Beyond the kit lens (Nikon DX) - DPChallenge Forums

03/30/2014 07:04:05 PM · #1

I have been shooting my Nikon D3200 kit (Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR) for more than a year now. Didn't went on a glass shopping spree right away in order to familiarize myself completely with what i have and to feel the need for new optics through usage. My current "need" is something fast and something long. Not necessarily in the same package :-)
Analyzing the local market and various reviews i have come to several options:

Option 1. Extending the kit.
The 18-55 VR kit lens is surprisingly good for it's class. Extending it with a fast prime and a matching tele-zoom seems like a nice idea. I have seen lots of positive reviews for both lenses. And the filter thread is the same, so i can use my Vari-ND on all of them:
- Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX (I find myself shooting at 35mm on my kit zoom very often)
- Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6 VR

Option 1a. Same as above, but go with a used FX tele-zoom. Same price, higher quality optics, but no filter thread compatibility on the telephoto:
- Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX
- Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 VC (used, for the same price as a new 55-200)

Option 2 (with sub-options). Sell the kit lens (and probably the Vari-ND) and replace it with something "better". Probably from the used market:
- Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC MACRO HSM OS (used, not the "C" model, the previous generation)
or
- Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM (only faster, but not longer)
or
- Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED DX (slightly longer and slightly faster, but would i miss the VR?)
or
- Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR (not much faster, but longer and has VR)
and shoot this for some time, while i save up for the longer lens. Afterwards go for:
- Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 VC (used)
- Nikon 35mm f/1.8 DX (optional) for the reasons mentioned above.

I have used a borrowed Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG MACRO on several occasions and i cannot say that i like it. Focusing is noisy, slow and hunts a lot. I wouldn't consider it as an option for "something long".

What would you fellow DPCers suggest? My current favorite is the option 1. I can only afford one lens at a time, so another question would be what to buy first, the fast prime or the tele-zoom?

Alex_Petrini

Sony Alpha a7R III

Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM

03/30/2014 07:14:30 PM · #2

Tamron 17-50 2.8 - quite cheap and great lens, a sort of DX version of 24-70 2.8 Tamron.

35 1.8 Nikkor is the best 'cheap' Nikon lens IMO.

If you are searching for a telezoom go for a 70-200 2.8 Sigma, you can easily find a used model or an 80-200 Nikkor (there are several versions - the first one is rather old). There's also the new 70-200 Tamron, but you won't find it used I guess.

Message edited by author 2014-03-30 19:15:28.

Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX APO IF HSM for Nikon

03/30/2014 08:02:43 PM · #3

Originally posted by Alexkc:

Tamron 17-50 2.8 - quite cheap and great lens, a sort of DX version of 24-70 2.8 Tamron.

This one would fall in to the option 2 on my list. Faster, but not longer. It is available new here in MK, but i would probably be able to afford the non-VC version only. It's the same price as a new stabilized Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 OS. The Sigma goes for 100 EUR less, used. I haven't seen it on the used market.

Originally posted by Alexkc:

35 1.8 Nikkor is the best 'cheap' Nikon lens IMO.

I have a feeling that whichever option i choose, i will end up with this lens in my bag. :-) I stumble upon it way too often.

Originally posted by Alexkc:

If you are searching for a telezoom go for a 70-200 2.8 Sigma, you can easily find a used model or an 80-200 Nikkor (there are several versions - the first one is rather old). There's also the new 70-200 Tamron, but you won't find it used I guess.

2.8 smells like expensive :-( Older Nikkor AF 80-200 (not AF-S) won't focus with my D3200. Being an entry level model it lacks the screw dive for the motorless AF lenses.

HarveyG

Nikon D800

03/30/2014 08:05:32 PM · #4

Don't pass up this new lens the Sigma 24-105mm f/4 perfect for gigs and weddings
Or their super zooms Sigma 18-200 with OS perfect all round travel and family lens

Jules1x

Fujifilm X-T1

Fujifilm XF 23mm f/1.4 R

03/30/2014 08:41:03 PM · #5

I picked up the 35mm 1.8G two weeks ago and it is great. I also like the nikon DX 55-300 4.5-5.6 for a longer lense. It did a nice job with flowers and dragonflies last summer.

Ann

Olympus OM-D E-M1

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

03/30/2014 08:44:10 PM · #6

For the money, it would be really hard to go wrong with option 1. The 18-55, 55-200, 35/1.8 combo would handle nearly anything you're likely to encounter and all 3 lenses are nice choices, compact, lightweight, and great image quality for the price. As far as which to get first, which do you need more? Speed, or focal length? If you're on the fence, you might look into whether one or the other is available used locally, and let that drive your decision.

