Pick a lens for me - DPChallenge Forums

Samsung Galaxy S24, S24+, S24 Ultra

03/26/2009 01:49:00 PM · #1

I have the Nikkor 18-105 VR kit lens.

Is 16-85mm VR any better? I know it is DX so not FF compatible. But still, for IQ, is it worth $600+ compared to the kit one?

Photozone.de says it is. But I want to get your opinion. Any other recommendations in this range? How does Tammy 28-75 2.8 fare with focussing speed etc.?

Also, Whats the equivalent of the Canon 70-200 f4 USM in NIkon? I could find the 70-300VR but that doesnt match the 'L' quality, or does it? And the 70-200 f/2.8 is crazy expensive.

Chime in please.........

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm f/4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

03/26/2009 01:57:52 PM · #2

Originally posted by Prash:

How does Tammy 28-75 2.8 fare with focussing speed etc.?

Slower, but not unbearably so IMO.

Originally posted by Prash:

Also, Whats the equivalent of the Canon 70-200 f4 USM in NIkon?

In all the world, there is no equivalent of that lens for price/quality, sorry :-)

R.

03/26/2009 05:58:23 PM · #3

Thanks Bear, that helps.

Anyone else want to share their opinions?

jbsmithana

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor 12-24mm f/4.0G IF-ED

03/26/2009 08:23:30 PM · #4

Originally posted by Prash:

I have the Nikkor 18-105 VR kit lens.

Is 16-85mm VR any better? I know it is DX so not FF compatible. But still, for IQ, is it worth $600+ compared to the kit one?

I would say it is not enough of an upgrade to pay $600. You wouold be better off spending the money on a super wide angle lens in the 10-12mm range on the short end and 20-24mm on the long end.

Also, Whats the equivalent of the Canon 70-200 f4 USM in NIkon? I could find the 70-300VR but that doesnt match the 'L' quality, or does it? And the 70-200 f/2.8 is crazy expensive.

As Bear says Nikon has no equivalent much to our dismay. You have to go to the 70-200 2.8 VR which is big bucks and heavy weight. They are missing the boat on th is one.

Message edited by author 2009-03-27 10:56:22.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

03/27/2009 01:57:04 AM · #5

Hmmm. Thanks.

So for wide-angle, which one of the following would you recommend:

Nikon 16-85mm f3.5-5.6 VR DX: ~$700
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 APS-C: ~$450
Nikon 18-70mm : ~$400-$500
Nikon 18-200mm VR: ~$700

My budget is limited to the prices shown above, and I would value end to end sharpness and contrast more than controlled distortions. Also, I didnt have good experiences with the Tammy 17-50 when I tested it on a Canon before.. it was off focussing by a lot (confirmed with a Canon 50d). So I am concerned about getting a bad copy. Though f/2.8 is realllly attractive.

ShutterHack

Canon EOS-1D Mark III

03/27/2009 02:15:59 AM · #6

Originally posted by Prash:

Thanks Bear, that helps.

Anyone else want to share their opinions?

\
-Bear which one are you refering to? The Canon or Tamron? The reason I am so inquisitive is your word is good as gold.
Mike

salmiakki

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Sony Sonnar T* 35mm f/2.8 ZA

03/27/2009 02:18:27 AM · #7

The 18-200 is a very handy lens to have. Can cover many scenarios. Great walk around lens, you can use it for so many different purposes. I had one, dropped it and it broke, would love to replace it as I travel a lot and it is perfect for that.

03/27/2009 02:35:41 AM · #8

Originally posted by salmiakki:

I have recently heard from someone else.. I think

rasai (Tim).. who dropped and broke his too. Is there a specific reason why it is so prone to falling besides weight? :-)

jettyimages

Nikon D700

Sony Sonnar T* 35mm f/2.8 ZA

03/27/2009 03:00:18 AM · #9

Despite having a few issues with my particular unit when I first bought it, I can now recommend the 70-200 Sigma (for Nikon) 2.8. I had to send it back for some focusing issues, but since then its been excellent, provided I don't take it below 1/125 sec. Then a tripod is absolutely necessary, its a very heavy lens (although not as heavy as the Nikon version) and even though it has vr, it still doesn't cope well at lower speeds. Or I don't.
Re the wide angle, it really depends on how far you want to go. I have a 12-24, its pretty good and much cheaper than the 14-24. I've heard the Sigma 10-20 is an excellent lens too. But I have heard the 18-200 is a good lens too, if you want an all in one. Personally I wish Nikon had the 24-105 f4L that Canon has, it seems like we're really missing out on the everyday lens choices, and I'm sick of changing lenses all the time!

salmiakki

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

03/27/2009 03:28:03 AM · #10

I don't think so, in my case, it was just a very, very careless owner who hadn't zipped up her camera bag and the whole lot fell on the floor. It was attached to my D300 at the time, so I was just lucky that it was the lens that broke and not the camera too. It's not an especially heavy lens.

