Nikon D80

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by patricia, Oct 24, 2007.

  1. patricia

    patricia Guest

    Guys & Gals

    To all who have a Nikon D80 with 18-135 what do you think i'm thinking of
    getting 1 soon

    patricia, Oct 24, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. I am happy. Certainly not top of the line, but just as certainly not bottom
    of the heap either. It does what I expect it to do and then some. So far no
    complaints or problems.
    You may want to order the leather pouch, too. It really protects the camera
    including attached 18-135.

    Jürgen Exner, Oct 24, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. I concur; I've had mine for about 9 months now and have yet to find any
    areas that it completely fails at. I find the interface easy to read
    quickly, the ergonomics comfortable, and the pictures crisp.

    That said, my only negative observations are that it seems to overexpose
    very slightly. This may be from my relative lack of skill, as it seems to
    have improved now that I'll working purely in Manual mode. Also,
    specifically with the 18-135 lens, low light is not your friend. IIRC it
    only hits f4.5 at the best of times...
    Indeed, a good bag is essential, and I've just invested in a tripod
    (unsteady hands + living in a place where the sun is a vague rumor in the
    winter months = poor results).

    Good luck,
    Lusus Naturae

    If they insist, those cannibals,
    On making heroes of us,
    They will soon know that our bullets,
    Are for our own generals.
    Lusus Naturae, Oct 24, 2007
  4. Would the 18 - 200mm with its longer reach and image stabilisation be a
    better choice as a single walk-round lens?

    David J Taylor, Oct 24, 2007
  5. patricia

    Pete D Guest

    Probably but how much more are they?
    Pete D, Oct 24, 2007
  6. David J Taylor, Oct 24, 2007
  7. If you don't mind the almost 50% more weight and more than double the price
    Besides, I am always skeptical about those super-zooms with a zoom factor of
    11 and
    seems to agree:
    "An old expression says that there's never a free lunch, and this is
    especially true with lenses. In the case of the Nikon 18-200, the tradeoffs
    are somewhat soft corners at maximum aperture and medium focal lengths and
    somewhat high geometric distortion across a range of focal lengths."

    On the other hand as you pointed out you are getting the VR and longer

    Jürgen Exner, Oct 24, 2007
  8. Street price more than double.

    Jürgen Exner, Oct 24, 2007
  9. patricia

    steve Guest

    I am really happy with it and hopefully won't buy anything more for 4 or
    more years, except maybe some extra lens.
    steve, Oct 24, 2007
  10. Anyone trying to "do everything" with a single lens seems quite
    satisfied with the 18-200. I've always agreed with the "no free lunch"
    school; in fact it took a lot of convincing for me to move away from a
    big collection of primes (with its corollary, mounting a different lens
    every few frames).

    I'm impressed with the zoom lenses that have come out in the last few
    years. I love my three-zoom combo for D80's: 12-24, 24-85 and 70-300VR.
    I just sold my 105 micro because I'm so satisfied with the pix I get at
    90-120 mm with the VR tele--I got it as a refurb for under USD$500.

    Another great (higher-quality) kit would be the 10.5, 17-35/2.8 and
    80-200/2.8; perfect for someone planning to buy a full-frame in the
    next couple of years, especially since you could fill in the gaps with
    some classic manual primes for very little money.
    sheepdog 2007, Oct 24, 2007
  11. patricia

    Frank Arthur Guest

    I have a D80 and a number of Nikon Lenses. Among them are 18-70,
    24-120VR, 70-300VR,
    105f2.8Macro & 80-400VR.

    Except for Bird pictures I almost always use the 24-120mm VR lens and
    have been getting
    consistantly really good images. If I had to choose one lens it would
    be the 24-120mmVR.
    Frank Arthur, Oct 24, 2007
  12. patricia

    gpaleo Guest

    Same here. The 24-120VR rarely leaves the camera, and that so to mount the
    70-300VR for the reach.
    If only, if ONLY, they were f4 lenses instead of f5.6
    gpaleo, Oct 24, 2007
  13. patricia

    Jurgen Exner Guest

    Amen to that!!!
    I would love so much to get my hands on a f2.8 tele or tele-zoom, but they
    are just way out of my leage.

    Jurgen Exner, Oct 24, 2007
  14. patricia

    M-M Guest

    The 70-300VR is under USD$500 *new*!

    I would like to add an 85mm 1.8 for $400 to my 18-135 and 70-300VR since
    the only thing missing in the zoom lenses is a fast aperture.
    M-M, Oct 24, 2007
  15. I have the same set except I got the 50mm f1.8 instead. An very fast lens
    and for only about 100$ you can't argue about the price :)

    Jürgen Exner, Oct 24, 2007
  16. THank you for catching that. The lens *was* new, now that I think about
    it. My camera body was a refurb.
    sheepdog 2007, Oct 24, 2007
  17. patricia

    Frank Arthur Guest

    My fast lens choice is the 35mm f2.0 AFD lens. Fast, good and the
    closest focussing non-
    micro lens Nikon has.
    Frank Arthur, Oct 24, 2007
  18. patricia

    Ray Paseur Guest

    <snip> Would the 18 - 200mm </snip>

    The longer reach is great for sports. Image Stabilisation (or VR or
    whatever the current terminology) is an absolute godsend. It does not
    replace a fast lens (the subject still moves) but it does wonders for
    camera shake. The 18-200 is a heavy thing, but the VR feature is very
    helpful. In bright sunlight you can make photos from the window of a
    moving car. In almost any light you can skip the tripod. Its value
    increases with the lens length. I would not buy another normal/long lens
    without this feature. It's much less money than a good tripod/head and it
    comes at lighter weight, in case you like being out backpacking.
    Ray Paseur, Oct 25, 2007
  19. patricia

    Ray Paseur Guest

    <snip> almost always use the 24-120mm VR lens </snip>

    This is a sharper lens than the 18-200, and an excellent "always on"
    choice. The 24-120 + the 70-200 + a teleconverter makes a great scenic,
    portrait, sports system. For birds, a little longer might be better.
    Ray Paseur, Oct 25, 2007
  20. tried one for a few days, the viewfinder is really great. I personnaly would
    trade the 18-135 for the older Nikkor 17-70 or a the Sigma 17-70.
    Yvon Travailler, Oct 25, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.