I bought a Nikon D5000 almost three years ago. I suspect that it is getting near to the end of its life, so I am thinking about replacing it and have a fair idea of what I will be looking for in my next body.
However, I am not so sure about the lenses, so I would appreciate your thoughts about my current lenses and whether they are good enough to continue with, and, if not, which ones I might consider replacing.
So, here is what I have at the moment
(a) AFS Nikkor 18-55mm f3.5-5.6G - one of the two kit lenses that came with the D5000 body
(b) AF-S Nikkor 55-200 mm f4-5.6G ED - the other of the kit lenses
(c)AF-S Nikkor 35mm f1.8G - I shoot a lot in reduced light, and opted for the economy of a fast fixed focal-length over a fast zoom.
Any thoughts or advice that you might have will be most welcome.
All three of your lenses are DX lenses. Do you know what body you are wanting to upgrade to in the future and what you want to achieve with the new body? If you are upgrading to an FX body, you will still get a cropped image with DX glass.
What focal lengths do you use most? It could be beneficial to buy 1.8G lenses that are close to your most used focal lengths since they are more affordable than 1.4G or 2.8G zooms. The 2.8G zooms are expensive, but I would highly recommend the 24-70 and 70-200 zooms if you like the convenience you get with zooms.
A and B are consumer grade lenses. Not horrible, but not good, by any means. C is a little bit better.
It can be argued that it is better to invest in glass than a body. That is a personal choice. If, for example, you went to a D7000, you would be moving to a much better camera. Your lenses would work, but they will still be very basic lenses. Your body, though, would be more capable.
Depends a lot on what you shoot and what you'll be doing with the images. For financial reasons, I downgraded from a 17-55mm pro lens to a 18-55mm kit lens and it didn't matter very much to me based on what I shoot. Of course, the 17-55mm is a better lens, but not $1,000 better if you're a hobbyist and will only share your images online.
natural beauties of qld wrote: (b) AF-S Nikkor 55-200 mm f4-5.6G ED
This is the only one of the three you listed that I have. I actually LOVE this little lens (the VR version)... BUT... if you want to capture great images with it... DONT shoot it wide open. I shoot it frequently at F6.7 and get very satisfying results. Shot this B&W image using the D700 (in available makeup mirror light) with 'crop factor'... it's an award winner...
natural beauties of qld wrote: I bought a Nikon D5000 almost three years ago. I suspect that it is getting near to the end of its life, so I am thinking about replacing it and have a fair idea of what I will be looking for in my next body.
However, I am not so sure about the lenses, so I would appreciate your thoughts about my current lenses and whether they are good enough to continue with, and, if not, which ones I might consider replacing.
So, here is what I have at the moment
(a) AFS Nikkor 18-55mm f3.5-5.6G - one of the two kit lenses that came with the D5000 body
(b) AF-S Nikkor 55-200 mm f4-5.6G ED - the other of the kit lenses
(c)AF-S Nikkor 35mm f1.8G - I shoot a lot in reduced light, and opted for the economy of a fast fixed focal-length over a fast zoom.
Any thoughts or advice that you might have will be most welcome.
Why you say the D5000 is near the end of its life? Does it have 100,000 actuations. You have one fast lens which is great for dx cameras. With enough light any lens stopped down will give you sharp pictures so I am sure those kit lenses will do. If your changing cameras the D7000 or even the D90 will be a good upgrade.
I don't think there are any steals out there when it comes to Nikkor lenses. You pretty much get what you pay for, legacy lenses included. I think everybody would say of course your current lenses good enough to keep shooting with. Optics have made some amazing strides in the last few years, at least price wise. I think if you want some recommendations aside from The Trinity you might be more specific about what you're looking for. Focal length, speed/better bokeh, price, fixed/zoom, able to af on your 5000(D or G), sharpness, and color come to mind.
I had the D5000 and all those lenses. Now I am locked in this system with D90, D7000, AF-D lenses and 3 SB-900s.
I now want to abandon DX for FF with a 5D Classic and 70-200 IS.
I love Nikon but I yearn for a 35mm sensor.
Unless you shoot a ton of shots every day the body should be far from the end of its usefull life. My film Nikons were 15-20 years old when I got rid of them and am sure they would give many more years of usefull life.
Now I do not use my D200 that much any more as I have newer bodies but that is over 6 years old.
IMO it is better to upgrade glass than chasing the newest camera bodies.
often people put down the kit lens as junk. Your results with what you have, look very good.
