need opinions about entry-level DSLR purchase

[Kevin W Johnson]

The 18-200 AF-S DX lens is a good all around zoom lens. And as Joe said, for a prime lens, the 35/1.8G is a great lens. It's on my list as well as a 10-24mm for it's 109 degree field of view. They make a 10.5 fisheye that has 180 degree FOV, but I don't like the distortion that goes with it.

On a side note, I managed to pick up a perfectly functioning D40x body on ebay for $50 & $10 shipping. The seller had it listed at $300, NON-working, said it wouldn't power on. I sent them a message stating it wasn't a gold nugget, and that functioning bodies could be had for less, and offered $50 being kinda smart. I'm guessing they thought they would "stick me" having to pay for it. I gladly payed for it, knowing I could either fix it, or resell parts from it. It arrived today, body and a completely discharged battery. Installed a charged battery, and it powered right up, takes pictures, functions fine. The battery also took a charge and seems to be ok. Upon checking the exif data of a picture, the body only has 2490 shutter actuations on it, and 30 of those are mine.

[Jim Becker]

This is the lens I use primarily with my D3100--it was purchased for my old D70 while on vacation when another lens bit the bucket. In general, I'm very pleased with it. I keep the kit lens as a backup.

[Zach England]

Do you think that lens fills both roles of the 18-55 and 55-200 that I have? I'd love to have one lens that has both a longer zoom and wider angle.

I am yet to put into practice the advice given here. I hope to find some time this week.

[Kevin W Johnson]

Do you think that lens fills both roles of the 18-55 and 55-200 that I have? I'd love to have one lens that has both a longer zoom and wider angle.

I am yet to put into practice the advice given here. I hope to find some time this week.

That lens will replace the two you have and give you the exact same capabilities in a single lens. If you want a wider angle of view, you have to move to a 10-24mm, 12-24mm, or 10.5mm fisheye lens.

[Joe Angrisani]

Do you think that lens fills both roles of the 18-55 and 55-200 that I have? I'd love to have one lens that has both a longer zoom and wider angle....

It certainly covers the range of both those lenses, but it is a noticably heavier commitment (not to mention a significant price for many). Even though you have to carry two lenses with your 18-55/55-200 kit (when you need the full range), you only ever have one MUCH LIGHTER lens on the camera and around your neck. You don't really notice the weight of the second lens in your knapsack. The only downside is the MINOR inconvenience of swapping lenses. Optically they'll be the same.

I have the 18-200. With a 10-20 and the 35/1.8, it's my travel kit, unless I commit to carrying "the real glass". But that litte ol' 18-55 will be your go-to range for maybe 2/3rds of your shots.

Learn with what you've got. That's my advice for at least your first 3-4 months. Add the 35/1.8G now if you want a large aperture lens. Tell you what: I strongly believe a non-zoom will make you a better photographer. You learn to see what's in a scene, instead of simply cropping from where you're standing.

[Zach England]

OK, thanks. I got the stuff last night to put together a light box setup, so I am excited about that. I hope to have some nice images of my ceramic work up here in a few days.

[Jim Becker]

Do you think that lens fills both roles of the 18-55 and 55-200 that I have? I'd love to have one lens that has both a longer zoom and wider angle.

Yes, it will. As someone already mentioned, it wasn't inexpensive, but I like that it's a relatively compact solution when not zoomed out to the max. As to size...here's the kit 18-55mm lens next to it for comparison. Note that with the DX format, an "18-200mm" is somewhat like having a 50-300mm lens in traditional full-frame 35mm format. For that reason, if you really want to do true wide-angle or macro photography, you'll want to invest in appropriate lenses for that work. This type of lens, however, is really versatile for general, every-day shooting, IMHO.

[Zach England]

[Joe Angrisani]

....Note that with the DX format, an "18-200mm" is somewhat like having a 50-300mm lens in traditional full-frame 35mm format....

Actually, the 18-200 is about like a 28-300mm. Moderately wide, but as Jim said, you need something wider for true wide angle. The 18-55mm kit lens is like a mid-range 28-80mm was on film Nikons, and the 55-200 frames like an 80-300 would (for comparison).

