More On Equipment
When I was shooting film, I found it necessary to carry a ton of equipment to every location. My gear bag was stuffed with two Nikon F-80 bodies (one for colour film, one for black and white) several lenses covering different focal lengths, a wide variety of filters, flashguns, and the spares necessary to cover all possibilities. It weighed a ton.
The switch to digital has reduced the size and weight of my bag dramatically. My current set-up, which features a Nikon D200 and 18-200VR lens, accomplishes pretty much anything I want to do effectively and in a much smaller package. The only downside is that it is still heavy. For that reason alone I went searching for a lens that would offer reasonable performance, and be both lighter and smaller than the 18-200.
As a reference I consulted the Nikon guru Ken Rockwell’s website and this article caught my eye.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/10-best.htm
It seemed among his fav lenses from Nikon, there were some surprisingly inexpensive inclusions, among them the 18-55DX. At that price, how could I lose? Off to the store I went, and soon returned home with my prize. I have not been disappointed.
The 18-55 at under $200 (Can.) performs well and is less than half the size and weight of the 18-200VR. Obviously it is greatly reduced in range, but for backpacking or travel it is about perfect. I don’t have a lab to test performance, but to my eyes (that’s what really matters to me) it is sharp, with no colour aberrations. The 18-55 is the basic lens included with many of Nikon’s low-end digital cameras and for most of us there is no need to replace it. Of course there are times when a higher quality lens will demonstrate its worth, but before you fork over close to 10X as much for the pro 17-55 you need to ask yourself …. Do I really need it?
The switch to digital has reduced the size and weight of my bag dramatically. My current set-up, which features a Nikon D200 and 18-200VR lens, accomplishes pretty much anything I want to do effectively and in a much smaller package. The only downside is that it is still heavy. For that reason alone I went searching for a lens that would offer reasonable performance, and be both lighter and smaller than the 18-200.
As a reference I consulted the Nikon guru Ken Rockwell’s website and this article caught my eye.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/10-best.htm
It seemed among his fav lenses from Nikon, there were some surprisingly inexpensive inclusions, among them the 18-55DX. At that price, how could I lose? Off to the store I went, and soon returned home with my prize. I have not been disappointed.
The 18-55 at under $200 (Can.) performs well and is less than half the size and weight of the 18-200VR. Obviously it is greatly reduced in range, but for backpacking or travel it is about perfect. I don’t have a lab to test performance, but to my eyes (that’s what really matters to me) it is sharp, with no colour aberrations. The 18-55 is the basic lens included with many of Nikon’s low-end digital cameras and for most of us there is no need to replace it. Of course there are times when a higher quality lens will demonstrate its worth, but before you fork over close to 10X as much for the pro 17-55 you need to ask yourself …. Do I really need it?
Powered by