Originally posted by Prash:

Originally posted by salmiakki:
The 18-200 is a very handy lens to have. Can cover many scenarios. Great walk around lens, you can use it for so many different purposes. I had one, dropped it and it broke, would love to replace it as I travel a lot and it is perfect for that.

I have recently heard from someone else.. I think rasai (Tim).. who dropped and broke his too. Is there a specific reason why it is so prone to falling besides weight? :-)

Message edited by author 2009-03-27 03:28:19.

smichener

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

03/27/2009 08:08:12 AM · #11

Here's a vote for the Sigma 10-20, if you want wide angle. It's quite sharp and not too expensive.

If you want something out to 200mm why not go to the Nikon 80-200 2.8 without the VR? It's just a couple hundred more than the $700 you're looking to spend and a lot less than the 70-200 2.8 VR.

spiritualspatula

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

03/27/2009 08:50:44 AM · #12

Originally posted by smichener:

I'd give a second vote for the 10-20. It's grown on me a lot. For me, the 10-20 is the most fun to use, while the 18-200 is the most versatile.

Nikonjeb will sing the praises of the 18-200 if you ask him. He went through several other lenses before realizing how useful the 18-200 was to him.

jbsmithana

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor 12-24mm f/4.0G IF-ED

03/27/2009 11:03:00 AM · #13

Originally posted by Prash:

On the wide end I would still say go really wide, the 10-20 fits your price range and has been well received on DPC. I'm not sure what you gain with the 18-200 or another lens that has a wide end around 16-18. You already have the 18-105 and a 70-300. If it is better quality your looking for at the long end then the suggestion of a Nikon 80-200 f2.8 would be close to your price range and give great sharpness. good luck in the search.

Message edited by author 2009-03-27 13:13:46.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

03/27/2009 11:20:33 AM · #14

Originally posted by Prash:

The 80-200 f/2.8 is half the price of the 70-200 and is a really good lens.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

03/27/2009 11:25:04 AM · #15

Originally posted by smichener:

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

I'd give a second vote for the 10-20. It's grown on me a lot. For me, the 10-20 is the most fun to use, while the 18-200 is the most versatile. Nikonjeb will sing the praises of the 18-200 if you ask him. He went through several other lenses before realizing how useful the 18-200 was to him.

Truthfully, I can't sing for sh*t, but I *DO* like it.....it's the only lens I have.

03/27/2009 12:00:32 PM · #16

Hey thanks everyone for the advice. I am sinking all this in as I decide.

Thanks again!

Lockke

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

03/27/2009 12:46:45 PM · #17

I have to chime in. I'm sure this has been discussed, but I am torn between the sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 $429 and the nikon 12-24 f/4 dx $899.

I have flip flopped here for awhile. I'm assuming the Nikon is better made, though I've heard that extra 2mm matters on the wide end. And I'm still reading the odd review of a bum sigma lens. Please, someone push me over the edge one way or the other. The price difference does matter, but it's not a deal breaker if the Nikon is *that* much better.

And please don't bring up the uber nikon 14-24 f/2.8 :) I'm not going full frame any time soon and it's a bit pricey (though probably worth every penny).

jbsmithana

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor 12-24mm f/4.0G IF-ED

03/27/2009 01:17:07 PM · #18

Originally posted by Lockke:

I own the Nikon 12-24 F4 and love it and I paid well over the price it now goes for. I can tell you that it is well made and provides wonderful color and clarity. I can't speak to the Sigma as I have not shot one but I do own a Sigma 30mm f1.4 and although it is a nice lens the color quality and sharpmess is not up to the Nikon standard.

smichener

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

03/27/2009 01:20:52 PM · #19

The only downside on the Sigma 10-20 for landscape at 10mm is when I use my Cokin filter holder to hold a polarizer and one or two ND's. I end up cropping. But that lens is sharpest at about 14-16mm anyways. I've seen this in tests and also in my own experience with the lens.