Under the lighting conditions you shoot in you may not see any improvement with other lens as most lens are very sharp at f5.6 and f8.
You lens are not sharp at f4 and f2.8 as you do not have those f stops on your lens and that is what pro lens are designed for.
The 55-200 came out very well against the 70-200 vr, we tested it against.
The 18-70 kit lens was a very sharp kit lens.
(I have no knowledge of the 18-55)
The 35 f1.8 has gotten good reviews.
The two lens I might add would be the 70-200 vr and the 24-120 f4 VR (not the older one)
I think I would recommend the 24-120 for you as it would let you shoot in 2 stops less light and according to one of me picky friends is the sharpest lens he has ever owned. (including his Leica m lens)
Also the D5100 is a major upgrade from what you have but it should be upgraded soon.
but it depends more on what you shoot. What lens to buy?
Nikon consumer lenses are excellent. For example, at F8, I do not think you will be able to tell the difference between the 55-200, 70-300, or 70-200.
Of course, the 70-200 can also shoot at F/4 and F/2.8, for work in lower light or better DoF control. You also have to aware of the 'variable aperture' when shooting in manual mode with consumer lenses, as that can affect exposure.
I still think the consumer lenses are excellent. You just have to be aware of and willing to work around their limitations.
_andyh
Posts: 62
Lancaster, England, United Kingdom
The only one I've had issues with out of that list is the 55-200. I was never happy with the colour rendition from it
I had the 18-55 (I think it's the same) on a D40, and it was lovely. Lightweight lens, sharp and crisp, nice saturation. I sold it with a D80 and regretted it a bit
I also have the 35mm 1.8 and it's a nice lens to use for anything and everything. I'd not take on headshots with it but for a general all purpose low light / everyday'er it's perfick. I've used that more recently than my 24-70 and 28-300, which was my ultimate all purpose zoom
Incidentally, I used the 35mm on a D7000 if you were thinking of going that way on the body. In web res after Photoshop I don't think I'd see the difference between what my 24-70 vs the 18-55 would give
The 55-200 it's no so bad but it isn't constructed well. For me it didn't reproduce colors so well. Bright yellows and oranges, don't even bother pointing the camera that way!
If you drop it or set your camera down hard even from a about 6 inches it might just brake that cheap little plastic mount. You can order a new one from Nikon for about 20 bucks or so and it''s easy enough to install yourself. Sadly you have about a 50-50 chance that the auto focus will never work again. If AF doesn't work, it's time to trash it or at best keep it for spare parts.
As I have many and use many manual focus lenses you wouldn't think that's be a problem. The focusing ring on that thing sucks and it doesn't have a bright clear field of view needed to manual focus modern digital cameras with out split screen prisms.
The 18-55. Never used it but I'm not a huge fan the photos i have seen snapped with it. Same issues with the mount but the lens seems smaller and lighter so perhaps it will nt break as easily.
Lorin Edmonds wrote: The 18-70 kit lens was a very sharp kit lens.
That lens flat out rocks! For the price it's got great bang for the buck. My daughter has one and I will use it from time to time. I don't like using it on the FX bodies but ----
Why you say the D5000 is near the end of its life? Does it have 100,000 actuations. You have one fast lens which is great for dx cameras. With enough light any lens stopped down will give you sharp pictures so I am sure those kit lenses will do. If your changing cameras the D7000 or even the D90 will be a good upgrade.
Yes, I am nudging the 100,00 actuations. I have used the D5000 for underwater shoots where posing is impossible, so the basic strategy is to use the motor drive to shoot like crazy and then pick what looks good, so a shoot of several thousand frames is not unusual.
The reason I say that the body is nearing the end of its life is that there is a "hairline" artefact in the centre of the viewfinder that translates to a small dark patch in the centre of the image. It is not noticeable under normal lighting, but I see it often in underwater images where the contrast is reduced. Last Friday, a second dark patch appeared, but this one is apparent under studio lighting, so it looks all downhill from here.
When I use the fast lens, the light is often such that I use it at f2 or 2.8 (I try to avoid f1.8 because I know that no lens gives its absolute best wide open). I guess that raises another question as to whether I should increase the ISO and stop the lens down rather than stay at or near ISO 200 (I grew up on Kodachrome 25, so ISO 200 is quite radical for me, lol).
