http://www.nikonchat.com/nikon-ken/
Why is Ken Rockwell does not practice what you preach?
When talking about the possibility of investing most of your money in your camera body or on the lens, Ken Rockwell is quoted, "… always put your money into your lenses. This is because the lenses have much more to do with image quality and ease of use … "Http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/lens-or-camera.htm Later, I found this in another article." In a more reasonable budget I would suggest at 18 – 55, which can be obtained with a camera as a kit. It's inexpensive, about $ 140, and performs as well or better than the more expensive 18-70 ($ 330) and 17 to 55 ($ 1,500) lenses. There is no reason you can not make tens of thousands of fantastic images with only 18 to 55. "Http: / / www.kenrockwell.com / nikon / nikkor.htm # digital I've always had Ken Rockwell as a valuable resource for my photography, but this has made me hesitate. What do you think? I'm reading this wrong or something? Perhaps the first article focuses on the resale value of the lenses.
Ken Rockwell is nothing special: just a picture with a lot of time and money in their hands. I've noticed their comments too, saying get the kit lens 18-55mm Nikkor 55mm f2.8 on the 17 -. Sharpness wise, are identical, but can understand why a professional pass through the 17-55mm. And in his "review" of the new Nikon D700, which was really harassed, saying it was an amateur camera. Definitely not true. In Finally, I take your comments seriously, but not their advice.
Nikon D5000 Demo & Review
Nikon News