The ceramic shots look good, Zach, except for the first being slightly underexposed. What aperture did you shoot them at? #1 and #2 have far rims that are slightly out of focus, and you should be able to get enough depth of field to cover the mugs' diameters. I'm nitpicking - all-in-all, a very nice start.

[Andrew Pitonyak]

Every lens is a compromise.... the question is, what is compromised in the lens that you have or desire. Usually, when you purchase a "prime" lens (a lens with a single focal length, ie, it is not a zoom lens), it is usually very sharp, but you cannot zoom in. A zoom lens allows you to zoom in and out, but it is difficult to have an image that looks great at all the different zoom levels. A zoom lens usually has a sweet spot where it is best and as you move from one extreme to the other (zoom way in or way out) you will usually introduce some defects into the image. Example defects include things such as lack of sharpness, lines bending near the edges, chromatic aberrations, etc.

It is also common for the center of the lens to have the best image and things will increase in defects as you move away from the center.

Most lenses perform differently based on the amount of light. Well, more accurately, based on the aperture. It is typical for the sweet spot to be somewhere between 4 and 10.

That said, all these things differ, so, if you care, just look at some in depth reviews where such things are measured so that you know what to avoid (or to clue you in). In my mind, I think "hey, f/22, everything should be sharp and in focus". The reality may be that at f/22, things are less good than at f/10 so I should shoot there if the image is still fully in focus.

For the most part, you can be sure that the lens would not be released if it would not be sufficient for some particular use. One thing that I like about the cheap stock lens is that it is so light. Makes it easier to do a lot of shooting. After spending an hour with my 80-200 f/2.8 lens, my wrist was screaming for rest; but the images were amazing even though taken in lower light.

Don't stress the need to obtain a new expensive lens unless you are unhappy with the lens that you have. Your images above look very nice. If possible, see if you can find a friend that has the lens of interest. My usual lens is very nice, but I wanted a different one. I borrowed it for a week and decided that with a reduced crop camera, I did not need the other lens, it was just too heavy for the use I had in mind (even if the pictures from the lens were fabulous).

A comment on the images. The entire cup is not in-focus (as in the rear). Often, this is purposely done, and in the case of your images, it looks very nice as is. Some people struggle to achieve this affect.

[Jim Becker]

Actually, the 18-200 is about like a 28-300mm.

Thanks for the correction...I just mis-typed that.

[Zach England]

A comment on the images. The entire cup is not in-focus (as in the rear). Often, this is purposely done, and in the case of your images, it looks very nice as is. Some people struggle to achieve this affect.

This is fairly common in the ceramics publications world. I had some where I split the difference in the focus and used a wider aperture and got a pretty well focused shot of the whole cup and I did not like those as much.

More on this later when I have a better grey background and some more time to adjust the lights differently. I am hoping to look at it on Saturday. Yesterday I got a kiln load of bronze/brown/white cups that I really like, so hopefully there will be more photos of those that turn out better. I am really struggling with the reflections on the glossy surfaces. I am going to try moving the lights farther behind the piece and using a darker background. I had some where you could actually see the reflection of the camera lens on the side of the piece.

[Joe Angrisani]

Try stepping back and then zooming in to get the same composition. The depth of field will be the same when you step closer and zoom out, or step further away and zoom in. The picture will look pretty much the same, but it will make reflections of you and the camera shrink and basically disappear.

Generally speaking I'd like a little of the object out of focus, as Andrew said, to show 3-dimensionality. "Artistry wins". But in a product shot, try to keep the whole product in focus.

[Zach England]

Yeah, these aren't product shots. They're technically product shots, since I am going to use them on my etsy store, but when selling off-beat stuff like mine (as opposed to a coffee mug with your name on it!) the artistry of the photography really matters and they should mimic the images you see in publications like CERAMICS MONTHLY. Eventually I'd like to produce some photos that I feel is worthy of submitting to juried competitions, but my work isn't quite there yet, so I have some time.