I buy a D200 but what lens(es)?

[anzycpethian]

I'm planning to buy a Nikon D200 in the next few weeks and so start with DSLR-photography.
The very maximum amount I want and can spend on the gear is about 2000 Euros and not more. I'll probably buy the item on ebay but one with warranty.

However, now the problem is that I have can't decide what lens(es) I should buy with the camera-unit.
One idea is that I take the "famous" Nikon 18-200mm VR but I'm not sure if that'll be the very right lens for me (because more than this one I can't afford now.). The big advantages of that lens for me are that I won't have to change lenses and maybe get the sensor of my (more or less) brand-new camera dirty and it covers nearly every interesting type of lens.

The problem is that on the other hand if I buy such a good camera like the D200 I will enjoy it with maximum picture quality avaible for the price I can spend on the set and the 18-200 doesn't offer that.
I think that the pictures are quite good but 1-3 prime lenses very probably will work better on the unit.

I've been thinking in the past few day over and over again what lens(es) I should buy along with the D200 but finally I just cannot decide. I simply can't and so I hope maybe someone here can help me.

I'm interested in taking pictures of nature phenomenons and landscapes, animals, urban areas with and without people, night scenes and photography under nearly no light conditions and also macro/micro photography. That's a lot, I know but maybe it is possible to combine some of the mentioned topics with just 1-3 lenses (max. price: 800 Euros, it rather depends on for how much I buy the D200).

I'm spending literary night and day on reading information and comparing myriads of photos of DSLR-technology during the last weeks but I know that I can't get a pro alone from that, that's why I post here and ask you for help.

One of the alternative lenses (to the 18-200mm) could be for example the "Tamron SP AF DI 90mm f/2.8 Macro" (it's not that expensive and it's also usable as wideangle lens for landscapes and portraits although portraits are something I'm absolutely not interested in*). If I'd buy a macro than this one but it doesn't have to be now.

Generally I'm interested in a nice wide-angle (zoom would be fine it that wouldn't ruin the quality: sharpness and colours, minimum of distortion, etc. ...) and a moderate and a telelens (also here zoom would be fine and it ought to be something between 100-300mm for a good price of course; more than 300mm I really do not need for sure).

You see, I buy the D200 for the high picture quality and what I absolutely don't want to do is ruin that aspect of the camera with a bad lens. The 18-200 for sure isn't (I saw so many pictures taken with it, both bad ones and good ones) but maybe it's not the right thing for the the camera and my expectations. If I actually had little bit more money to spend than I'd just try the 18-200 out and buy at least one additional lens with it.

Maybe a good solution to my problem would also be to buy the 18-200, try it out and sell it if I don't like it? But then I'd need alternatives very quickly so that I can use the D200 so please list some for me. I'd really appreciate that.

Would for example other 2 kit zoom lenses work much better than the 18-200mm, like both the 18-55 and 70-300/4-5,6? I don't know, I just don't want to waste my money on one hand on a good cam and on the other on not adequate lenses (later of course I plan to buy some real good ones for much more money but as for now I have to start with at least something).

One idea that came to me is to use my new camera on a wedding as a cheap photographer and spend the earned money for new stuff like lenses. The only problem that comes with that is that normally I myself am not interested in portraits, just for some money it would also be some fun but I want to offer good enough pictures on such an event (maybe somehow without external flash). For the first pay I'd buy one to use it on a second wedding to make again some extra. Would that be realistic?


Sorry for boring you with so much text but I just wanted to state my actual position clearly here.

One more thing: I'm going to buy the D200 for sure, I want to start with it and no other (cheaper model) so suggesting buying another camera and spend more money on lenses is definitely no alternative to me.


Kind regards from Austria
Häwatein

[jdepould]

Get a D80, picture quality will be the same. They use the same sensor.

Putting a cheap lens on an expensive body is pointless. Unless you absolutely need 5fps and a metal body you're spending money on features you won't use when you could be buying a good lens instead of a decent lens.

For my money I'd get a D80 and the 17-55 f/2.8 Nikkor, it'll give you significantly better image quality than buying a D200 and putting a cheap lens on it.

[anzycpethian]

Hello and thanks for your quick answer, jdepould.

I read it already yesterday and now thought about your piece of advice but actually I came to the conclusion that I want the D200, possible with just the 17-55 you proposed. I looked on the web for some high resolution (10MP) pictures shot through this lens but on one hand it was difficult to find more than mayby 5 at all and those weren't that sharp I wished them to be what finally doesn't mean anything because there were simply too few examples I could look on.

