Digital Slr's

[Tomm]

Thats the lens, seen it a few places for about £250. A fair chunk considering buying a 2 lens bundle with the cameras costs less than that, but the convenience of one lens would help!

Anybody find any more info on the D60?

Cheers

M@

You can't really spend enough on lenses really. The body has basically f**k-all to do with the image quality - the lens is mainly responsible for all of the sharpness, contrast, colours etc. So spending more on lenses is a good thing. The dual lens kit I assume you mean the Canon 18-55 kit lens and the cheap 70-300? If so, both those lenses are pretty rough - My mum has the 70-300 and it's so soft at the long end. I've got a cheap Sigma 55-200 f4-f5.6 (I think) which goes for under £100 new from some places and it's fantastic by comparison, although I've not experienced a higher quality zoom.

Basically what I'm saying is that although the Sigma 18-200 (or 18-125) may suffer because it's got such a long range, it may well be better than the two Canon lenses, especially when you take into account having to change lenses etc.

[F-Stop Junkie]

You can't really spend enough on lenses really. The body has basically f**k-all to do with the image quality - the lens is mainly responsible for all of the sharpness, contrast, colours etc.

Ummm, I'd disagree. I see what you mean that you'll get worse images from a great body and an awful lens than you will from a awful body with a great lens, but I'd say that image quality these days is sufficiently high that there is no bad bodies. Pair it with good glass, and you'll get good images out of a D50 or 350D.

That said, the AF performance (and hence sharpness) of a 1D will outperform any cheaper body, as will the colour handling of a 1Ds or 5D. The same image taken with a 350D and 1D Mk2 and the same lens of something moving - say sports - will produce a sharper image with the 1D, probably better colour handling too due to the different image processors and sensors involved. Of course, you're paying seven times as much for the body...

I've got a cheap Sigma 55-200 f4-f5.6 (I think) which goes for under £100 new from some places and it's fantastic by comparison, although I've not experienced a higher quality zoom.

Smaller zoom range is better than a larger zoom range.

Basically what I'm saying is that although the Sigma 18-200 (or 18-125) may suffer because it's got such a long range, it may well be better than the two Canon lenses, especially when you take into account having to change lenses etc.

True, but the 18-125 has a smaller zoom range than the 55-200, so should be somewhere equal in performance to the 55-200

[JonMack]

First link i found when i typed in "D80 kit"

http://www.ukdigital.co.uk/nikon_d80_18_70_lens.htm, £769

Edited August 30, 2006 by MonsterJ