Nikon 28-200mm lens vs. 18-55mm lens?

Question

I'm a newbie in photography. I'm thinking about buying my first DSLR - a Nikon D40. On the web site that I visit there are 2 options, one comes with a 28-200mm / f3.5-6.3 lens, and the other one with a standard 18-55mm lens. What are the difference between the two?

I'm interested in taking picture with a deep depth-of-field (i.e. shape subject with blurry background) and also some scenary pictures too... would the 28-200mm works better?

Answer 1

I agree with The Ace in the suggestion to take some classes - or at least one basic SLR class. You don't know it, but you've put up a question that deals with 2 or 3 basic concepts of photography.

My choice for you would be the 18-55, as this is what most people find useful. It's the one chosen by all of the major manufacturers to get their buyers started with and this is with good reason.

When you consider the "crop factor" of a digital camera, the 18-55 acts like a 27-82.5 mm lens, so it is actually a moderate wide-angle to a moderate telephoto zoom. On a digital camera, 35 mm would give about the "normal" view that is the same as you are accustomed to seeing with your eyes.

The 28-200 is more of a film lens. If you put this lens on the D40, you would really not have any wide angle to speak of. The digital lens equivalent would be the 18-135, which is also offered in a kit with the D40.

If you want that longer telephoto range, consider buying the D40 and 18-55 lens ($525) and adding the 55-200 VR lens ($250). The cost is about the same as buying the D40 with the 18-135 lens ($720) and you get "VR," too, which is helpful as you zoom out to those longer focal lengths. Or, buy the D40 with the 18-55 now and save a little while to get the 55-200 VR.

Here is a mini-tutorial I made myself to compare focal lengths. This is NOT a lens test or a camera test! It is merely intended to show the difference between various focal lengths. The lens was the Nikon 18-200 VR lens, which is (by definition) an 11X lens, but that 11X does not tell you what the final image will look like. I added one more frame taken with a 300 mm lens. The camera was a Nikon D200 so there is a 1.5X "crop factor," "lens factor," or "focal length multiplier." There is further explanation on the image itself. It would help if you click on "All Sizes" above the image.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/7189769@N04/476181737/

Answer 2

You have some very good advice about this choice. One other consideration you might want to include is the relative bulk of the lenses. I use a Nikkor 28-200mm for film, where it covers reasonable wide-angle to reasonable zoom. If I only want to carry one lens, it is a good solution to cover most circumstances.

But it is a bulky lens, and if I am trekking, then I will choose a smaller zoom (35-70mm or 35-105mm) on the camera and carry a longer zoom (70-300mm) if I particularly want to capture small wildlife (birds in particular). This might slightly increase the all up weight if I carry both lenses, but is considerably easier to manage when I don't.

That said, when I was travelling overseas last year, I carried the 28-200mm and a standard (50mm) prime lens with a FM2n body.

For digital, the 28-200mm covers the normal to moderate telephoto range, and will not give you the wide angle coverage that you would get with the 18-55mm. Its longer focal length is just in the telephoto range, and will give you good perspective for portraiture and small group shots. It will not be good for small subjects where you cannot get close (wildlife, sports).

Answer 3

in addition to the fine answers you've gotten already:

The 28-200 mm lens is probably a lens originally designed for 35mm cameras. Not that it's a bad thing, but since 35mm film is bigger than the sensor in the D40, the lenses are a bit larger than they need to be.

Nikon and Sigma both make excellent wide zooms for your D40. Look for an 18-135mm or an 18-200mm if you want more zoom range.

if you want to do any scenery, you'll really appreciate the wide angle end of the zoom range (the '18') which will be wider than the 28mm minimum on the 2nd lens.

note that the effective field of view is cropped on digital cameras relative to their 35mm ancestors. So, an 18mm lens on a DSLR gives you a similar wide angle as a 28mm lens on a 35mm camera.

Answer 4

I would definitely go with the 28-200 lens. That gives you the option of anywhere from moderately wide-angle to a pretty long telephoto. The other lens goes a little wider, but only zooms to a standard lens, not telephoto. By the way, blurry background is a shallow depth of field. This is accomplished best by using the longest lens (200 mm) at the widest aperture (6.3.)

Answer 5

Yes the 28-200 will work better, this is a great lens I've been using one for about two years now. The other lens is no slouch either I had to buy both..your Nikon D-40 is a great entry level camera you are going to enjoy it..Have fun..

Answer 6

As much as I like fhotoace's answers, he still can't seem to get past the fact that there are P&S cameras with manual control. With a 20x optical zoom, it probably has that setting. Anyways, it depends on what you want to do with the camera. If you just want to use it for a hobby and don't want to spend a lot of money on lenses, I would suggest getting the 20x camera. DSLR's are generally better when you look at quality, but you can get great pictures with the P&S if you know how to use it. One great thing about some DSLR's is that they can use the old lenses of some manual cameras. I have lenses for my Pentax K1000 and they would fit on the new K10D if I bought it. You might want to consider that too when deciding on which one to get. If you have the money, go for the DSLR.

Answer 7

1