Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MD1032" data-source="post: 151255" data-attributes="member: 14272">Thanks for all of the recommendations. I have a 70-300 so I do not think I really think I need a wide range lens like an 18-105. I tried a 55-200 once and I felt like the range would be useless for me. It neither had a wide enough view nor an especially close one.I would love to get another body but honestly I do not see myself benefiting from an upgrade, and I don't want to spend the money. I have never felt any real restrictions about my camera setup other than myself. The 1600 speed on the D50 is more than enough for me. Also, the D50 has the built-in autofocus motor pin (what do you call that?) necessary to drive my 70-300 mm G Nikon lens, which does not contain a built-in motor like the AF-S DX. I see that the D3100 and D5100 lack this feature.I forgot to mention that the thing I least liked about the 18-55 DX was that it had no ability to shoot macro whatsoever. I really would love to have a lens that could shoot macro so I don't have to bring along my little Canon P&S. Honestly, I don't think I would really need anything more than an 18-35 mm. I'm not opposed to buying a non-Nikon brand, either, nor a non-AF-S lens.I looked at some different sized lenses online and I am perplexed as to why the 18-55 DX's seem to be so cheap compared to everything else. Is it simply because they are more mass-produced?Ken Rockwell likes the VR. It's cheap and can give me the same quality as my old 18-55 but going 3 F-stops lower? Sounds very tempting indeed.<a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-55mm-vr.htm" target="_blank">http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-55mm-vr.htm</a></blockquote>

Verification