1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Replacing the 18-200 VR?

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by feilb, Jul 11, 2007.

  1. feilb


    Jul 11, 2007
    Milwaukee, WI
    Hello all,

    As my post count would indicate, I am completely new here! Moreover, i am a recent F-mount convert (i shoot a Fuji S5).

    Coming from a Canon 5D and a 35/1.4L previous photography style involved a lot of low light hand held shots using primes. My method was slow but deliberate with the primes forcing me not to be lazy and to work for my composition. The 18-200 VR is a great lens, but it just doesn't have the DOF control I'm used to and while the lens would be great for a one lens kit, it makes me lazy and just doesn't have the same feel im used to.

    Now one of the reasons I got excited about the F-mount is the vast selection of lenses past and present, AF or Ai-S, available. If you could replace the 18-200 with a collection of lenses totaling $1200 or so, what would you choose? I love fast primes, and i wouldn't mind a MF lens or two, as long as i had one usable AF lens. I dont need the entire range covered, but i would like something in the 28-35 (35mm equiv) range on the wide end. The long end isnt as important.
  2. Jonathan P.

    Jonathan P.

    Jul 10, 2007
    Just slightly over your budget, but if I were after a couple of great (and fast) F-mount primes, I'd get the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC and the Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 AF-D. This combo is $1453 at B&H if you get USA warranties. (Gray market is about $100 less).

    There is also the Nikkor 35mm f/2, which costs a bit less than the Sigma but of course isn't as fast or wide. And the Nikon 85mm f/1.8 costs about $700 less than its f/1.4 cousin. But I think the cost of the 85mm f/1.4 is easily justified.

    Good look with whatever you choose.
  3. yamo


    Jun 28, 2007
    Santa Cruz, CA

    Greetings and welcome. You write:

    Just to be sure when you write, 28-35 (35mm equiv), you mean about 18-24 for a 1.5 crop factor lens? Just checking.

    Not my range, but folks talk highly of the 17-55 f2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX though it runs about $1200 new all by itself... Were you also considering used equipment?


  4. mood


    Jun 27, 2007
    So Fla
    35 f2
    50 1.4
    85 1.8

    $1000.00 for great, lightweight, low light coverage
    'nough left over for filters, SB-600 or whatever other accy's you desire
  5. How important is the long end of the 200mm to you? This is really the hard part to incorporate with other shorter low light lenses. Do you really need a lens over 85mm?

    If so, the 180mm, f2.8 will incorporate well with any other combination of fast shorter glass such as the 50mm, f1.4 and the 85mm, f1.8
  6. AF Nikkor 20/2.8 (used about $275)
    Sigma EX 24-60/2.8 (new about $399)
    AF Nikkor 85/1.8 (used about $300)
    AF Nikkor 180/2.8 (used around $475-675)
  7. Bearded


    Oct 2, 2006
    Naperville, IL
    35mm f2
    50mm f1.4
    85mm f1.8
    Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro

    That's right around your budget if you find good deals. Nothing too heavy, and all amazing values.
  8. Hm, If someone put a gun to my head, probably a 12-24 and 18-70.
  9. Slightly over your budget, but I use a 35-70/f2.8 + 80-200/f2.8 when I am willing to carry more weight and bulk than the 18-200VR. If buying used this combo is well under your budget and you could also afford a 20/f2.8 to complement the pair. Again that would be slightly over your budget ($700 + $300 + $300) but also yields three high-quality, fast f/2.8 lenses, and the 35-70/f2.8 also throws in a limited macro capability as a bonus.
  10. weiran


    Jan 2, 2007
    Nottingham, UK
    Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 or Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 Macro
    Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 or Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S

    Add primes where needed - I'd recommend the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and maybe the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 if you need macro.

    People here seem to be neglecting the fact that he wants a 28mm too (so at least 18mm on DX).

    (I'd advise against the Nikon 20mm, while its a fantastic lens on film, its not a great lens on DX sensors).
  11. The chemist

    The chemist

    Jul 22, 2005
    20mm 2.8 ais
    35-70 2.8 af-d
    105 2.5 ais(a must have!!)
    180 2.8 af-d

    I think this is actually a few hundred shy of your budget:biggrin:

    edit: I have not used the 20mm but if one must go this wide and a prime I think this is the pick. I hear the ais version is sharper and better with flare and at 20mm why not go manual:) . If i could afford it and landscape was my thing i would try to get the 17-35 2.8(pricey)
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.