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

03/27/2009 01:26:40 PM · #20

Consider the Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X 124AF Pro DX for wide angle. It is a clear, sharp lens, and less pricey than the Nikon wide angles. I love mine.

Tokina 12-24

Message edited by author 2009-03-27 13:31:10.

Flash

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

03/27/2009 03:57:24 PM · #21

Originally posted by Prash:

I find the process of choosing lenses to be one lengthy journey. Every lens has its optimum application - your challenge is to sellect a lens or lenses to meet what you think your application needs are going to be. An 18-105mm focal length lens is a very good general purpose zoom. Wide enough to gets decent landscapes and long enough to get frame filling portraits. Outside of this general purpose 18-105 range, one needs to decide what the application need is. Why do you need wider than 18mm? Why do you need longer than 105mm? Answering these questions will help you decide what the application needs is, then choose a lens(es) to fill it. If your pursuit is portraits, then choose a portrait lens. If wildlife, then pushing a 300/400/500/600mm length will meet your needs.

To me, buying a lens within the focal length I already had, must meet a specific application need that my current lens couldn't meet. Untill you define what the application need is, that is not being met by your current 18-105mm, I couldn't possibly suggest an alternative. Do you need faster? then why not bump up the ISO? Do you need crisper? Then why not use a tripod or f/8 aperature? What specifically is your 18-105mm not giving you, that makes you want to get a lens within the same focal length and within a limited budget?

eta: the single most important element in photography is light. The single most important element in a camera is the lens. The single most important element in a lens is the glass. Get the glass you need for the application.

Message edited by author 2009-03-27 16:06:53.

spiritualspatula

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100

03/27/2009 10:25:29 PM · #22

Originally posted by Lockke:

I had the same question. Here's a decent review - By Thom

NikonJeb, I knew you would show up.
So, if I ever want to invoke your presence again, can I just type your name three times like Beetle Juice?

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

03/28/2009 12:30:41 PM · #23

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Prash:
I have the Nikkor 18-105 VR kit lens.

Is 16-85mm VR any better? I know it is DX so not FF compatible. But still, for IQ, is it worth $600+ compared to the kit one?

Photozone.de says it is. But I want to get your opinion. Any other recommendations in this range? How does Tammy 28-75 2.8 fare with focussing speed etc.?

Also, Whats the equivalent of the Canon 70-200 f4 USM in NIkon? I could find the 70-300VR but that doesnt match the 'L' quality, or does it? And the 70-200 f/2.8 is crazy expensive.

Chime in please.........

I find the process of choosing lenses to be one lengthy journey. Every lens has its optimum application - your challenge is to sellect a lens or lenses to meet what you think your application needs are going to be. An 18-105mm focal length lens is a very good general purpose zoom. Wide enough to gets decent landscapes and long enough to get frame filling portraits. Outside of this general purpose 18-105 range, one needs to decide what the application need is. Why do you need wider than 18mm? Why do you need longer than 105mm? Answering these questions will help you decide what the application needs is, then choose a lens(es) to fill it. If your pursuit is portraits, then choose a portrait lens. If wildlife, then pushing a 300/400/500/600mm length will meet your needs.

To me, buying a lens within the focal length I already had, must meet a specific application need that my current lens couldn't meet. Untill you define what the application need is, that is not being met by your current 18-105mm, I couldn't possibly suggest an alternative. Do you need faster? then why not bump up the ISO? Do you need crisper? Then why not use a tripod or f/8 aperature? What specifically is your 18-105mm not giving you, that makes you want to get a lens within the same focal length and within a limited budget?

eta: the single most important element in photography is light. The single most important element in a camera is the lens. The single most important element in a lens is the glass. Get the glass you need for the application.

Thanks for a different and helpful analysis. I am looking to assemble the lenses that provide the best IQ that consumer level lenses can give. I have someone willing to take the 18-105, and want to replace it with a sharper and more contrasty lens in the wide angle zoom lens range... that would cover from 16/18 - 70/85... this is to fill in my liking for landscapes and portraits. I already have 70-300 VR for the remaining range for birding that I love.

Appreciate the advice!

Message edited by author 2009-03-28 12:31:05.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

03/28/2009 02:36:18 PM · #24

Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

NikonJeb, I knew you would show up.
So, if I ever want to invoke your presence again, can I just type your name three times like Beetle Juice?

Sure.....but wouldn't Beetle Juice be more fun?

spiritualspatula

Panasonic LUMIX DMC-LX100