New glass...worth it?

DoubleCheese · 28 May 2010 at 22:01

I'm considering a fast lense for my Nikon D200 and wanted thoghts/views from those that may have them already.

I've currently got the following lenses:
Nikon 18-200mm VR
Nikon 50mm f1.8
Nikon 70-300 VR
Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6

I mainly use the 18-200VR as a general walkabout lens as its so versatile. How do the Sigma/Tamron/Tokina 17-50 f2.8's compare to it IQ wise? I've deliberately not put the Nikon 17-55 f2.8 in there as its a ton of cash to buy new. Is it significantly better than the competition that I should buy it second hand?
Is the 16-85 VR worth considering too?

Yours views?

p0ss3s3d · 28 May 2010 at 22:40

New glass is always worth it...!

*usually.

Tooks · 28 May 2010 at 23:00

If you can stretch to it, a used Nikon 17-55 f2.8 is an incredible lens for the cash. Sharp, built like a tank, and will still be worth a shed load should you want to sell it at some point.

But, the 16-85 VR is a cracking lens as well. It's as sharp in the centre as the 17-55 in my opinion, and I've owned both (still have the 16-85), but edge/corner sharpness isn't as good, although you probably won't notice. It's not as fast, but the VR may make up for some of that.

To balance that, I've not much experience with the other 3rd party f2.8 lenses you mention, if you get a good one they'll be good, but I'd get either of the Nikons if you can.

syke · 28 May 2010 at 23:23

Purely for the cost of it compared, the Tamron 17-50 is an outstanding lens. Could replace both of your 18-200/70-300 with say the 80-200 f2.8 or something.

At The Gates · 28 May 2010 at 23:57

The Tamron is better than the 18-200 image quality wise. If you go over all your photos with a magnifying glass and like using your lenses as weapons then the Nikon 17-55 is about 0.1% better if you dont mind spending £800 more.

To be honest with the selection of lenses you already have i'm not sure i'd buy any of the lenses you suggest. The 16-85 VR is good but isn't that much better than the 18-200 to warrant spending money on. Gotta be honest, with your selection of lenses i wouldn't buy anything unless you can go big bucks like the 70-200 f/2.8 VR.

robertgilbert86 · 29 May 2010 at 07:57

I've had the Tamron 17-50 for a few years now and owned+sold the 18-200. The IQ of the Tamron absolutely blows the 18-200 away. The fast aperture and very reasonable price makes it a must-have for me. As above I'd consider flogging the 18-200 as you won't want to use it after the Tamron but you might as well keep the 70-300 VR, the f2.8 teles are very heavy and I personally wouldn't want that weight.

A fast tele alternative is an old 80-200 f4. Sure it's manual focus but the image quality and low DOF/bokeh is stunning. You've got a D200 so metering is fine and you can add the lens EXIF data in-camera. I picked one up from the auction site for £34!
See some test shots here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/robertgilbert86/sets/72157623845607400/

DoubleCheese · 29 May 2010 at 09:58

Thanks everyone. This is exactly my dilemma, the lenses I've got are nice and sharp in the right conditions and most of my photography is at the wider end, hence I'm looking at these lenses for something better than the 18-200 in the focal range I use most, upto 50mm.

Interestingly you hardly ever see these third party lenses come up second hand, most of the time its the Nikon.

I think I'll get down to WE tomorrow and have a play with all of them and see what takes my fancy.

robertgilbert86 · 29 May 2010 at 11:26

*If you do go for a Tamron 17-50 try and get one without a built-in AF motor as the D200 focuses much quicker with it's own kit!

bigsharn · 29 May 2010 at 11:50

Might also be worth getting a 35mm or 28mm prime lens, purely as you tend to shoot <50mm. I'd also suggest selling your 70-300 if you don't use it, but I'd probably get flamed and you wouldn't get a huge amount for it in honesty

At The Gates · 29 May 2010 at 12:35

robertgilbert86 said:
*If you do go for a Tamron 17-50 try and get one without a built-in AF motor as the D200 focuses much quicker with it's own kit!

And don't get the new VC model. Supposedly not as sharp as the prior models.

DoubleCheese · 29 May 2010 at 12:35

robertgilbert86 said:
*If you do go for a Tamron 17-50 try and get one without a built-in AF motor as the D200 focuses much quicker with it's own kit!

Do mean this lens or this lens?

bloodhunter · 29 May 2010 at 14:28

You should be able to get the Nikkor 17-55 f2.8 second hand in mint condition for somewhere between £625.00 to £675.00 which is a good price really.

robertgilbert86 · 29 May 2010 at 14:53

DoubleCheese said:
Do mean this lens or this lens?