A used 18-70 would be a good substitute for the 18-55, but since you already have the 18-55, I say stick with the 18-55. It's smaller and lighter and has VR.. Image quality between the 18-55 and 18-70 will be similar. Even if you were to get a 70-300, you won't miss the 55-70 range.

After you've filled out the long/fast part of your lineup, if you come across a used 16-85 for a good price, it might be worthwhile to buy it and sell the 18-55. The 16-85 is a step up from the 18-55, but as you've found, the 18-55 does pretty well for the price.

As far as other long choices, the 55-200 is the best value in that focal length. I would either get that or save for a used Nikon or Tamron 70-300VR. Or get the 55-200, and then start saving for a 70-300VR, depending on your level of impatience.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

05/27/2014 09:35:28 PM · #7

So i got myself a new lens. A brand new Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 DX.

This lens is razor sharp. Focusing is fast and silent. There is some vignetting at f/1.8, but only noticeable in certain conditions and is definitely removable in post processing when shooting RAW. At f/2.8 and above it is perfect. It is lightweight too, although i expected it to be smaller. It looked smaller on the Internet :-), but the width is exactly the same as the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 VR. I hope the next open challenge will be my chance to shoot something nice with it. I'm not counting my shoehorn submission for Architecture VII a proper one :-)

Here (Google Drive) are two portrait snaps from around home at f/1.8. JPGs straight from the camera, resized (with sharpening) in IrfanView and saved for web. The first one is ISO 800, handheld at 1/50, aperture priority, -1EV compensation, spot metering. The second one is with on-camera flash (TTL, bounced from the wall on camera left).

jgirl57

05/27/2014 10:42:41 PM · #8

My wish list is a Tameron 18-300 lens.. $500 range however, my camera shop has a 100$ rebate on it plus its on sale for a total of $300..

I spent 2 hrs in that store looking at different lenses but I loved that one the best..it was fast, clean, crisp and hardly no noise at all.
I own a sigma 70-300 but I always switch lenses out and my thing I wanted a perma lens I could leave on without having to switch all the time.

I also fell in love with the Nikkor but double the price.. since you got it, I think you will love it :-))

Message edited by author 2014-05-27 22:44:39.

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

05/28/2014 08:50:34 AM · #9

Actually, if I were buying another DX lens, it would probably be the Nikkor 16-85. Read the reviews.

I love my 18-200, I think it's pretty sharp wide open, but it's not seriously sharp wide open. The Nikkor is 24-130 or so, and that's a very nice walking around range, if it's indeed much sharper than the 18-200. Also, I think it's on sale for $629 now, which is like $160 off and a pretty low price historically on Amazon according to CamelCamelCamel. It's also around on Amazon used in the low 400s.

Message edited by author 2014-05-28 08:52:02.

salmiakki

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Sony Sonnar T* 35mm F2.8 ZA

05/28/2014 08:57:16 AM · #10

Originally posted by Neil:

Did you mean the 24-120/F4? That's a full frame lens and is a lot sharper than the 18-200. I replaced the 18-200 with the 24-120. It's double the price of the 18-200, but the quality is also considerably better.

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

05/28/2014 09:02:35 AM · #11

Originally posted by salmiakki:

Originally posted by Neil:
Actually, if I were buying another DX lens, it would probably be the Nikkor 16-85. Read the reviews.

I love my 18-200, I think it's pretty sharp wide open, but it's not seriously sharp wide open. The Nikkor is 24-130 or so, and that's a very nice walking around range, if it's indeed much sharper than the 18-200. Also, I think it's on sale for $629 now, which is like $160 off.

Did you mean the 24-120/F4? That's a full frame lens and is a lot sharper than the 18-200. I replaced the 18-200 with the 24-120. It's double the price of the 18-200, but the quality is also considerably better.

No, I meant the 16-85 for a DX camera. The 24-120 would be 36-180 which isn't a good wide end. But it's a very good lens!

JakeKurdsjuk

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 L IS USM

05/28/2014 10:07:59 AM · #12

If I still shot DX I would be running, not walking to get the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8. Screw your primes, this gives you everything from true 28mm to 50mm in sharp, bright wonder. My brother has one for his Canon and it's absolutely amazing.

From there, figure out how many lenses you want to use to cover the rest of your range and buy wisely. Nothing wrong with investing in FX glass if you think you might transition. The high ISO noise on the Nikons is getting so good that I've gone with the "trinity" of f/4 zooms instead of the "holy trinity" and not once regretted it.