I regret not buying the D90 in the first place, but the D5000 was my first digital SLR (previously Nikon film SLRs and, before that, Mamiya for those who can remember back to the 70s) and I did not expect to get the choice perfectly right from the outset. The D7000 is also really nice, but I suspect that a replacement for the D5100 is due soon, and it may be quite compelling if it is as big an upgrade as the D3200 was over the 3100.
This is the only one of the three you listed that I have. I actually LOVE this little lens (the VR version)... BUT... if you want to capture great images with it... DONT shoot it wide open. I shoot it frequently at F6.7 and get very satisfying results. Shot this B&W image using the D700 (in available makeup mirror light) with 'crop factor'... it's an award winner...
That is an absolutely STUNNING image. It just reinforces how much a good eye beats good hardware every day of the week!!!!
ei Total Productions wrote: A and B are consumer grade lenses. Not horrible, but not good, by any means. C is a little bit better.
It can be argued that it is better to invest in glass than a body. That is a personal choice. If, for example, you went to a D7000, you would be moving to a much better camera. Your lenses would work, but they will still be very basic lenses. Your body, though, would be more capable.
Thanks for that advice. The notion of "basic" is one I would like to explore. In the back of my mind, I was thinking that the kit lenses are relatively inexpensive, but is that because Nikon turns out a lot of them and so can sell them fairly cheaply, or is it that plenty of corners are cut to get down to the price point? I suspect that the real answer is a bit of both, but I don't know where the balance lies.
Paul AI wrote: All three of your lenses are DX lenses. Do you know what body you are wanting to upgrade to in the future and what you want to achieve with the new body? If you are upgrading to an FX body, you will still get a cropped image with DX glass.
What focal lengths do you use most? It could be beneficial to buy 1.8G lenses that are close to your most used focal lengths since they are more affordable than 1.4G or 2.8G zooms. The 2.8G zooms are expensive, but I would highly recommend the 24-70 and 70-200 zooms if you like the convenience you get with zooms.
Thanks. Yes, I was aware of the FX/DX issue and that will certainly be a factor to take into consideration when I renew the body.
As for your question about focal lengths, I find that I use the 55-200 only rarely. I shoot a lot underwater, but the 18-55 does a reasonably job there because the light is usually sufficient to shoot at f8 or better (I shoot within 2m of the surface). I will take a closer look at the 24-70 that you mention. In the studio or outdoors under a dense canopy or early morning or late evening, the 35mm lens does fairly well, but it does mean backing up or moving forward when framing.
I guess what that one of the things that you have clarified for me is that I would appreciate advice on how well the kit lens 18-55 performs at f8 or smaller compared with the more expensive options, and how the faster zooms compare with the 35mm in areas apart from the convenience of zooming.
Phase Shift Photography wrote: Depends a lot on what you shoot and what you'll be doing with the images. For financial reasons, I downgraded from a 17-55mm pro lens to a 18-55mm kit lens and it didn't matter very much to me based on what I shoot. Of course, the 17-55mm is a better lens, but not $1,000 better if you're a hobbyist and will only share your images online.
gl-amour wrote: I had the D5000 and all those lenses. Now I am locked in this system with D90, D7000, AF-D lenses and 3 SB-900s.
I now want to abandon DX for FF with a 5D Classic and 70-200 IS.
I love Nikon but I yearn for a 35mm sensor.
I know the feeling. Digital is so much better than film, but the siren song of a 35mm sensor is pretty strong, especially after I have seen what a smaller one can do.
John Horwitz wrote: "G" stands for gelded - not able to use the f/stops at the back of the lens IMHO all crap, disagree if you like
Can you expand on that? It sounds like the sort of insight that I was looking for, but I don't find your initial comment self-explanatory, so I would be keen to hear more.
Robert Helm wrote: Unless you shoot a ton of shots every day the body should be far from the end of its usefull life. My film Nikons were 15-20 years old when I got rid of them and am sure they would give many more years of usefull life.
Now I do not use my D200 that much any more as I have newer bodies but that is over 6 years old.
IMO it is better to upgrade glass than chasing the newest camera bodies.
I agree with you entirely about upgrading glass before bodies, but I have used this body a lot, and, as I have explained above, it is starting to produce blemishes on the images.
Lorin Edmonds wrote: You have a very impressive port.
often people put down the kit lens as junk. Your results with what you have, look very good.
Under the lighting conditions you shoot in you may not see any improvement with other lens as most lens are very sharp at f5.6 and f8.
