What's the DSLR equivalent of the best point and shoot lens?

Question

I'd like to upgrade to DSLR, but after buying a body (D80) I will only have about $250 to spend on a lens. I've read lots of reviews on the cheaper models and they all seem to have lots of negatives, be it slowness, distortion, fringing, CA or softness. So I'm wondering if the cheap SLR lenses are just crap compared to good SLR lenses or if they are crap compared to point and shoot lenses as well.

Also, what would be the cheapest Nikon (Nikkor, Tarmon, Sigma...) lens is that will outperform the best point and shoot lenses like Sony's Carl Zeiss and Panasonic's Leica.

Answer 1

Depends on what you buy. I pride myself on being able to find great deals at low prices...the diamond in the rough so to speak.

I've been able to get stunning images from less expensive lenses that have made people do a double take when they've heard what lens I used. They do take a good knowledge of photography to use effectively, and you'll need to spend some time getting to know what their stengths and weakness are.

Some examples:

I have a Nikon D50, and a Nikon N90s.

Tamron 28-200mm f/3.8-5.6. $150-$180
The first SLR lens I purchased. It works on film and digital bodies. It is not as contrasty or punchy in the color area than some lenses, but all that can be adjusted either in camera using the color settings or in post processing. This is my walk around lens. Thios is solidly built and has never failed me in the 3 years I've had it. It's just a little slow for sports or indoor shots.

Phoenix 100mm f/3.5 1:1 macro $100-$130
I wanted a macro lens, and really wanted the Tamron 90mm macro, but at the time could not afford it. Got this instead and it is a gem for the price. Not in the same league as the Tamron 90mm, but definitely workable, usable and capable of good shots. It's build is a little less than desired, but it definitely works. Most reviews of this lens are favorable for a macro in this price range.

Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 $100
Ask anyone, either Nikon or Canon, and they will have had or do have a 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 in their bag. This is such a versatile lens. punchy, great contrast and FAST! There are very few if any downsides to having this lens. For the Nikon...I find that the f/1.8 is the better value($100). The f/1.4 at $250 just doesn't justify the extra $150 for extra stop of light.

Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 $400
I've just come to fall in love with the Tamron lenses. They fit the bill for me and the type of shooting I do and at a great price. A comparable Nikon lens in this range will run you $800-$850! It isvery sharp(close to the 50mm f/1.8) great in low light. I use this for shooting indoors and for sporting events. I shoot a lot of martial arts tournaments and while I love the 50mm f/1.8, sometimes it's too tight on the action and I cannot back up far enough. The constant f/2.8 throughout the 17-50mm range is great for me in this scenario. It's a good working compromise.

Any of these lenses will outperform a P&S camera lens.

Now, lets not forget that there is more going on in the cameras. SLR can tend to be a little less sharp because they are not trying to do everything in camera on their default settings. Most people who use a DSLR will do post processing on their images. Any softness, saturation boosting can be done after the fact. It can also be done in the camera as well. You'll just have to change the factory defaults to be what you are looking for.

Any consumer oriented camera(P&S advanced P&S will be setup to look the best it can from camera because most people who use them will do little to no post processing and print the images "as-is" from the memory card. The camera manufacturers know this and so setup those cameras accordingly.

Hope this helps.

Answer 2

I would like to believe that the ultra cheap lens would be worse than a point and shoot camera. Well except if we're talking about fixed focal length lenses here - they can be cheap and good (except may be the construction quality).

Keep in mind that even the cheapest SLR lenses would still produce a better result anyway because of the advantage of the SLR body itself (especially the sensor quality)

A kit lens that comes with the D40 however, is pretty good for its price.

with $250... I'd probably get a 18-55 f3.5-5.6G ED AF-S DX lens at first - it's pretty useful and only cost $120 or so. It's not the best lens in the world, but it's not too shabby either and I think it will be at least on par with the best point and shoot camera lenses. .

Answer 3

Just a thought: if you are just starting out with D-SLR photography, I'd encourage you to look at one of the lower-priced models in Nikon's line.

Something that people new to DSL-R's often don't realize is that any 6+ megapixel D-SLR camera body will be capable producing great files, when using good quality glass. However, even the top-of-the-line pro camera bodies will produce poor-quality files when shooting through low-end lenses.

I could take a Canon Digital Rebel (the entry level camera in Canon), hook it up to my EF 135mm f/2L lens and simply blow away the quality produced by a 1Ds III (top-of-the-line $8k pro body) using a $250 zoom.

Further, lenses hold their resale value much better than digital bodies, and good lenses will work on any subsequent camera body upgrades you make.

Buy a cheaper camera so that you'll have more money for lenses. The biggest benefit of a D-SLR is the ability to change to a lens more suited to a given circumstance. Further, the more you try to get a lens that does everything (IE super-zooms), the lower the quality at any given setting.

Your high-quality lenses will serve you in good stead if at some point you ultimately outgrow your camera.

Answer 4

Go to shutterbug.com and do a search for lenses you're interested in. Compare the 2 or 3 you like best.

You might find a used one at KEH or B&H or Adorama. Of course, ebay is always an option - just look for sellers with a history of good feedback over a few hundred transactions.

My experience has been that lenses designed and manufactured by the same company that made your camera will almost always be superior to after-market lenses. This is not to say that after-market lenses are always bad. Tamron and Sigma seem to get good reviews.

Answer 5

There are a lot of thrid party lenses available. You can even get Carl Zeiss lenses for your Nikon (http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A100537AB9?Open -- the Zeiss ZF mount).

I have found in almost 40 years of shooting that the best lens for a given camera is usually a lens made by the camera maker. For Nikon that means Nikkor lenses. While I've have had reasonable results with thrid party lenses, I have found that they just don't stand up the way Nikkors do.

You can get a good buy on a Nikkor DX kit lens for your D80 on the used market for $250.00 or less. Go to KEH Camera Brokers -- http://www.keh.com/onlinestore/home.aspx -- they have both new and used lenses. I noticed a new 55-200mm f4-5.6G ED AF-S DX for $169.00. There was also a new 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED AF-S VR DX for $249.00 The difference, of course, is that the latter lens uses Nikon's Vibration Reduction. The DX lenses are specifically designed by Nikon for their digital cameras.

I have a 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED IF AF-S DX kit lens for my D200 and have had excellent results with it. New it sells for about $350.00, but on the used market you can get a good one for arround $250.00.

If you like to read some reviews on some of the lenses availalbe, check Thom Hogan's website -- http://www.bythom.com/nikon.htm .

Hope this helps.

Answer 6

Nikkor lens are better than getting point and shoot cameras in most cases. For around $250, I would get:
Nikkor 50mm f/1.8
Nikkor 50mm f/1.4
Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8
Nikkor 55-200mm VR