Comments | foxworth: ... damn it

foxworth

... damn it

Aug 17, 2009 20:15

So last night I got my camera out to take a quick picture of my desk and discovered something.

The auto-focus on my 18~55mm kit lens isn't working ( Read more... )

Comments 4

spacewoozl August 18 2009, 06:36:07 UTC

I don't think having your most commonly used lens being the most expensive one you own is a bad thing... as long as you get what you're paying for.

foxworth August 18 2009, 08:19:34 UTC

I absolutly agree which is why I was ready and willing to drop the money for it today had either of the places I stopped had it in stock. (that way I would have had it for tomo... Today.)

The other thing is this lens will have a lit more versatility than my previous general use lens.

yarrick August 18 2009, 17:02:40 UTC

Yeah, thankfully for Nikon and Canon cameras the AF system is on the Lens, NOT the body (unlike Olympus and Sony). If the AF goes, unless its a really expensive lens, its cheaper to replace the lens then the camera, and atleast the rest of your gear will continue to work, rather then having to send the body in for waranty work...

yarrick August 18 2009, 17:09:59 UTC

Actually, if your looking for a good "general purpose" lens might I suggest one of these instead of the 18-105?

Sigma 18-200 for Nikon

or

Tamron 18-200 for Nikon

I have an OLDER Tamron 28-200 lens for my Canon and I really love that lens. I had a 28-90 lens, trust me, you get quite a bit more when you go from 90 or 105 to a 200. Your getting more of a true long lens at that point, that can do wide as well. 90% of my zoo photography is done at 200mm. There isn't as much difference between 200 to 300 as there is from 100 to 200 in actual zoom factor. I don't know why; but it seems to work that way.

Same price range as the one your looking at. These lenses don't have IS, however- but for outdoor photography you don't need it. If you do want IS, the 18-250mm lenses for each have IS, but they are $100-200 more.