looking to buy a new camera SLR

The 18-55 sells ok on the used market, as does the 55-200. Makes the changeover to an 18-200 not so bad .

But I know the feeling of pain about the lens prices. I bought an oldschool push-pull 80-200/2.8 last week, time for some sweet portraits (and pre-focussed bike stuff. It focusses painfully slow - even more so if you don't use the 4 focus limit positions and let it rack the entire range). I couldn't justify $1.5k for a used 70-200VR ($2k new) or $3k for a new 70-200VRII.

 

Ok, I'll bite. Body shake reduction isn't as effective at anti-shake as in the lens. I want focus drive in the body to work with the older, cheaper primes etc that I have bought, but not solely rely on it. In-lens focus is very nice, too. Quiet on my macro, for instance, is brilliant at not shitting off bugs. An older (in-body) driven 105 macro tends to annoy the crap out of bugs.

I might have gone Pentax or another brand if I was starting today... maybe. But what I like is brilliant flash metering (I fkn hate having to think about shit which is unrelated to the shot I want to get), wireless flash out of the box (which I've had since 2004, with my D70), brilliant macro (and I don't mind paying for a professional macro lens - it's been worth it, though mine was a present. But I'd have bought it anyway). Last but not least, I did want compatibility with all my lenses I had.

I own, oh, one of those lenses now. I sold the rest and bought other ones.

Finally, I happen to think a D80+18-200VR is a pretty fkn decent all-round kit for a second-hand body and a new awesome lens which is going to compliment any (DX) body bought to replace the D80 in the future.

It's all personal preferences. I can snap good shots with the $90 P&S MIZ bought and it's a great camera. Composition, and shooting what suits whatever lens you have etc is the key. Gear is secondary. But I am coming from the perspective here of someone who can comment on the gear Steampunk has been looking at getting second-hand. And, IMHO, if looking at Nikon stuff, and if one is happy with how Nikon menus and controls are laid out(1), I would look for a D90 body if I could find one cheap, or a D80 body, and an 18-200VR. It is, IMHO, the perfect solution to meet steampunk's budget and would be a brilliant system that would allow him to grow and branch out later. Work out what shots he wants: if more is done on the lower end, get an UWA to suit. If more is done in the middle, look at at least one equivalent focal length prime which is faster and shaper. If more is done at the tele end, then decide on a budget and look for a more uber lens to suit that length.

(1) A tool which gets out of the way of the user is pretty much the perfect tool. It's used to get a job done; getting out of the way makes getting that job done easier. Some things work better for some people than others.

EDIT: I would also add that lens price isn't something I worry too much about. Some of my Nikon lenses have been expensive but they'd sell second-hand for about what I paid for them second-hand. I just wait for the right lens to come up at the right price.

 

My shots with my 18-200 cluster in 3 spots:
18-35: landscapey stuff, portraits by other people borrowing my camera/space constrained portraits.
50-80: my worklog shots, portraits I take when I have room to step back (throws the background out a bit more), 'stuff' where I like a bit of a shorter perspective
150-200: bike shots, e.g. some I'll bother to put up later of the TGR boys at Wakefield.

This is all predicated on APS-C, btw.

If I have time:
* landscapes are better with my 12-24 (generally 12-15 ish)
portraits are better with:
* 30 (torso or full body)
* 50 (torso to head shots)
* 85ish (head shots - farther background)
* 105 (head shots - closer background so need a bit more length to help throw the bg out of focus more)
* 130 ultra headshots FLAWLESS VICTORY HEADSHOTS

and action shots should be better with the 80-200, as long as I bear in mind focal speed (it's glacial. newer ones aren't).

all that lens swapping malarkey does get annoying, so the 18-200 does do for most things .

 

I'm not saying it doesn't work. It also isn't enough of a killer feature to make me think it is the thing to have, either.

 

I still use my D70 for that reason. Well, two reasons: 1/500 real actual flash sync is neato, and, as a backup. It's a good macro body.

and after talking about lens swapping malarkey, I do tend to stick to a focal length. If I have the 50 on, I'll shoot stuff that suits that. If I have a 12-24 on, I'll shoot stuff that suits that, etc.

sensor dust: a ghetto man's way of adding 'texture' to a picture prior to post-processing.

 

The 18-200 is pretty much all I take on work trips. As I mentioned in other posts in this thread, most superzooms suck but it is actually a very, very superb lens. I often supplement it when I have the ability, but, if I had to have one lens - it would be it.