Nikon Walkabout Suggestions

hooneeawr

hooneeawr

hooneeawr

Associate
Joined
25 Mar 2004
Posts
626
Location
Aberdeen
I'm looking for some suggestions here, nothing particularly expensive.

I have a D40, the kit 18-55, a 55-200 and the 35mm 1.8 lenses.

Mostly I use the 18-55 for out and about and the 35mm for indoors and special occasions.

I'm looking for a new zoom as a replacement for the 18-55. Partially because new is good, but mainly because the 18-55 is a little faulty and often won't focus. However I have no idea what I want, except that I don't want to spend too much.

Nikon 18-200 - Pricey, heavy
Nikon 17-55 2.8 - In my dreams, too expensive. Looks quite big.
Sigma 17-50 2.8 - Half the price of the Nikon, still a bit much, and there's always...
Tamron 17-50 2.8 - Third the price of the Nikon.
Tamron 18-200 - Really cheap, more zoom, poor f stop (6.3).
Nikon 18-55 - Meh, I want something new!

As you can probably tell, I have no idea what I want. Does anyone have any alternative suggestions?
 
I've used the nikon 18-200 extensively and taking some cracking shots with it. If I owned a DX camera again, I'd DEFINITELY buy another one. Its sharp throughout the range and whilst F5.6 isn't amazing, the VR on it makes up for that. Look out for cheap version 1 lenses as the version 2 one just has a zoom creep lock, which most V1s dont even suffer from anyway.
 
If the Tamron 17-50mm Nikon mount is the same as the Canon mount (don't see why it wouldn't be) then I'd go for that. I upgraded from the kit lens to that (before selling on for a 30mm prime) and it's incredibly bang for buck. Very sharp (sharper than my 30mm prime; but mine could have been a really good copy. I'm not sure how the 'average' lens is) and the constant 2.8 is great.
 
Razor-BladE said:
If the Tamron 17-50mm Nikon mount is the same as the Canon mount (don't see why it wouldn't be) then I'd go for that. I upgraded from the kit lens to that (before selling on for a 30mm prime) and it's incredibly bang for buck. Very sharp (sharper than my 30mm prime; but mine could have been a really good copy. I'm not sure how the 'average' lens is) and the constant 2.8 is great.
Click to expand...

Its very highly regarded on both canon and nikon mounts. Also a solid choice
 
I might be interested in that Tamron 17-50mm then. Might manage to get a second hand one cheaper than the Nikon 18-200. However there's none in my local Jessops so I'll be buying blind. What's the focusing speed like compared with my 18-55?
 
Nikon 16-85mm or Nikon 18-200mm would get my vote.

Although I said I never would, I've recently bought a Nikon 18-200mm VR and honestly it is superb, especially if you are a lazy git like me.

At the sizes I view & print my photo's at there is virtually no difference in sharpness between it and the 16-85mm though I do sometimes wish for the 16mm wide end.
 
Hmm, I came here for a definitive answer, but instead get told everything is great! Haha.

I may instead let my wallet decide and see what I can get for a reasonable price.
 
the 18-105 is a great lense for the cash. It was the kit lense with the d90 so can be found quite easily at good prices. Images taken with mine look just as sharp as with my 50mm prime. Its also got VR on it which is very handy.
 
18-105VR is the best budget option and best value for money, especially as part of the kit. It is very plasticky, the AF is a tad slower than other lenses and it has the older VR1 but optically it is very pleasant.

The 16-85 is extremely sharp, has a great focal range, has a slightly faster AF, is built well, VRII, very high contrast. It isn't value for money but is exceptionally good.

The 18-200 is a tad softer, not massively slow but it is observable on the 16 and 24MP sensors. Optical quality really varies throughout the range, certain focal lengths just don't really hit acceptable quality wide open (esp. towards the edges) while others are surprisingly sharp. Distortion is pretty rampant an also very changeable pincushion to barrel. The focal range appears great on paper but it is to really as big as it seem cf. the 16-85. For starters it is only really about a 19-180mm lens, ad even then only at infinity focus. closer to something like a 20-130mm lens at close focus. The 16-85 doesn't change as much when focusing close, is noticeably much wider at all times, and the angle of view difference means the lenses have very similar zoom ratios - one being slightly wider, one being slightly longer.

http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor16-85lensreview.htm

Quick question, which gives you more range: the 18-200mm or the 16-85mm? The answer might surprise you a bit. The 16-85mm has a horizontal angle of view range of 16 to 73 degrees, the 18-200mm has an angle of view range of 7 to 66 degrees. However, because the 18-200mm changes focal length so much at the long end when focused close, for many situations its angle of view is only 10 to 66 degrees, which is not looking a lot better than the 16-85mm. I personally value those extra 7 degrees at the wide end much more than the extra 6 to 9 degrees at the telephoto end--they make a more dramatic impact on my photography
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom