New walkabout lens. Nikonians.

Snownation

Snownation

Suspended / Banned
Messages
234
Name
Adrian
Edit My Images
Yes
I would like a lens with good quality glass.
I own the 18-200mm which I find too broad, so it's being sold now here

I want to ask about the 24-120mm VR.
Would anyone reccommend it? And is BQ and IQ any good?
 
I'm tending to agree here. I've always been advised to go with the 18-55mm kit + the 55-200 until I can fork out the cash for the 18-200mm lens. I'm thinking the lens you really want is the one you're selling! Unless you're prepared to lose a little zoom.
 
Just a follow up thought, what about the 18 - 105mm lens? Although I've read the 18 - 200mm is supposed to be sharper and better than it too.
 
If you want that kind of range and want a Nikon lens, look for the Nikon 28-105mm, an excellent buy 2nd hand and optically very nice indeed.
 
Snownation said:
What do you think of the 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX NIKKOR
Click to expand...

Very nice lens....expensive if you want my opinion. I'd go for an 18-70mm and a 70-300mm VR (both 2nd hand) for a little bit more money if it were me.
 
Well, it's because I have a voucher from Jacobs that I want to use.
£80 off the 16-85mm from the RRP of £443.99, which makes that about £365.

Would you think that's a worthy deal? Selling my 18-200 for £390, and taking the 16-85 instead?
 
The 25(Oops! that should be 24!)-120 VR isn't that bad. OK, it's not perfect but it does a reasonable job. Having said that, I only bought mine (as part of a kit with my D700) because that range was the only gap I had in FF lenses and the lens only added £170 to the cost of the body. The wide end is usefully wide on FF and 35mm but not really wide enough (IMO) as a wide angle on a Dx crop body and the long end is too short on FF but not too bad with Dx.
When Jessops were knocking the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 for around £230 earlier this year (or possibly late last year!), I couldn't resist the offer so bought one to replace the 24-120 VR. The Sigma is marginally sharper all the way through the range, especially when both are stopped down to f/8 or so but again, is a bit long at the short end on Dx and is shorter than the Nikon at the long end, potentially making it less useful on FF (a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and a Nikon 70-300 VR take care of the next range up for me so it's not a problem).
As for the eventual fate of the 24-120 VR? Well, it got traded in for more than it cost me so was a good investment after all!
Unfortunately, I don't think there's a single lens solution and the best bet IMO is probably a 2nd hand 18-70 Nikon lens and a 70-300 VR to cover the longer end, although a Sigma 70-300 APO may be a cheaper option.
 
The Nikon AF-S 16-85mm VR is good but the 18-55 VR is better value if on a budget. It all depends how much you use your current 18-200 above 85mm to make the change. ;)
 
Snownation said:
Thanks for those comments.
I still want to consider the 16-85mm, but would like more opinions.
Click to expand...

This lens has always been an enigma to me, because the 18-200 only costs £50 more. Especially in this case, when you want to change to the 16-85 from the 18-200, giving you far less reach, but spending the same?!

Please explain why you want to move to a lens with far less reach and not make any money on the deal? I agree there are rumours that the 16-85 has better image quality but I've never seen any proof.

Let's refer to the god of Nikon, Ken Rockwell.

quote:

"The advantage of this 16-85mm VR over the similarly priced 18-200mm VR is that this 16-85mm VR has a slightly wider wide end, has less distortion, has somewhat more effective VR and can be sharper at the wide end. Other than that, I'd still buy the 18-200mm VR if I was doing it again."

Is that enough for you to continue with the change? It's not for me, every day I am amazed at the range of the 18-200. And I never worry about its image quality. Think hard!
 
I think they're all trying to do too much.
The 24-70 is the dogz nutz for a few reasons, one of which is that it cannot maintain performance over a greater range than 24-70.
Ok if you lower your max app standards a bit maybe other lenses can, but there's always a compromise somewhere along the line.
Personally, and not wanting to compromise too much I'd choose either the 28-70 or 35-70, and put more width and more length to other lenses on a "to buy" list for another day.

budget quality = 28-70, 35-70
dogz nutz = 24-70

I'd be unlikely to try any of the other too wide to too longs.
 
joxby said:
budget quality = 28-70, 35-70
dogz nutz = 24-70
Click to expand...

I take it you're referring to the Nikon offerings here? I would never describe either the 28-70mm or the 35-70mm lenses as budget quality!
 
joxby said:
I think they're all trying to do too much.
snip
I'd be unlikely to try any of the other too wide to too longs.
Click to expand...

