I am a beginning protagrapher leaning towards purchasing a Nikon N-80. I am going to be living in Kenya next year and am looking for a camera that will do portrait (Kids), wildlife and some action/sports. The 28-200 lense (I can get a good deal on a dicontinued dull silver color) seems like a good deal, convenient, suitable for all my purposes but I'm wondering whether it makes more sense to buy a 28-105 and then a larger zoom, or some sort of fixed lense. i want to shoot within 3 or 4 feet, will the 28-200 give me good quality as an amateur or should I go for something smaller?

-- Ilana (ilanafoss@yahoo.com), July 06, 2001

Answers

I'd give serious thought to the cheap and wonderful Nikon 50/1.8 and perhaps the 75-300 zoom. It's an inexpensive, light-weight kit that might cover most of your needs.Not sure you'd be happy for long with a 28-200.

-- Gary Watson (cg.watson@sympatico.ca), July 06, 2001.

Wide ranging zooms (24/28 to 200/300) are getting better optically than they were a few years ago, but they still have serious trade offs for the convenience. They are usually not very sharp, and there is more distortion, especially at the ends of the zoom range, when they are compared to moderate range zooms. Fixed focal length lense (primes) are even better.

It all comes down to things like: How much quality do you want? How much camera/lenses are you willing to carry? How much are you willing to spend?

Most people use their lenses at the wide end more often than they do at the long end, so getting to 200-300mm may not be as important as you think. For wild life, a 200mm lens isn't nearly long enough, so you will be wanting at least 300mm for that. Most 70-300's aren't all that good at the long end, but they are better than the the 28- 300's. A 50mm f/1.8 is a very good low cost lens that can take good pictures even when the lighting is poor. Any lens ending with an aperture of f/5.6 or more will require considerably more light or a decent tripod. You will want a tripod for any long lens you buy as well.

It's hard to recommend lenses for other people, but I'd go for a 28- 105, a 50 f/1.8 and a 70-300 for a low cost setup. If you are will ing to spend more money, I'd substitute a Sigma or Tokina 100-300 f/4 for the long lens. Or for even more money the Nikon 80-400 VR. You can even hand hold that one because of the Vibration Reduction.

-- Jim Strutz (j.strutz@gci.net), July 07, 2001.

I have a Nikon 28-200 and a Nikon 70-300 ED zoom. The 28-200 is a fantastically versatile "use almost anywhere" lens. It is not long enough for some outdoor sports and nature photography, but is all you need for almost anything else. The 70-300 is too long at 70mm for general photography, but good for some outdoor sports and nature photography. If I had only one lens, I would choose the 28-200 every time because of it versatility. Ideally, I would have just 2 lenses, the 28-200 and something from about 150 - 500. Sigma make a 170 -500, but I do not know much about it. The Nikon 80-400 also looks great.

-- Campbell Bridge (CBRIDGE@bigpond.net.au), July 15, 2001.

If you go in for a 28-200, you should also buying a good tripod, as at 200mm it is very difficult to hold the camera steady and that will result in poor pictures. So a tripod is a must. Otherwise remember the golden rule - FOCAL LENGTH(MM) SPEED ON CAMERA 200 200 (MIN) NEAREST SPEED THUS IS 250

Therefore, if you get a speed as given above, handheld, very good, or use a tripod. A zoom lens may look good but is very tricky to use.

Happy clicking.

-- Dinesh Hukmani (dineshhukmani@hotmail.com), July 31, 2001.

In the above given response, the table has become confusing due to some tech hitch. I'll explain here. At a focal length of 200mm, the min speed required is 200. SInce it is not there on any camera the nearest possible speed should be set i.e. 250. If it is manageable handheld, fine, or else, use a tripod.

-- Dinesh Hukmani (dineshhukmani@hotmail.com), July 31, 2001.