New Nikon D200. Need lens suggestions.

[KerrKid]

Hello all,

I just bought a minty D200 with the kit 18-55mm lens. Are there any "must have" lenses you would recommend? What do you think of the 18-200mm?

Thanks!

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

My choice would probably be a 40mm f2.8 micro-nikkor or another petite DX prime. I tend to use FX lenses on my D90 as that is what I have on hand for use on my bevy of film cameras. One of my favorite combos is the 70-300mm G VR on a Nikon 1 body which gives an equivalent FOV of 190-810mm on the 1" crop. Nevermind the 200-500mm f5.6 or 500mm reflex...

The distortion from a super lens like the 18-200mm is probably well-corrected in software and I wouldn't hesitate to pick one up if it complemented my style of shooting.

Here's a lens reference (http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html#DX) if you wanna do some comparisons.

 

[KerrKid]

My choice would probably be a 40mm f2.8 micro-nikkor or another petite DX prime. I tend to use FX lenses on my D90 as that is what I have on hand for use on my bevy of film cameras. One of my favorite combos is the 70-300mm G VR on a Nikon 1 body which gives an equivalent FOV of 190-810mm on the 1" crop. Nevermind the 200-500mm f5.6 or 500mm reflex...

The distortion from a super lens like the 18-200mm is probably well-corrected in software and I wouldn't hesitate to pick one up if it complemented my style of shooting.

Here's a lens reference (http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/specs.html#DX) if you wanna do some comparisons.

An FX lens would have the advantage of being able to be used on the larger sensor camera models as well, correct?

What I don’t want is to lug around more lens than I need. I’ve read some recommendations to skip the 18-200 and get the 18-300. Fine except for the kings ransom they’re asking for that lens.

I like the idea of a 40mm lens. Is that 40mm in terms of a comparable 35mm film camera or more? I have a 45mm pancake lens on one of my Minolta SRT-101’s and like it. I’ve also been looking at the 35’s for the D200 if that would yield a 35mm film camera equivalent.

Would you skip the 18-300 and get a 70-300 instead?

Lastly, I have my eye on a D90. If you were me, would you get it?

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

The FX lenses are physically larger, but offer better performance on a crop sensor in the owing to their larger image circle. Compatibility with digital FX and 35mm Nikon cameras is another nice perk.

A DX/APS-C/Super35/half-frame sensor has a crop factor of 1.5x, which would give a 40mm lens an equivalent FOV of a 60/58mm on full frame. 58mm is slightly longer than the normal FOV provided by a standard 50mm, but is well suited to portraiture as evidenced by the various incarnations of 58mm FX Nikkors. 'Normal' pancakes aren't really a thing for DX bodies since the flange distance is the same as full-frame, but the most compact option that preserves FOV on a crop sensor would be an FX 20mm f4/f3.5 or 24mm Nikkor that is sufficiently compatible with your camera body. The D200 will meter with pre-AF lenses and so may be viable in aperture priority and manual exposure modes with such lenses.

I probably wouldn't consider a D90 if I already had a D200. I'd look at a D500, something in the D7xxx series, or Z/FX model as a more complete upgrade.

 

[KerrKid]

The FX lenses are physically larger, but offer better performance on a crop sensor in the owing to their larger image circle. Compatibility with digital FX and 35mm Nikon cameras is another nice perk.

A DX/APS-C/Super35/half-frame sensor has a crop factor of 1.5x, which would give a 40mm lens an equivalent FOV of a 60/58mm on full frame. 58mm is slightly longer than the normal FOV provided by a standard 50mm, but is well suited to portraiture as evidenced by the various incarnations of 58mm FX Nikkors. 'Normal' pancakes aren't really a thing for DX bodies since the flange distance is the same as full-frame, but the most compact option that preserves FOV on a crop sensor would be an FX 20mm f4/f3.5 or 24mm Nikkor that is sufficiently compatible with your camera body. The D200 will meter with pre-AF lenses and so may be viable in aperture priority and manual exposure modes with such lenses.

I probably wouldn't consider a D90 if I already had a D200. I'd look at a D500, something in the D7xxx series, or Z/FX model as a more complete upgrade.

Thank you for your reply. I appreciate the information. I would love to have a D500 but the sellers are very proud of those. I’ll have to save up for one.

I’ll take a look at the 20mm and 24mm options. I have a friend with a 24mm but he’s not parting with it.

 

[Down Under]

... I have my eye on a D90. If you were me, would you get it?

Yes. The D90 is now a dinosaur, but we have one of them beasts in our home camera arsenal. My partner uses it for happy-crappy snaps and it continues to function and to produce good, even fine images. All with the humble but impressive 18-55 it came with in 2010.

It was my first Nikon DSLR and I remain fond of it, even if nowadays I use my D700s and D800s, for some unfathomable reason I have two of each. These are likely to be my last ever digitals, which might explain the 'partner' camera for each. Also ten or eleven lenses or maybe even an even dozen, I long ago lost count.

The D90 went with me to Southeast Asia several times. It has produced, among many other fine images, two full page spreads published in architecture books in Europe, so it isn't a toy.

However, I agree your D200 is probably a better investment, but if the D90 is an almost giveaway to buy, well, why not...

 

[bdial]

I have an 18-200, it's a nice lens, plenty sharp. But, a little big to use all the time, IMHO and a bit slow unless you have good light. I bought mine to go on a D200. For everyday knocking around, I prefer the smaller zooms. The 28-105 f2.8 AFD is very nice and recently seems to sell for a lot less than it used to.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

I have the 35mm f/1.8 DX and the 85mm f/3.5 Micro DX. I would highly recommend both. The 85mm has VR and does well as a general purpose medium telephoto (and portrait lens, if you stand far enough back from your subject).

