Keep in mind that your 70-300 on your Pentax will be 105-450 on a 1.5 crop factor sensor if my math is right. So it will not be as wide as your Pentax lens but it will have the extra reach.

Scott

I'd go option #1 or #3. Lenses with longer range tend to make too many sacrifices to be great at any FL in the range... Also you'd be doubling up on some of the FL since you're going to get the 70~300mm...

As for stores, I'd go adorama, or B&H. Personally I only use B&H but from what I've heard ad is also good.

Here's how I'd rank your choices:

1) Option 2
2) Option 3
3) Option 1

I don't like the 18-55 because the front element rotates when focusing. I have the older version of this lens that came with my D50. The 18-135 is supposed to be pretty nice lens. I don't know much about the Sigma, but I really only like their EX line of lenses.

Take a look at the 18-70 Nikon. You can get one pretty cheap, and lots of people love this lens, as it came in the D70 kit.

I sold my 18-55mm kit from the D50 for 100 bucks on ebay not to long ago. Factor that into your prices.

ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS check the store ratings on resellerratings.com before you buy any camera equipment from a non mainstream store.

The kit lenses are as cheap as possible, generally. They don't take advantage of the best materials or processes in manufacturing them in order to make them more affordable. Yes, you're paying for the extra range but I wouldn't be surprised if the 18-135 wasn't a bit better, although I have no idea about that lens or how much it costs. If it's not a huge cost difference then I'd say you're just paying for the increased range, primarily.

Originally Posted by paintbing

Thanks for the feedback. I was also wondering why the 18-135 "kit" is more expensive than the 18-55 Kit. Is this due to a larger range, or is it that the lense is just a higher quality altogether? (or both???)

If you haven't put your hands on the Nikon 18-55, I suggest you do. It's very cheap. Don't get me wrong, I've taken some fine photos with mine, but it's a piece of ****, build-wise. The 18-135 is a nicer lens. Even if you don't have any intention to buy from a local place, I'd go to a camera dealer where you can try both or all 3 lenses out before buying.

You won't tell the difference between lenses very well with the display on the back of the camera. You'd need to take the same photo with each lens and take it home to look at it on a computer monitor. The displays on cameras are, generally speaking, crap. Good for seeing if you got the composition you wanted but not for color, exposure or focus or anything like that.

Here's a review that isn't by Ken Rockwell:
http://www.bythom.com/18135lens.htm

Originally Posted by LateApex

Here's a review that isn't by Ken Rockwell:
http://www.bythom.com/18135lens.htm

can we word filter "Ken Rockwell" to "immeasurable douchebag" or something?

Originally Posted by emorphien

Originally Posted by LateApex

Here's a review that isn't by Ken Rockwell:
http://www.bythom.com/18135lens.htm

can we word filter "Ken Rockwell" to "immeasurable douchebag" or something?

My brain already does it.

Seriously though, his reviews are some of the first ones that pop up in Google when you search Nikon stuff. It's a shame.

That filter would be funny though.

I'll agree on the build quality of the 18-55mm... compared to some of the better lenses I own now the kit does feel flimsy and plasticy.

It does take good photos though. I guessing since you're going for the D80 you might have some extra scratch to pick up a better lens, I would avoid getting the kit and go straight to something slightly better.

Originally Posted by LateApex

That filter would be funny though.

Originally Posted by emorphien

can we word filter "immeasurable douchebag" to "immeasurable douchebag" or something?

testing: Ken Rockwell


nice

oh sweet... immeasurable douchebag



this thread delivers

My girlfriend says that I Rockwell. I Ken Rockwell.

I'd purchase this kit:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...al_Camera.html

You don't need an extra battery unless you are travelling or doing a LOT of shooting, and usually those "starter kits" are junk. With the money you have left, you can buy some quality gear.

Just my $.02

Also, I think most people on here will agree that quality lenses make more of a difference than the body. Most modern DSLRs(even entry level) are capable of professional quality shots. The photographer is what makes the most difference. The camera is only a tool, and nicer cameras usually make it easier for the photog to do his/her job.

Originally Posted by LateApex

Also, I think most people on here will agree that quality lenses make more of a difference than the body. Most modern DSLRs(even entry level) are capable of professional quality shots. The photographer is what makes the most difference. The camera is only a tool, and nicer cameras usually make it easier for the photog to do his/her job.

amen

I wouldn't call the d40, d50, d70, d100 crappy cameras.

As stated above the lenses and more importantly the photographer will have a greater effect on the quality of your results.

Originally Posted by LateApex

Also, I think most people on here will agree that quality lenses make more of a difference than the body. Most modern DSLRs(even entry level) are capable of professional quality shots. The photographer is what makes the most difference. The camera is only a tool, and nicer cameras usually make it easier for the photog to do his/her job.

I agree, to a point. There are some differences in certain aspects (IE sensor technology) that will matter to some depending on their applications. For most people though, it doesn't matter.