maybe more importantly my wife's hand.
Posted 1 year ago # -
adamz said:
@sevencrossing - a lot of us suggest more than one lens because that's what dslr is all about. if You wanna stick to one lens solution get a powerful hybrid such as FinePix HS20EXR and don't bother yourself with dslr. if You want dslr than swapping lenses is obvious decision..
I agree totallybesides, you usually know what you are going to be covering and will have the lens mounted on the camera to cover what you are doing.
as an example, if you are covering the action at a sporting event, then you will most likely mount the 70-300, your point of intrest will be covered by the long lens, that does not mean that something will not happen close to you for which the lens will be too long.
you are around the house, out driving use the 18-55/105 lens, at the sporting event where you want to capture the kid, the 55/70 -300, want to gt into the landscapes seriously later on, get the ultra wide angle zoom, wildlife- 400/500/600 prime, macro, a lens for that, etc.
don't point him down the, get one lens that will do all road, his photography will be limited and growth will be stunted.
also, Nikon DSLR lenses are easy to mount and unmount, and as Adamaz said, that is why we buy the camera, to have lenses for different situations.
people who buy 18-200 DX &28-300 FX, stick them on the camera and expect never to change them, they never utalize the full potential of the camera.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Frank_lll said:
Wow, lots of info. I think I like the sound of the 18-105 and adding on the 70-300. A friend is selling me his 50mm so that I am getting for sure. Is there a legit sight that icould get the 70-300 used? Either way I think my next step is heading to the store to see what each one feels like in my hand, and maybe more importantly my wife's hand.B&H, Adorama, Amazon are all good places.
Posted 1 year ago # -
@Frank III: I own and use all of the lenses discussed and help newcomers sort these out very often. I would go with the 18-105VR Nikkor and the 70-300VR Nikkor as soon a soon you as can add that. B&H has given some of my friends in this same boat a wonderful deal on D3100 and the two lens, or D90 and the two lens. These two lens are a very good combo!! The images with them are very good. The 18-200VR is one of my favorite general use lens BUT the price is high enough that you had better have a compelling reason to use it. The 18-200VR is a very high quality lens but within the 18-105 range is no better than the less expensive lens. The 70-300VR is one of the most hand holdable telephoto lens I have ever owned. The quality on that lens I would rate as extraordinary. I think even your wife would find it light enough.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Hi all,
"I would go with the 18-105VR Nikkor and the 70-300VR Nikkor as soon a soon you as can add that."
Quite agree.
I just finished a small shoot (video) in Glacier National Park for a travelogue that feature clips from both lenses. I have a bunch of other lenses in my bag, but these two were used a lot.
My best,
Mike
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