I will probably regret this one day. However, my photography has other priorities than ultra-ultra sharpness. I've seen plenty of photos that are a bit blurred or otherwise technically compromised, that I absolutely love, to know that spontaneity and preparedness are more important in the creation of a good image than any technical factors one could mention.

Therefore, I shun raw and shoot basic JPG, use megazooms when wandering around outdoors in daylight, and do all sorts of things that make life easier but would be frowned upon by those that put tech before soul.

I know exactly when and where I need a f/1.8 prime, and own a few, however there's nothing better than wandering around with a d40 and 18-200 set to basic JPG, knowing I have all I need to make a quality image.

Actually making one... that's another kettle of fish.
 
sdb123 said:
Ahem...let's not. ;)

It's a well-known fact that the one thing Ken loves more than life itself is the 18-200mm VR. :p
Click to expand...

Surely Ken's only true love is a trombone zoom - zoom in, zoom out, zoom in, zoom out...
 
karmagarda said:
Just a follow up thought, what about the 18 - 105mm lens? Although I've read the 18 - 200mm is supposed to be sharper and better than it too.
Click to expand...

Not sure where you read this, but Photozone's tests show that the 18-105's mtf charts are higher than the 18-200's throughout the overlapping range.
Of course, the 18-105 is less than half the price of the 18-200 as well, even cheaper if you get it as part of a kit.
 
sdb123 said:
I take it you're referring to the Nikon offerings here? I would never describe either the 28-70mm or the 35-70mm lenses as budget quality!
Click to expand...


They are quality lenses at a budget price compared with the holy grail....is what I meant..:)
 
everyone seems to be forgetting the halfway house between the cheaper lenses and the 24-70 for crop sensors, the nikon 17-55... 2.8 goodness, and you can get them pretty reliably for about £600 second hand. A much better range on crop imo than the 24-70...and a smaller, lighter cheaper lens too...everyone wins!

The 35-70 is a great lens too, though slower AF...

Nod said:
Surely Ken's only true love is a trombone zoom - zoom in, zoom out, zoom in, zoom out...
Click to expand...
it's how you can tell when he's...'excited'... >_>
 
itsdavedotnet said:
A much better range on crop imo than the 24-70...
Click to expand...

All depends on what you shoot. The 17-55mm isn't for me as I prefer a little more range for people shots....therefore the 24-70mm (or equivalent) would be perfect.
 
martsharm said:
I will probably regret this one day. However, my photography has other priorities than ultra-ultra sharpness. I've seen plenty of photos that are a bit blurred or otherwise technically compromised, that I absolutely love, to know that spontaneity and preparedness are more important in the creation of a good image than any technical factors one could mention.
Click to expand...

I'm with you chuck, but these boards are always about microscopic analysis, mtf chart, test shoots, and general fractional obsessing.
Tbh, it does my head in, but to some, it matters....:shrug:
It's also easier to form an opinion, when you can point at a micrometer and read what it says, without having to think or put into words why you love an image, regardless of its perceived technical faux pas...:)
 
Whilst I rather enjoyed the 17-55, it may not provide the reach you may wish for. One thought that does not appear to have been discussed here, the kit Nikon 18-135.

Not quite as much reach as the 18-200 but smaller and lighter and may well be the lens you are looking for?

Chris
 
jomike said:
Not sure where you read this, but Photozone's tests show that the 18-105's mtf charts are higher than the 18-200's throughout the overlapping range.
Of course, the 18-105 is less than half the price of the 18-200 as well, even cheaper if you get it as part of a kit.
Click to expand...

Not sure where I read it... but I shall not be using that site again :D. Personally, I own the 18-55mm and the 55-200mm. But then again I'm a firm believer of the "peddle zoom" over getting a lens that will suit all occasions. But from the sounds of what you are saying the 18-105 is more bang for your buck if you want something close to an all rounder.
 
What my original intention was, was to find a lens which covers more wide to mid telephoto ranges, but also having greater BQ and IQ. The 18-200mm is great, undoubtedly. However, I never find myself using past 130mm. Sure, it gives me extra reach, but it's not my agenda to be able to go that far.

I know the prices are similar, so what I had in mind was, if I'm able to get a more "specialized" lens for the same price, why not? Only as long as the image quality supercedes the 18-200mm. Extra reach on the 18-200mm? Fcuk it, I don't need it.

I hope you don't see me as a somewhat spoilt person who just wants what he can get. On the contrary, I'm a bum.

My main point is, I'm wondering if the IQ, sharpness etc. of the 16-85mm would be significant enough to drop the 18-200mm, which I'm sure you guys will have more exposure on. I don't mind the switch, as I rarely shoot telephoto. So given my situation, is it a good enough trade? I will still have some leftover change if I swap these two lenses anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top