File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Do anyone here own a Nikon D80, if so which lenses would recommend? I haven't bought one yet but I'm leaning towards it after having read some reviews. This seems to be the best camera in the price range, or am I wrong?
>> Anonymous
That or a canon 30d are the best on its price range, yes. (at least on Yoorop).

As for lens... what do you need? Check link for reviews:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html
>> Anonymous
>>61803
>if so which lenses would recommend?
Don't get the kit 18-55 lens, it sucks. If you want something cheap, get a kit with 18-70 or 18-135, the latter isn't as bad as some people say. If you have enough money, get the 18-200 VR - it's one of the best versatile lenses ever.
Also, get a 50/1.8 prime - considering its price and quality there's no excuse not to get one.

>This seems to be the best camera in the price range, or am I wrong?
Depending on what you need.
Nikon D80 = best build quality, best viewfinder.
Canon 30D = lowest noise.
Pentax K10D = waterproof, image stabilization.
Olympus E-510 = image stabilization, other bells and whistles.
>> Anonymous
I have a D80. What do you plan on capturing? I have a 18-200mm VR attached to it most of the time. When I want more reach, I attach my 300mm f/4. For wider shots, I am thinking of either Tokina 12-24mm or Sigma 10-20mm. For lower light, I have a 50mm f/1.8 ($100, so why not?), though I do plan on getting a Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 plus either a Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 or a similar 3rd party alternative (Sigma, Tokina, or Tamron).

User reviews of lenses, DSLRs, and other accessories:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/index.php
>> Anonymous
the 18-55 kit lens does not suck.>>61812is a douche
>> Anonymous
which would i be better off getting,
- 55-200mm or 18-135mm

halp pls.
>> Anonymous
>>61963
The 55-200 is slightly better quality-wise, but since it's telephoto, it can be very limiting if you don't have something else for normal/wide-angle shots, like the 18-55 or 18-70.

The 18-135 is cheap and versatile, but has some trade-offs - namely a lot of purple fringing and vignetting (although nothing that can't be corrected in Adobe Camera Raw). I have a friend who is extremely content with his 18-135 and says that the only thing he misses is some wide aperture prime for portraits like the aforementioned 50/1.8.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>61967

Honestly, get the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 or the Tokina 16-50mm 2.8

The f/2.8 makes a huge difference and these are essentially near-PROFESSIONAL glass as opposed to the consumer lenses that is the 18-135 and 55-200.

The 17-50 range (27-75mm 35 equiv on the D80) is more than enough, but the 2.8 turns the lens into a landscape a semi head and shoulder portrait shot.

It also reduces the need for the 50mm prime since you already have the 50mm focal length covered with a f/2.8.
>> Anonymous
>>61969
He was asking about cheap superzoom/telephoto lenses, and you're suggesting wide ones for two times the price...
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>61970

He didn't specifically ask for a superzoom, merely the 55-200 an 18-135... which is what almost anyone who works in a shop or who thinks they know about lenses would have offered.

He's obviously trying to ask for advice that's a little more research and experienced.

The tamron can be had for over a little 100 dollars and the improvement in image quality is well worth it.

The 18-135 is a pretty poor lense qualitatively.
>> Anonymous !4X8vLLNDE2
lolol
>> Anonymous
>>61971
>The tamron can be had for over a little 100 dollars
lol wut? Show me where they can be bought for $100 and I'd buy a dozen. Every f2.8 wide Tamron, Tokina or Sigma I've seen go for $300-$500.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>61976

Oh sorry, didn't make that clear. 100 dollars over the price of the 18-135mm... that was a response to the

>>you're suggesting wide ones for two times the price...

Which it obviously isn't.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>61977
Well, 100 dollars is the difference if you buy lenses separately. As a part of the D80 kit the 18-135 costs about $200.

Plus comparing 18-135 and 17-50/2.8 is like comparing apples and oranges. As an owner of separate wide/normal and telephoto lenses, I miss having a single lens with big zoom range on many occasions. If I had the 18-135, I'd probably be annoyed at lesser sharpness and having to correct distortions in Photoshop.

Pic taken with 18-135 related (not mine, I only processed the RAW)

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D80Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern762Focal Length (35mm Equiv)27 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2007:07:12 15:11:29Exposure Time1/640 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating250Lens Aperturef/8.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length18.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1280Image Height857RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastHardSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown