stonecherub Loc: Tucson, AZ

I am a victim of the Nikon 18-200 mm Coke bottle. The lens appealed to me because I could have a wide range of focal lengths and never have to open the camera in the desert. I did expect the quality to be less than optimum but I didn't expect THIS! Yes, I should have known better and a kilobuck is a lot to have wasted, not to mention the opportunities.

I need a better lens and am appealing to you Hedgehogger's collective wisdom to point me in the right direction. My specialties are volcanoes and gravestones.

Sierra Blanca and the Pinacate desert


Gravestone in Lexington, Ma.

twowindsbear

What's wrong with these images?

IMHO - a graduated ND filter may darken the sky a bit in the mountain photo & the head stone could be just a bit brighter.

I'd call both of these pix 'keepers.'

stonecherub Loc: Tucson, AZ

They are "keepers" because I have no choice. Each is a jpeg made from a dng (I convert from nef to dng, a generic raw) with no post processing. I can improve the sky and the contrast but the issue is sharpness. Download the Sierra Blanca image and look critically at the crest of the ridge. It's so soft you could fall on it without injury. Similarly, the edges of the gravestone lettering are sharply carved but softly rendered.

I could have made both of those pictures with my Coolpix 8700 and saved a bundle. I am working on my volcano website, going through the hundreds of images made this past field season. They're OK for a website but I wouldn't print a one of them.

I'm not going back out with this lens. New lens or new camera if I'm ready to spend up to another kilobuck?

RMM Loc: Suburban New York

I have the same camera and lens. I'm also disappointed with it, though I haven't concluded yet how much is the lens's fault and how much is mine. I'd say you'd be better off spending your kilobuck on a new lens. The camera seems fine to me. That said, I now defer to others on what lens would best serve you.

You should tell folks what kind of photographs you want to take, as that does influence what lens is most appropriate, e.g., landscapes, birds, etc.. By the way, there are lens review sites, like slrgear.com.

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

If you are concerned about sharpness, and don't particularly need a zoom, I would suggest you determine what focal lengths you use most and buy two prime lenses. If the zoom feature is important then you can go for the big bucks 24-70 (probably overkill on a D5000) or even the 70-200 (also big bucks). A compromise might be the 16-85 which I had a lot of success with. You need to assess what focal lengths you want and check out the lenses in that range. Selection becomes even more complicated when you consider other makers like Sigma and Tamron. Good luck.