Nikkor kit lens confusion

tom beard · Aug 1, 2009

Hi all,

I'm pretty much settled on which dslr system to replace my 35mm slr system w/3 lenses (28mm,50mm & 70-200mm zoom). I've decided that a Nikon d90 with two lenses, 18-105mm zoom and 70-300mm zoom should well cover me. In looking at specs, the kit lenses that sell as a package (one body and two lenses) seem somewhat different. I know that the 18-105 doesn't have an aperture control ring on the lens. I don't know about the 70-300. I would like to have VR and AF on both lenses. What, if any, difference is there between the kit lenses and the ones I look at on the Nikon web site as far as quality and price? Also, have any of you used the NX2 processing system? It seems user friendly. I'm not to hot on the computer and a total failure at GIMP.

Thanks in advance, Tom Beard

Derrel · Aug 1, 2009

Tom,
I gave up on Nikon Capture a couple of versions back--the interface is odd to say the least, the dialogue boxes and their positions/appearance/hiding/showing is a total MESS. The Nikon software DOES have a nifty thing in the Control Point technology, but the software for NX was buggy,slow,a memory hog, and exceedingly crash-prone. The adjustment features that NX2 offers with the Control Point technology might make the software worth having,especially if you understand how that sub-system works. I've seen people who are adept at Capture post-processing work near-miracles with NEF files, and it CAN make great conversions; but these days, Adobe Camera RAW has become a very good raw converter,so I let capture slide,as I said, 2 versions back.

The 18-105 does not have an aperture ring. If a Nikon lens is a G-series, it has no aperture ring. There is a 70-300 ED, the older and very mediocre 70-300G, and a new AF-S VR-G version of the 70-300, which is optically the best. A number of professionals like Thom Hogan have found that the 70-300 AF-S VR-G model is a very,very good and yet affordable tele-zoom. It is the only 70-300 model that has VR. The 18-105 has VR.

Nikon has ditched aperture rings on all new AF-S G lenses. The 70-300 ED is a pretty decent 70-300 but as I said, has no VR, but it does have an aperture ring. The 70-300 AF-S model, the one with VR, has improved optical performance above 200mm,and is a favorite with those who want good optics,affordable price,and portability.

In my opinion, Nikon's VR technology is a real asset to improved resolution,and a VR lens always gives better panning shots, and is useful when shooting in the wind, when your breath is a bit unsteady such as when hiking, or when shooting from a moving platform like a ferry boat, tour bus,etc. Check out Thom Hogan's Nikon Field Guide and Nikon Flash Guide for good lens reviews and Nikon camera reviews.

tom beard · Aug 1, 2009

Darrel,

Thanks for the info. First, I need to get the right glass, then learn the camera. Later on I can look into a user friendly Post system. For now, I can study up on which lenses would be best for my needs. I just don't want to have to say "Oh no, I got the wrong stuff." Like shooting a High School basket ball game at 300mm with no VR. If I can get my ducks in a row now, I won't have to heard cats later. Thanks for steering me in the right direction. Tom

Crazydad · Aug 1, 2009

tom beard said:
Like shooting a High School basket ball game at 300mm with no VR.

While VR is very useful in some circumstances, a high school basketball game is not one of them. For sports, you need a shutter speed of at least 1/250 and VR is most useful when you are shooting handheld at slow shutter speeds.

I have the 70-300VR and it is a wonderful lens for shooting outdoor sports in broad daylight. I used it on all of my son's soccer games. But with an max aperture of f/5.6 at 300mm (and f/4.5 at 70) I'm afraid it will be too slow for an indoor basketball game. Not sure you would be able to get a fast enough shutter speed even if you set the ISO to 3200.

For indoor sports you really need to look at an f/2.8 lens minimum. Not sure of your budget, but the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 is about $1800 USD. Sigma has a 70-200 f/2.8 for about $800 that has received some good reviews. That is the one I am looking into getting since my son is playing football this year which is at night under lights and the 70-300VR just isn't fast enough.

KmH · Aug 2, 2009

tom beard said:
I'm not to hot on the computer and a total failure at GIMP.

Thanks in advance, Tom Beard

Quit telling yourself you're not to good at using a computer. It becomes self fullfilling. You just lack experience and knowledge, both addressed with time and study.

You give up way to quick.......How long have you had GIMP? A couple of weeks?

And frankly, if you aren't willing to invest the time and effort to figure out GIMP, you're pretty much screwed at learning ANY half way capable image editing software.

benlonghair · Aug 2, 2009

GIMP takes some getting used to, but for what it is, it's awesome. I have yet to run into anything it doesn't do as well as PS. Used with UFRaw I have to think that it's as good as the latest photoshop for an amatuer user.

IgsEMT · Aug 2, 2009

D90 with 18-105 is a fine system. It isn't the best lens out there but with minor tweaks through the camera, the faults are manageable. Don't get rid of your old glass yet, you might find it useful.
For software, if you like bulk approach, I'm a big fan on LightRoom, if want more individualized approach then PS.
I've tried gimp some time ago