Experience so far

[mpykalo]

Hello everyone,

I think that my experience with may be interesting to some.
To put it all in context, I have years of experience with film, including lots of B&W darkroom time printing both as a hobby and as part of my profession. Anyway, for one reason or another I strayed away from photography for nearly a decade until I finally purchased Nikon P5000 P&S about two years ago. This is a very fine camera that got me hooked again so shortly afterward I splurged on a Nikon D40 dslr with the kit 18-55mm lens. And this is where it all starts...

Within a month I added the lovely Nikon 55-200mm VR lens to my collection, as well as a used Nikon 10.5mm fisheye.

Shortly after getting all this I was tempted by the Nikon 18-200 VR to replace the 18-55 and 55-200. So I sold those as well as the fisheye (for a very good profit online) and got the 18-200 as well as the 50 f/1.8.

The 50mm is amazing: sharp, small/light, beautiful colours, and the manual focus is not a problem at all.

The 18-200 on the other hand is very dissapointing... compared to the kit 18-55 and the 55-200 its image quality is very poor.

So I sold it. Now, finally my wife hopes, I have three amazing lenses in my arsenal. The 50 f/1.8, as well as two new ones: the Sigma 10-22 ultrawide and the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. Really happy with this kit too! For now at least...

[PaulaLynn]

Thats a great review for those trying to figure out what to buy next. Like me LOL! I'm using Canon so if anyone has similar experience so far, please let me know... :)

[Marko]

...
So I sold it. Now, finally my wife hopes, I have three amazing lenses in my arsenal. The 50 f/1.8, as well as two new ones: the Sigma 10-22 ultrawide and the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. Really happy with this kit too! For now at least...

I have both of these zoom lenses. The Tamron is excellent. Quite fast and sharp. The Sigma is a good lens for general wide angle shots and artsy shots. A fair amount of distortion at the 10mm end for sure though.

[Travis]

I went through the same thing... except I started with the D60....

I had the kit lens 18-55vr, then bought the 55-200vr, then 50mm 1.8, then sold the 18-55+55-200 for the Nikkor 18-200vr... lol..

then bought the 12-24, sold the D60+18-200 and bought the D300.... and then really started spending money on glass...

FYI - The 18-200 Nikkor from my research is pretty much the only Nikon lens that is subject to fairly wild sample variation. This is not a Nikkor characteristic. Looking back, I'm sorry I sold mine. I had a sharp copy and it's a very light, easy, walkabout lens. My 70-200 weighs about 1000 thousand pounds. I might search out another copy in the future for recreational shooting.
Kiley (a member here) seems to have a pretty sharp copy as well, you can see her work here.

Another note as you stated, the Nikon 18-55VR, and 55-200VR are really really sharp and cheap lenses. The 18-55 is a 1:3 focuser and the 55-200 stopped down is pretty much par with my $1800 70-200 except it's a lot slower. The Nikkor 70-300VR also has a reputation for sharpness.

Looking forward to see what you get next. You may think it's over but you kinda sound like me. You have G.A.S.!

[mpykalo]

Yes! My wife definitely agrees that I have G.A.S.!!!

Right now I'm very happy with the D40 and won't be upgrading it until full frame sensors trickle further down the Nikon product line. it really serves all my needs so glass is all I care about.

I'm very impressed by the sharpness of the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. Also, since it has the built in fast focusing motor, its perfectly matches the D40, as well as suiting any full frame upgrades in the future. Add to this, its very light weight and easy to handle.

The Sigma 10-20 is also very sharp and easy handling. I understand that lots of people had trouble with this lens due to QC issues, but my copy is really sharp even at f4.

So what should I get next??? I don't really miss the telephoto ability of my previous lenses... and if I did I would likely get the 55-200 VR again. But right now I find that the 75mm suits me fine for my purposes. I may consider the 105mm VR micro though. Anyone have experience with this lens?

[Travis]

the 105mm vr nikkor is on my "eventually" list.. .. I considered and researched it but bought the sigma 105mm used to see how much macro I'd be doing..

not much you can find in the way of negative on the 105 vr... and it will focus with your D40...

if you are keeping the D40 you may also want to check out Nikons new 50 1.4 with AFS...

if you feel like playing the lottery look into the sigma 30mm 1.4 hsm .... this will focus on the D40 too... but you'll have to junk it when stepping up to full frame... you may want to stay away from DX lenses if planning to move full frame one day... not sure if their resale value will hold up...

[mpykalo]

Good point, thank you. In fact I have played with a friend's Sigma 1.4 30mm HSM for a few days and found it to be quite quirky. It rarely focussed correctly and its field of view was somewhat 'conventional'... similar to what a 50 was like on film. I never really liked that look.

I suppose one more issue that gets little attention in the forums is the cost of all this glass. The thought of paying such large sums of money for lenses really intimidates many.
My experience has been very good in this regard. I found that buying good quality lenses assures their resale value... in fact I found that it is possible to resell certain lenses for more more than their new retail price, I suppose we are lucky in North America as all this equipment can be near half price of what others pay. For instance i sold my 10.5mm fisheye for a $300 profit over its new cost to someone in Switzerland over ebay. Amazing.