Lens upgrade

Dave L

Dave L

Suspended / Banned
Messages
89
Name
dave
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello all,
I recently purchased a 70-200f2.8 and found it to be an awesome lens, I am now looking to upgrade my kit lens for the shorter focal length, I currently have a 18-105 nikon and I am looking for something that is more equal to the 70-200 in terms of image quality, image sharpness, etc

Thanks
Dave
 
Dave L said:
Hello all,
I recently purchased a 70-200f2.8 and found it to be an awesome lens, I am now looking to upgrade my kit lens for the shorter focal length, I currently have a 18-105 nikon and I am looking for something that is more equal to the 70-200 in terms of image quality, image sharpness, etc

Thanks
Dave
Click to expand...

I guess you're looking for something with wider aperture too? Two that leap out are the Nikon 17-55 2.8 and the Sigma 18-35 1.8. Both lovely.

A cheaper option might be the Tamron or Sigma 17-50 2.8 offerings.

All that said, you might not notice a massive difference in IQ over the 18-105 in many circumstances as the 18-105 isn't a bad performer. Nice to have wider apertures available though.
 
If you have the 70-200 f/2.8 and wish to go wider the natural lens to buy would be the Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8.
Or if you need a ultra wide lens the third member of the Nikon holy trinity would be the 14-24 f/2.8..
I have the first two on this list but opted for the Nikkor 16-35 f/4VR for the ultra wide option.
 
Jack Flash said:
If you have the 70-200 f/2.8 and wish to go wider the natural lens to buy would be the Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8.
Or if you need a ultra wide lens the third member of the Nikon holy trinity would be the 14-24 f/2.8..
I have the first two on this list but opted for the Nikkor 16-35 f/4VR for the ultra wide option.
Click to expand...

I hesitated to recommend these as I assume the OP is using DX if he has an 18-105. That said a 16-35 or 14-24 would still serve as nice wide options if a little overkill size wise.
 
Depends on the camera, for a DX the 17-55 is a good choice, but for DX it'll have to be the 24-70 - which is about the same IQ as the 70-200, they were designed to compliment one another. 2/3 of the original "holy trinity" for Nikon, the 3rd being the 14-24 2.8
 
Cagey75 said:
Depends on the camera, for a DX the 17-55 is a good choice, but for FX it'll have to be the 24-70 - which is about the same IQ as the 70-200, they were designed to compliment one another. 2/3 of the original "holy trinity" for Nikon, the 3rd being the 14-24 2.8
Click to expand...

;)
 
Ive just bought a Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4. It was second hand from WEX and its really nice. Im only an amateur for what its worth but theres a marked difference from the Nikon kit lens.
 
He won't get much wider with 24-70 on DX. the 17-55 f2.8 serve a better purpose on DX. When I was shooting DX I had both the Nikon 28-70 f2.8 and Tamron 17-55 f2.8. Ended up using the Tamron more. Now I'm on FX, different story.
 
Definitely a 17-55. I used one on my D7000 for a few years, along with a 35mm. These days I have the 24-70 on FX instead, but it works much the same as the dx version.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top