Best, least expensive starter lens for my kid?

[Steve S]

Thinking about getting my 17 y.o. a D50 and a starter lens. Was thinking of a Nikkor 50mm 1.8D AF. What's everyone's opinion on this lens choice?

 

[TOLady]

Just a thought... why a prime, not a zoom? 18-200 would give her/him a great way to study composition....

 

[malfayu]

it's the one lens that i can't live without, highly recommeded!! it's cheap as well. But then a 35 f2 might be even better if you're only getting one lens for your kid because i think the 50 is a bit too long on crop to be treated as a general purpose lens, although i seem to get by fine even when i'm going out with just that lens

 

[malfayu]

Just a thought... why a prime, not a zoom? 18-200 would give her/him a great way to study composition....

That'd be a sweet setup too, but then with a fast prime you kid would be able to learn and play with DOF too!!

 

[1FASTZ]

Steve, if you wanted to go with a cheap zoom, how about picking up a used Nikon 18-70? Great little lens for what it costs. The 50 f/1.8 is great cheap prime to consider.

 

[darrell]

Thinking about getting my 17 y.o. a D50 and a starter lens. Was thinking of a Nikkor 50mm 1.8D AF. What's everyone's opinion on this lens choice?

For the money $$, I doubt the 50mm 1.8 afs can be beat.
A few more dollars will buy a zoom increasing flexibility.

 

[Gr8Tr1x]

The newer 18-55mm DX II is cheap and offers some flexibility....the D50 will go along way to offering low light capabilities without a 50mm 1.8. What does your son want to shoot?

 

[sonuj2]

I recommend the 18-70 ..... it is probably the best bang for the buck in terms of range, quality and flexibility. I am still hanging on to mine (a very sharp copy) which came as a kit with my D70 and has given me great service so far, although now that I have the 18-200 I do not know how much longer I will hang on to it.

 

[mikeyd86]

I have the 50mm 1.8, and it's a great lens, but I think if I only had that lens and was starting out, I'd get very frustrated very fast.

 

[simsim]

18-70 is perfect IMO.

 

[Nuteshack]

i got my son started on the 50 1.8 but if i had known better i would have chose the 35f2 ....;-))

 

[cooleyjb]

18-70 would be my vote if there was just one lens.

 

[catalyst]

Hey Steve -

I agree that the 18-70 mm is a perfect "starter" lens. It has very good sharpness and color rendition, and its zoom flexibility would provide a great experimental capability.

Even the fact that its low-light capabilities are *somewhat* limited will be very instructive. After all, we learn more from our "failures" than our successes - at least I do - LOL.

It is relatively inexpensive, quite durable and versatile, and is a very good value.

Eric

 

[slappomatt]

I'd have to agree with everyone else.

#1 would be the 18-70 used for $200.00
#2 would have to be the 35 F2 used for about 250.
#3 (which will be my next lens) sigma 28mm F1.8 new for $250.00

 

[davidzvi]

18-70 kit lens from the d70. Mike Bustad has one for sale here.
When I got me son a D70s he bought me 24-120 VR from me. There is one here as well.

My son also get a 70-300 VR to with the 24-120. My father-in-law just got a D50, I got him an 18-70 to which he will also add the 70-300 or he will trade the 18-70 and just get the 18-200 if they actually become reasonable in price.

Add to either 2 lens combo a 50 1.8 and you have a really good starter set.

 

[greenville hybrid]

one more vote for 18-70 AFS

 

[Stephen Hopkins]

I'm the kind of person who can live without the wide-end so I'd say Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. They can be had between $200 - $300 used (sometimes new) and the constant wide aperature along with the zoom flexibility will offer a very good compromise between those suggesing fast primes and those suggesting 18-70mm kit lenses. Also being able to keep the shutter speed up may stave off some frustration early on if action shots are a priority.

 

[Tosh]

18-70 would work well, as would the overlooked 24-85 AFS. Both can be picked up used in the $170-200 range.

The 18-55 ver. 2 is a very sharp little lens. You might be able to pick one up from someone who got one with a D40 as the D40 is only sold as a kit with that lens. I wanted the D40, but not the lens, and I sold it for $110 shipped to a Cafe member. You might even be able to go in on a new D40 kit purchase with someone seeking body only.

 

[sonuj2]

I'm the kind of person who can live without the wide-end so I'd say Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. They can be had between $200 - $300 used (sometimes new) and the constant wide aperature along with the zoom flexibility will offer a very good compromise between those suggesing fast primes and those suggesting 18-70mm kit lenses. Also being able to keep the shutter speed up may stave off some frustration early on if action shots are a priority.

The difference between 18mm and 28mm could be very critical and for someone just starting out, the wider range would be more beneficial than a faster constant 2.8. The 28-105 mm range provided by the 18-70 AFS is what is typically known as the 'Swiss Army Knife' range, in that it is the most useful range for all normal usages. That is just my opinion though.

 

[Billy Ng]

Do what millions of photographers did before him and get him a 50mm equivalent prime. In Nikon crop bodies, this would be the 35mm f/2.

It's a great, fast prime that will teach him about composition, depth of field, and the importance of speed (light).

I would never recommend a VR lens to anyone that's new to photography. Giving VR to someone who doesn't have good handholding technique is going to guarantee that they NEVER learn and practice good technique.

Bill