Otherwise the lens sounds very interesting and I think if the quality is good enough I'd be happy with that one alone for now. Could anybody please send me some not afterwards edited and so originally sharp pictures through the lens please? The problem with finding such examples on the web is that you can't simply type in the lens name and expect the pictures showing up. I searched pretty long for some but at the end I didn't find enough.


And now I think it would be good to ask differently: Which good lenses (macro/micro, wideangle, normal and tele - at least TWO of them) with or without zoom could I get for 800 to 900 Euros (~1000$)? (that work with Nikon cameras).
I mean, the 18-200 VR costs about 700$ and its biggest and main advantage is that it is so compact and just one lens, BUT for that money (and more, up to 1000$) I logically must get a few lenses with more or less the same use (the 18-200 offers wideangle, normal lens and tele all in one) but with much better quality and of course quicker ones.
I don't think most people are buying the 18-200 because it's cheaper than buying for example a 17-50, 50-155 and a 155-200 so to have the same range of use.
So I ask, which ones would be best for max. 1000$?

[jdepould]

The 17-55 is a pro grade lens, built like a tank. It doesn't do much good to look at images that haven't been processed, digital SLRs aren't designed to produce final images straight out of the camera, they're built and programmed with the assumption that the end user will be making adjustments on the computer. This is especially true with the 200, it doesn't have any scene modes or anything, just Program, Shutter Priority, Aperture Priority, and full Manual. If you want the camera to make more of your choices a D80 is really a much better choice.

The 17-55 is over $1000, you aren't going to cover macro, wide, normal, and tele with two good lenses under $1000. You can come close with the 18-200VR and a used macro, but the 18-200 isn't exactly a fast lens.

[anzycpethian]

Thanks again for your answer.

I already feared that for only 1000$ I won't get excellent lenses but I'll make the best out of it.
I found one telelens that's best for my money limit, a Nikon VR 70-300mm now I only need a fast wideangle/normal zoom-lens for about 500$.

Or maybe I'll finally buy only the 17-55, I have not yet decided and still have some time left.

I want to start right with the D200 because additional lenses I can buy long time after that but buying a new camera, that's something different. Pre-programmed settings I don't use very often so I won't have got any problems concerning that with the D200.

[road_runner]

You can probably get the Sigma f/2.8 18-50 mm lens for around $500. I use that lens and it is doing a great job for all general shooting.

For my tele I use the Tokina 70-200 mm f/2.8 APO Pro lens. This is heavy and good glass, but you will need a good tripod or monopod at least. I'm thinkin of selling this and getting the Nikkor 70-200 mm f/2.8 VR lens in the near future. I also have used a 1.5 X and 2 X teleconverter on this lens, and it does a fine job when birding. Wwith the VR I can hand hold.

If the stock market is good to me, I hoe to get the Nikkor 105 mm f/2.8 micro for a prime lens.

Roadrunner

[jdepould]

You can probably get the Sigma f/2.8 18-50 mm lens for around $500. I use that lens and it is doing a great job for all general shooting.

For my tele I use the Tokina 70-200 mm f/2.8 APO Pro lens. This is heavy and good glass, but you will need a good tripod or monopod at least. I'm thinkin of selling this and getting the Nikkor 70-200 mm f/2.8 VR lens in the near future. I also have used a 1.5 X and 2 X teleconverter on this lens, and it does a fine job when birding. Wwith the VR I can hand hold.

If the stock market is good to me, I hoe to get the Nikkor 105 mm f/2.8 micro for a prime lens.

Roadrunner

VR is a godsend, I'm absolutely enamoured with it.

[anzycpethian]

Hi and thank you for your answer. The Sigma 18-50 sounds very fine to me, it's even much cheaper than expected (below 390 Euros so not even 400$).

Just concerning your Tokina 70-200 I can't find any info about it, just about the Tokina 70-210 but that's a very cheap one (for below 180$).

The Nikkor 70-200 mm f/2.8 VR has to be one very good lens but it's much to expensive for me right now.

Greetings
Anzycpethian

[anzycpethian]

I wonder if there is any difference between the normal Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 and the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 macro version. The macro use of it would just be excellent for me, than I'd have nearly everly possible range of use with those 2 first lenses (the Nikon 70-300 VR and the Sigma 18-50mm macro).

[anzycpethian]

I'm pretty shure now that I'll buy the

Sigma 18-50 macro and the
Nikkor 70-300 VR

in the next few weeks if nobody gives me any better advice. I think the two lenses will work pretty well along with the D200. I somehow more or less completely lost my interest in the Nikkor 18-200 VR.

Greetings from Austria
Anzycpethian