Possibly the first one, however I'm not certain so maybe ask them if it's will AF with a D40, if it does then it has the slow and noisy in-built AF. ...So avoid!

Quickly going back to your opening post, the Sigma version is an option but I personally prefer Tamron's aesthetic design and the extra 1mm at the wide end does actually make a difference. The Tokina 16-50 is certainly interesting. I looked into it when choosing between the three but remember people saying the IQ was fairly shocking. It was also more than double the price of the Sigma at the time (Dec '07) and that cost more than the Tamron so that decided it for me!

DoubleCheese · 29 May 2010 at 15:28

At WE the Tokina and Sigma are roughly the same price. The Tamron is about £150 cheaper for the VC model and £260 cheaper than the non VC model.
Tough decision....especially as stated above I could probably get a mint used Nikon for £600'ish.

iSam · 29 May 2010 at 20:23

The Nikon 17-55 is a beast but is great value as its only DX, have a look on the bay, they go for a fantastic price, im considering it at the moment. I didn't like the Tamron, poor build quality and it was horribly soft in the corners wide open.

bigredshark · 29 May 2010 at 21:32

iSam said:
The Nikon 17-55 is a beast but is great value as its only DX, have a look on the bay, they go for a fantastic price, im considering it at the moment. I didn't like the Tamron, poor build quality and it was horribly soft in the corners wide open.

To be honest, I've had a 17-55 for my D200 for a few years and I've never been tremendously happy with it, it's fairly sharp and it's fast but it's simply not in the same league for image quality as Nikon's full frame zooms (the 16-35, old 17-35 and 24-70 for instance are all sharper). It does the job OK but for the same money as the 24-70 I'd expect it to be better to be honest...

Then again, it's not like there's much choice out there for DX format fast zooms in that range...

iSam · 29 May 2010 at 23:16

bigredshark said:
To be honest, I've had a 17-55 for my D200 for a few years and I've never been tremendously happy with it, it's fairly sharp and it's fast but it's simply not in the same league for image quality as Nikon's full frame zooms (the 16-35, old 17-35 and 24-70 for instance are all sharper). It does the job OK but for the same money as the 24-70 I'd expect it to be better to be honest...

Then again, it's not like there's much choice out there for DX format fast zooms in that range...

I agree, I rented the 24-70 and loved it, but its stupid money, I'm hoping to pick up a 17-55 for £450. A bargain surely for a fast Nikon premium lens?!

bigredshark · 30 May 2010 at 10:42

iSam said:
I agree, I rented the 24-70 and loved it, but its stupid money, I'm hoping to pick up a 17-55 for £450. A bargain surely for a fast Nikon premium lens?!

At that price yes, I more meant that new there's only about £100 in it between the two, strangely enough the 24-70 holds it's value far better these days (17-55 resale value plummeted right after the FX digital bodies showed up).

Only heads up is don't underestimate it's size and weight, it's a bit lighter than the 24-70 but it's still big and heavy. With a D200 and 17-55 I like to shoot with the battery grip for balance and handling (it's not essential like it is with the 70-200 and similar but it's definitely easier).

The other thing to note is the barrel does extend during zooming on the 17-55, which means that a) it's a little vulnerable to getting a knock and b) it does suck in a little air (and hence dust) in the process. So make sure you're example is in decent working order and maybe wrap a bandana or something round it in dusty environments.

iSam · 30 May 2010 at 10:51

bigredshark said:
At that price yes, I more meant that new there's only about £100 in it between the two, strangely enough the 24-70 holds it's value far better these days (17-55 resale value plummeted right after the FX digital bodies showed up).

Only heads up is don't underestimate it's size and weight, it's a bit lighter than the 24-70 but it's still big and heavy. With a D200 and 17-55 I like to shoot with the battery grip for balance and handling (it's not essential like it is with the 70-200 and similar but it's definitely easier).

The other thing to note is the barrel does extend during zooming on the 17-55, which means that a) it's a little vulnerable to getting a knock and b) it does suck in a little air (and hence dust) in the process. So make sure you're example is in decent working order and maybe wrap a bandana or something round it in dusty environments.

Cheers for the tips, appreciated.

It was inevitable that the 17-55 was going to fall in price but I'm just taking advantage really! If I was paying full price then I would go with the 24-70 every time, you would be mad to go for the 17-55 in those circumstances. I used a friends and it was a monster but we got some cracking shots with it. I'm just doing a lot of low light work and the primes are good but I want the versatility of a fast mid-range zoom, and once I had seen the Sigma and Tamron alongside the Nikon, it had to be that one.

bigredshark · 30 May 2010 at 11:21

Maybe, the 24-70 is only at it's best on full frame though, on DX it's not wide enough really. At full price I'd buy the 16-35 today (or maybe the older 17-35, I still struggle to decide between then)