# which one lens for newbie n40 owner?



## hts (Dec 19, 2001)

i bought the new panasonic lumix fz-18 2 weeks ago and i'm hating it. it's going back, and i guess i'm going to break down and get the d40 after all. i've done a fair amount of research, but still can't figure out what might be the best lens (or maybe 2) for me. i like to shoot my boys activities mostly (soccer, TKD, playing at the park, parties, etc.). i was leaning toward the 18-200 AF-S VR ED based on rockwell, but now i'm seeing some less than flattering reviews (hogan) on this as a primary all-purpose lens.

i was planning to ditch the 18-55 and just go with the 18-200, but now i'm wondering if i'm better off carting two lenses (the 18-55) and perhaps the 70-300 af-s ed vr as well? you guys that know this stuff much better than i do, what are your thoughts/experiences?


----------



## PropellerHead (Jan 3, 2002)

goodkarma said:


> i was planning to ditch the 18-55 and just go with the 18-200, but now i'm wondering if i'm better off carting two lenses (the 18-55) and perhaps the 70-300 af-s ed vr as well? you guys that know this stuff much better than i do, what are your thoughts/experiences?


 You could do a search, check Nikonians, or just read on. I think you should do the first two and ignore me. 

First, it depends on what you really want and what you expect. If you're just getting started, I'd keep it as simple as possible and grow into the complicated. For instance, were I in a similar situation, I'd shoot with the 18-55 for awhile and see if you hit a wall. If you do, decide then what range you're missing. Reviews show the 70-300 is pretty soft >300 as well. Aside from the range, I don't see much advantage of the 70-300 over the 18-200- Especially not when you consider changing the lens.

I have used the 18-200 since January. I've gotten some great shots and I've gotten some crappy ones. In fact, since I bought it, every one of my avatars has been shot with this lens. That's not saying much, I know because of the size, but I will say that I strive for an interesting avatar if not photgraphically perfect. Whatever that is supposed to mean.

After three years and three DSLRs, I am at a point where I am ready to complicate things. I'm looking at a couple of lenses that make my D200 purchase look like a $1 carnival filled with $10 rides. You'll probably get there even more quickly than I did. If you're one to buy once and stay with it, go $1200 lenses from the start. If you don't have a problem selling old and buying new, go slow an steady.


----------



## hts (Dec 19, 2001)

ok, after learning that i was looking at grey market products (could've had the d40 and the 18-200 afs vr for under $1k), i've albeit decided to go with a legit us version of the d40, 18-55, and 55-200 afs vr ed. it's a much more affordable package (right around $700) for a first time dslr newbie cheap bastid like me. wish me luck!


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

I like Rockwell's reviews, but notice his photos are a certain style, so he may look for different things than you.

I'm liking the 18-200 VR as I use it more, but I think the 18-55 mm lens that came with the D50 is a pretty good starter lens too.

Check out our 18-200 VR thread.


----------



## hts (Dec 19, 2001)

Thanks. I ended up getting the 18-55 (liked the reviews) and the 55-200 VR (because I'm too cheap to spring for the 18-200 VR).

Took about 300 pix at the kids soccer games today, which was my first real experience (outside the house) with the camera, and while I'm generally very pleased, it appears that the 200mm isn't going to be enough zoom for me (remember, I'm used to superzooms like my Canon S2IS and the Pany 18x superzoom I just returned).

I've already started doing some research on longer telephotos. Seems like I'm not getting much more with a 300mm, so I was thinking 400mm or so, but can't seem to find anything affordable. Now I'm wondering what'll happen if I slap an inexepensive 2x teleconverter on top of my 55-200?


----------



## PropellerHead (Jan 3, 2002)

goodkarma said:


> Took about 300 pix at the kids soccer games today, which was my first real experience (outside the house) with the camera,


Piiiiics!


----------



## Jon Shafer (Dec 15, 2001)

goodkarma said:


> I've already started doing some research on longer telephotos. Seems like I'm not getting much more with a 300mm, so I was thinking 400mm or so, but can't seem to find anything affordable. Now I'm wondering what'll happen if I slap an inexepensive 2x teleconverter on top of my 55-200?


Just as I've predicted. Welcome to teh club... 

Btw, you want at bit longer lens to start with if you are going to use a tele-converter, and in general, your best bet is to stick with a 1.4 or 1.5 if you want to retain high IQ.


----------