You lens are not sharp at f4 and f2.8 as you do not have those f stops on your lens and that is what pro lens are designed for.
The 55-200 came out very well against the 70-200 vr, we tested it against.
The 18-70 kit lens was a very sharp kit lens.
Thanks very much for the kind words about my portfolio (I am very much a self-taught amateur), but thank you even more for your carefully considered comments about the lenses. I shall do some research on the ones you mention and take them into careful consideration when the day of replacement arrives.
(I have no knowledge of the 18-55)
The 35 f1.8 has gotten good reviews.
The two lens I might add would be the 70-200 vr and the 24-120 f4 VR (not the older one)
I think I would recommend the 24-120 for you as it would let you shoot in 2 stops less light and according to one of me picky friends is the sharpest lens he has ever owned. (including his Leica m lens)
Also the D5100 is a major upgrade from what you have but it should be upgraded soon.
but it depends more on what you shoot. What lens to buy?
Dark Shadows wrote: Nikon consumer lenses are excellent. For example, at F8, I do not think you will be able to tell the difference between the 55-200, 70-300, or 70-200.
Of course, the 70-200 can also shoot at F/4 and F/2.8, for work in lower light or better DoF control. You also have to aware of the 'variable aperture' when shooting in manual mode with consumer lenses, as that can affect exposure.
I still think the consumer lenses are excellent. You just have to be aware of and willing to work around their limitations.
Thanks very much for that advice. Can you expand on the concept of variable aperture in manual mode? It is not something that I have encountered before.
_andyh wrote: The only one I've had issues with out of that list is the 55-200. I was never happy with the colour rendition from it
I had the 18-55 (I think it's the same) on a D40, and it was lovely. Lightweight lens, sharp and crisp, nice saturation. I sold it with a D80 and regretted it a bit
I also have the 35mm 1.8 and it's a nice lens to use for anything and everything. I'd not take on headshots with it but for a general all purpose low light / everyday'er it's perfick. I've used that more recently than my 24-70 and 28-300, which was my ultimate all purpose zoom
Incidentally, I used the 35mm on a D7000 if you were thinking of going that way on the body. In web res after Photoshop I don't think I'd see the difference between what my 24-70 vs the 18-55 would give
Thanks very much for those observations. They are the sort of insights I was looking for.
Barry Kidd Photography wrote: The best of them would be the 35mm
The 55-200 it's no so bad but it isn't constructed well. For me it didn't reproduce colors so well. Bright yellows and oranges, don't even bother pointing the camera that way!
If you drop it or set your camera down hard even from a about 6 inches it might just brake that cheap little plastic mount. You can order a new one from Nikon for about 20 bucks or so and it''s easy enough to install yourself. Sadly you have about a 50-50 chance that the auto focus will never work again. If AF doesn't work, it's time to trash it or at best keep it for spare parts.
As I have many and use many manual focus lenses you wouldn't think that's be a problem. The focusing ring on that thing sucks and it doesn't have a bright clear field of view needed to manual focus modern digital cameras with out split screen prisms.
The 18-55. Never used it but I'm not a huge fan the photos i have seen snapped with it. Same issues with the mount but the lens seems smaller and lighter so perhaps it will nt break as easily.
Yes, I miss the split screen focus too. Auto-focus is great, but, on the rare occasions that I wanted manual focus, the D5000 is simply not in the game.
I have never expected to be able to drop a camera without suffering drastic consequences, so I have always treated them like they were made of cut glass and I hope I will never get to test the strength of the lens mounts.
I see the comment that ya gotta have the 2.8 lens for low light...
Maybe back in film days when ASA400 was pushing things and if you were gutsy, you might try ASA800...
The new Nikons shoot at what... equivalent to ASA 6400 and some will go to ASA 24000. Yes, the images get noisy at the higher ASA equivalents. Film got grainier!
Time to stop thinking in film terms... digital cameras are different. Let's see a film camera do auto-ISO!
And if you are only using images on the web... sharpness isn't that much of a deal. 72 pixels per inch ain't gonna show much blow up detail.
And lastly, while negatives may last a long time with proper care, what ya gonna do when the replacement for CD's and DVD's arrives in the not too distant future. Heck, I've got some stuff on ZIP disks I can't retrieve and that's what maybe 10 years... Yeah, the media's good, find the 100M ZIP drive or even a 5.25" floppy drive these days.
Dark Shadows wrote: Nikon consumer lenses are excellent. For example, at F8, I do not think you will be able to tell the difference between the 55-200, 70-300, or 70-200.
