[gerryco23]

I wonder if the experienced photographers out there could give me advice? I want to upgrade from my prosumer Olympus Camedia C750 to a DSLR and, having read all the reviews have decided on the Nikon D80. But which lens should I go for? What are the relative merits and demerits of the 18-70 and 18-135 kit lenses? Is there a better option for a novice looking to develop skills but get good picture quality? What about the more expensive 18-200 VR lens?

[Dabhand16]

Lens choice is the proverbial can of worms. What you will need is a lens that suits your useage.

That will mean at one end of the scale, the serious photographer using prime lenses only, through the stages of using a combination of prime and zooms or 2,3 or 4 specialist zooms to a single 'do all' lens at the other end.

Some people will select what lenses to put in their kit depending on what they will be doing on that day.

Other factors that will come into the equasion are the weight of the lens and the speed. I've got the 18-70 Nikkor and I'm very pleased with it. for the money, I think it is good value. However, I do find myself using the 70 end as much as the 18, and wanting more, so if you want a single 'do it all' lens maybe the 18-135 is a good option.

Sigma amd Tamron make lenses that may be worth researching too.

I have (rightly or wrongly) an aversion to lenses with high zoom ratios, and they also tend to be slower. I'm probably going to go for the new 70-300VR to supplement the 18-70 when I can afford it.

[Dave]

You might find this thread a good starting point, as members have shared the order in which theyhave built up their lens range. Good indication of what lenses people keep vs upgrade

Which order did you put your lens kit together ?

Graham offers good advice above. I've had the Nikon 18-70mm lens & been very impressed with it for the money.

[Soupdragon]

I have always heard good things about the 18-70 but the 135 is a bit new so I can't help there.
I don't think nikon made many "bad optics" so I am sure you will be pleased which ever one/s you get.
Congratulations on your choice of camera BTW.

[Dutchie]

I've swapped mi 18-70mm for the 18-135mm. The first lens is good but I had a good deal on the 18-135mm. It was only £25 more. Choice quickly made. The lens itself is not much heavier. Difference between them I haven't been able to test yet. But the quality of the 18-70mm I would say is very good indeed. And when you would think of the 18-200mm, that lens is nearly £570. Very expensive I think. If you would have the 18-135mm then you might be ok with it for a while without having to buy a new lens.

[Soupdragon]

Just a follow up, I have the 18-135 and can say it is not as good as the 18-70.
If I can get it changed for the 18-70? I will.

[Dabhand16]

Originally Posted by Soupdragon

Just a follow up, I have the 18-135 and can say it is not as good as the 18-70.
If I can get it changed for the 18-70? I will.

Can you give a bit more detail, Soupy? I'm sure people will be interested. Are you talking about the image quality, or the focus speed etc?

[Soupdragon]

Hmmm! that was a bit vague wasn't it.

I have thus far owned two 18-70's and one 18-135.
These are the things that are immediately noticable on the 18-135.

(i) It's not at the same build level as the 18-70, lighter has a plastic lens mount (aaaargh!) and is not as smooth to zoom across the range.

(ii) The vinegarette is truly obvious particularly on largely featureless areas like blue sky.

(iii) Climatic Abhorration is not pleasant and very noticeable on, for instance, tree branches against a blue sky.

(iv) It seems to have a lower contrast and a narrower "sweet spot" for sharpness.

(v) It performs best at f8 and not much else which, as you can imagine, is a bit limiting on producing bokeh!

(vi) On a personal note, hand holding a 135 in less than favourable lighting caused more image blur (through me shaking) than I imagined was possible. So the zoom range without VR is too great for me.

Before people tell me that their 18-135 is a top performer! please bear in mind this is only one lens out of potentially millions and I may just have got a lemon.

[Steve]

Thanks for that information Soupy. Are you not tempted to exchange it for another 18-135 rather than jump to a 18-70 first, just to see if you have got a 'lemon' or not?

[Soupdragon]

Not really, once bitten twice shy.
Zooms are an optical compromise at best and, as far as I can tell, the greater the zoom the bigger the compromise.
This probably rings true for pro spec glass although I am not in a position financially to test that theory.
My opinions are biased as I have never liked zooms in any shape or form.
Every one develops their own style/technique and mine has always been, if I am going to shoot macro then I'll take a macro lens.
Anyone who thinks zooms are a panacea for all eventualities are sadly dissilusioned.

[peteer01]

This thread was very helpful. I think I'm going to finally pick up at D80 set with the 18-70 zoom and also pick up the 70-300 VR zoom. Hopefully I'll enjoy it as much as I think I will.

Edit: The 70 and 130 kits were only about $35 difference, so I'm going with 135.

[orangepeel]

Originally Posted by Soupdragon

(iii) Climatic Abhorration is not pleasant and very noticeable on, for instance, tree branches against a blue sky.

lol @ Climatic Abhorration

I've been looking into this and I've recently discovered there's two forms of CA. One caused by the lens which is technically known as CA, the other is caused by a CCD sensor called Purple Fringing.

We, as togs, tend to use the two terms interchangably. However it is technically incorrect to do so,

The effect you describe is Purple Fringing and it's caused by excess light falling into adjacent photo cells on the sensor.
As I understand it, in a CCD sensor there are more blue and red sensitive cells than green. Hence when light falls into these cells they make for a purply colour.
It's a lot more noticable in high contrast areas - like the branch/leaf/sky situation you describe. It isn't really correctable as the detail has been lost. Note that it affects CCD sensors rather than CMOS.
The only fix for PF I know of is to get a pro level camera with a CMOS sensor.

CA itself is caused by a misalignment of the focussing point at the different wavelengths of light within the lens. CA is correctable quite easily in your pp. Effectivly, it's done by moving and scaling the r, g & b channels at the edges of the image by tiny amounts. ACR, for example, can do this for you quite easily.

Source: Chromatic aberration - PanoTools.org Wiki

Sorry, this was sorta off topic - just wanted to let you know the effect you describe is probably caused by your body rather than the lens.

[Soupdragon]

I'll take what you are telling me as true given I have not really studied the cause!

Oddly enough, I was led to think there were more green sensors than any other as the human eye is more sensitive to green!