I also have the 18–55mm and the 55–200mm VR. These are more plasticy than the primes (plastic mounts) but get the job done. Mine are around 15 years old and the AF in my 18–55 is becoming iffy. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. MF on these lenses is terrible because the focus ring is very narrow and way out at the front of the lens.

These lenses make a good kit because they all take 52mm filters.

I wish Nikon had made more inexpensive but good primes like the 35mm f/1.8 DX.

 

[KerrKid]

Yes. The D90 is now a dinosaur, but we have one of them beasts in our home camera arsenal. My partner uses it for happy-crappy snaps and it continues to function and to produce good, even fine images. All with the humble but impressive 18-55 it came with in 2010.

It was my first Nikon DSLR and I remain fond of it, even if nowadays I use my D700s and D800s, for some unfathomable reason I have two of each. These are likely to be my last ever digitals, which might explain the 'partner' camera for each. Also ten or eleven lenses or maybe even an even dozen, I long ago lost count.

The D90 went with me to Southeast Asia several times. It has produced, among many other fine images, two full page spreads published in architecture books in Europe, so it isn't a toy.

However, I agree your D200 is probably a better investment, but if the D90 is an almost giveaway to buy, well, why not...

I was going to bid on a D90 and decided against it. Like you said, if I could get a D90 for very little it would make sense, but not at more for a single body than I paid for my camera with lens. Besides, I would rather save up and get a much better Nikon like you have or the D500. And, yeh, lots of lenses!

 

[KerrKid]

I have an 18-200, it's a nice lens, plenty sharp. But, a little big to use all the time, IMHO and a bit slow unless you have good light. I bought mine to go on a D200. For everyday knocking around, I prefer the smaller zooms. The 28-105 f2.8 AFD is very nice and recently seems to sell for a lot less than it used to.

Good to know. I won't bid on the 18-200mm then. I'll look into the 28-105mm. Might just be the ticket.

 

[KerrKid]

I have the 35mm f/1.8 DX and the 85mm f/3.5 Micro DX. I would highly recommend both. The 85mm has VR and does well as a general purpose medium telephoto (and portrait lens, if you stand far enough back from your subject).

I also have the 18–55mm and the 55–200mm VR. These are more plasticy than the primes (plastic mounts) but get the job done. Mine are around 15 years old and the AF in my 18–55 is becoming iffy. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. MF on these lenses is terrible because the focus ring is very narrow and way out at the front of the lens.

These lenses make a good kit because they all take 52mm filters.

I wish Nikon had made more inexpensive but good primes like the 35mm f/1.8 DX.

35mm does seem like a good walk-about lens. I hear all sorts of good things about the 85mm's, too. I may try the 28-105mm first and the 35mm and get the 85mm later. It depends on what my subject matter demands. I'll figure it out once I start the blog. I think the 35-50mm range with a mild telephoto shot every now and then will probably be the bulk of it.

 

[KerrKid]

Oh my. I just shot my first pix with the D200. I had no idea what I was missing. The shutter is sweeeeet! I realize I'm late to the Nikon DSLR party by 17 years, but this camera feels so good in the hands. Did I mention how nice that shutter is? I haven't messed with any of the settings much - just put stuff on auto. It's way more complicated than I'm used to so I have a bit of a learning curve. The pix I took had great color. I just put the lens on 18mm and clicked away. This is amazing technology compared to the little digital p&s's I'm used to. I cannot imagine how nice the better Nikons are. I'm hooked.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

A fun hobby, indeed. Hopefully no one was injured!

 

[choiliefan]

My D90 came with the DX 18-105.
Despite the plastic mount, it's been a very nice performer.
Most of my other glass consists of older full-frame AF-Nikkors such as the 18-35, 80-200 2.8, 28, 50, 105, etc. All good, all screw-driven except the kit lens.

 

[KerrKid]

My D90 came with the DX 18-105.
Despite the plastic mount, it's been a very nice performer.
Most of my other glass consists of older full-frame AF-Nikkors such as the 18-35, 80-200 2.8, 28, 50, 105, etc. All good, all screw-driven except the kit lens.

Wish mine had come with the 18-105 but the 18-55 will be ok as I learn how to use the camera. I would like a zoom up to 200mm, though.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hello all,

I just bought a minty D200 with the kit 18-55mm lens. Are there any "must have" lenses you would recommend? What do you think of the 18-200mm?

Thanks!

Your kit lens has an excellent reputation, So, You may be all set.

 

[KerrKid]

Your kit lens has an excellent reputation, So, You may be all set.

Good advice. Use what you have, as the saying goes. I can always get a zoom down the road.

I've heard that some of the non-Nikon lenses can be good, but I guess it really depends on which one.

 

[MattKing]

The kit lenses are often quite light and compact - that is an attribute that matters to me a lot.
Personally, I've never liked the zooms with an extreme range. I prefer having two small zooms that together cover the range.

 

[KerrKid]

The kit lenses are often quite light and compact - that is an attribute that matters to me a lot.
Personally, I've never liked the zooms with an extreme range. I prefer having two small zooms that together cover the range.

That makes sense. The 18-55mm that I have is fairly small which is good. It looks like the Nikon 55-200mm DX VR II would pick up nicely where that one left off and can be had at reasonable prices.

 

[benveniste]

There is no "must have" lens for any interchangeable lens camera. According to Lightroom, with my D200 I kept the most shots from the following 4 lenses:

1. 24-120mm f/3.5~5.6 VR
2. 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II
3. 105mm f/2.8 Micro
4. The kit 18-70mm f/3.5~4.5

I do own a 55-200mm VR-II, but I acquired it after I converted my D200 for IR photography. It's definitely built to a price point, and it won't ever replace my 70-200mm f/2.8, but IMO it's a reasonable choice for casual "freestyle" shooting.