Of course, the 70-200 can also shoot at F/4 and F/2.8, for work in lower light or better DoF control. You also have to aware of the 'variable aperture' when shooting in manual mode with consumer lenses, as that can affect exposure.
I still think the consumer lenses are excellent. You just have to be aware of and willing to work around their limitations.
natural beauties of qld wrote: Thanks very much for that advice. Can you expand on the concept of variable aperture in manual mode? It is not something that I have encountered before.
Variable aperture is only an issue when you are trying to use an aperture wider than the minimum aperture at the telephoto end of your zoom. Example: if your are using your 18-55 at 18mm, and have an aperture of F/4, and then zoom to 55mm, the aperture automatically reduces to F/5.6. If you are shooting in manual mode, this will underexpose your image by one stop. However, if you were shooting at F/8 at 18mm, and then zoomed to 55mm, you would still be at F/8.
The kit lenses are good optically, and are a great value. What you give up, compared to more expensive lenses, is build quality (metal vs. plastic), AF speed, and VR performance. The kits lenses have the advantage of being smaller and lighter, and easier to replace if something happens to them.
gl-amour wrote: I had the D5000 and all those lenses. Now I am locked in this system with D90, D7000, AF-D lenses and 3 SB-900s.
I now want to abandon DX for FF with a 5D Classic and 70-200 IS.
I love Nikon but I yearn for a 35mm sensor.
The Effective Image wrote: I see the comment that ya gotta have the 2.8 lens for low light...
Maybe back in film days when ASA400 was pushing things and if you were gutsy, you might try ASA800...
The new Nikons shoot at what... equivalent to ASA 6400 and some will go to ASA 24000. Yes, the images get noisy at the higher ASA equivalents. Film got grainier!
Time to stop thinking in film terms... digital cameras are different. Let's see a film camera do auto-ISO!
And if you are only using images on the web... sharpness isn't that much of a deal. 72 pixels per inch ain't gonna show much blow up detail.
And lastly, while negatives may last a long time with proper care, what ya gonna do when the replacement for CD's and DVD's arrives in the not too distant future. Heck, I've got some stuff on ZIP disks I can't retrieve and that's what maybe 10 years... Yeah, the media's good, find the 100M ZIP drive or even a 5.25" floppy drive these days.
You make some good points, but I find the film experience invaluable. Back when I started photography (electricity was new then, lol), it was necessary to be able to estimate exposure (my first camera was hot stuff because it had not only an integral light meter, but also a spot meter (that I found invaluable)). That skill is no longer necessary, but it is still really valuable, which is why I still think in film terms (the same way I still think in imperial measurements, even though we went decimal in 1966).
I am a bit more sanguine about the storage/format issue. Storage capacity just seems to keep growing and I long ago transferred everything from floppies and zips to larger hard drives (which I keep in triplicate). Jpeg has been around for a long time, so I am hoping that Nikon raw will do likewise or that we will have a decent program to convert to whatever follows it.
A and B have their issues, but if you're just doing this as a hobby then they're perfectly capable if you can live with their shortcomings (most notably being variable aperture).
C also has some issue with chromatic aberration in certain circumstances but it's fairly sharp, focuses fairly fast, and most importantly is cheap.
I currently shoot exclusively with the 35mm 1.8 (before that is was various versions of the 50mm), although I'm considering going in another direction soon. Other than not being able to shoot beauty currently there's really no complaints I have about the lens. I'd keep it no matter what just as a decent back up option.
John Horwitz
Posts: 2,548
Raleigh, North Carolina, US
@ Natural
Once upon a time - when photographers could think ( ahem ) and they didn't have
"Automatic" everything...there used to be an adjustment for f/stop on the lens AND a preview button on the side of the camera.
But technology made everyone fat dumb and lazy - so instead of having a racehorse...Nikon gave us a Gelded lens ( the g series ) that take away creativity.
I'll stick to the older glass thank you - manual focus bothers me not!
Andrew Somers
Posts: 1,018
Los Angeles, California, US
John Horwitz wrote: "G" stands for gelded - not able to use the f/stops at the back of the lens IMHO all crap, disagree if you like
"Gelded" stands for "I Get all my information from Ken R." LOL.
"Gelded" is BS.
What is important is the quality of the GLASS, not if the lens has an aperture ring (which serves no purpose on any Nikon body from the last 20 years) or not.
| 
| 
| edu