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!

Suggestions for New Lens

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by rgordin, Sep 1, 2008.

  1. rgordin

    rgordin

    623
    Jun 3, 2008
    Washington, DC
    I have decided to sell my 18-55mm with my D40 body.

    A few weeks ago, I purchased a D300. I have a 50mm f1.8 and a 70-300 VR. I'd like to get something to "walk around" with that is longer than 55.

    I have been heavily leaning to the 16-85. I am open to third party lenses but do not know much about them generally (though I have noted some I would like to get).

    I can't go much above $600 and have eliminated the 18-200 from consideration for other reasons.

    Any suggestions would be appreciated.

    Thank you.
     
  2. I really enjoyed the 16-85 on the D300. Very sharp, good VR, and great walk around... Great vacation combo with your 70-300. Cons, vignetting @ wide end and slow.
     
  3. lovD300

    lovD300

    517
    Feb 25, 2008
    Canada
    I would suggest a macro...

    I just purchased the 60mm af-s, and I as well have the d300.. and this has become my favorite walk around lens.. well actually my favorite lens in my kit! This lens surprises me all the time...

    her are some pics showing the 60mm at work: (warning photography is just a hobby for me)

    http://ryderarts.smugmug.com/gallery/5695215_fu6yr#351191423_W4J2L
     
  4. weiran

    weiran

    966
    Jan 2, 2007
    Nottingham, UK
    The 16-85 is pretty good, although quite expensive. I would wait to see how good the new 18-105VR is.
     
  5. Weiran gives some very good advice. I owned the 16-85VR and didn't feel the price was justified. It is a great lens and if the 18-105VR produces the same IQ at a much lower price it may very well be a better choice.
     
  6. rgordin

    rgordin

    623
    Jun 3, 2008
    Washington, DC
    I thought about this very thing. But the real difference in price is much less. Using some services for a rebate, the 16-85 will run around $500. I expect the 18-105 to stay near $400 for a while so the difference is much smaller. Putting aside the VRI v. VRII issue (which seems still in question for the 18-105), it appears that the 16-85 will give me a bit more width but less distance and a more solid build. The 16/18 wide side is a 3 mm difference in DX. Not sure how much difference this really is but I do find myself wanting a bit more on the wide side at times.

    Wish someone would issue a preliminary report on the 18-105. We know about the 16-85 IQ and that is appealing.

    I am somewhat concerned that the "build quality" is affecting me and I wonder how much difference this should make except to my ego.
     
  7. weiran

    weiran

    966
    Jan 2, 2007
    Nottingham, UK
    I thought it was length you wanted not width? Unless you're going to abuse your lenses I don't think the build quality will matter, even the cheapest of Nikon lenses are built well enough for normal use.

    The difference from 16/18mm is quite large, but as is the difference between 85 and 105mm.
     
  8. rgordin

    rgordin

    623
    Jun 3, 2008
    Washington, DC
    You are correct. :smile: I do want more length than the 55 (though the Tamron 17-50 is very tempting). But 85 goes a long way beyond that length and I think will do for most of my walking around.
     
  9. What do you shoot? Do you need fast glass? I've sure gained an appreciation for all the possibilities for shooting that fast glass gives me. Along with the higher ISO capabilities of the D300 you can open up a lot more photo opportunities with fast lenses.

    I would think about that as well as focal length. I've only had my D300 for a few days, but the 17-55 seems fantastic on it.
     
  10. LindaZ

    LindaZ

    Jul 29, 2007
    Wilmington, NC
    I really like my 28-105 lens, it's not VR but I have no problem getting sharp shots at 105.

    The price used can't be beat! $160--$175
     
  11. rgordin

    rgordin

    623
    Jun 3, 2008
    Washington, DC
    I can see a headache coming on. :smile:

    I have been following your post in the D300/D3 forum about settings. Very helpful. Thank you.

    Yes, there is a part of me that really, really wants the 17-55 but it seems a bit out of reach. I could afford the 17-50 Tamron, though. Since I bought the D300, I have used the 50mm f1.8 and have appreciated the speed.

    I want the lens to take with me when I go out (scenery, people, places) as well as use around the house for my family when I want a fast shot. I have a longer lens (70-300) for when I go out and I know I will want the extra reach (such as animals outdoors).

    I will be travelling some this week and may take the 18-55 with me to give me a better idea of how much I would like the extra reach vs. extra speed. I'd like both but I suspect I want the reach first and then, when I strike oil, the 17-55.
     
  12. I've heard that the 17-50 Tamron is really good, too. I know what you mean about striking oil. I've spent too much this year and am not going to buy anything else for quite a while. I admire you for sticking within your budget. I'm sure you will find something that will work great for you. You need to see how much you would use that gap between 50 and 70 mm. From my experience, I don't think I missed it too much.
     
  13. For me, the 16-85 is too much money (value wise)

    I really only want fast glass from now on - my existing lenses are just a stop gap until I can get it

    I think the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 would be a great way to start for you
     
  14. weiran

    weiran

    966
    Jan 2, 2007
    Nottingham, UK
    Tamron 17-50mm is a great lens if the range suits you, if not I hear the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 is just as good for FF, and will give you extra length too (although personally I'd find 28mm not wide enough).
     
  15. The difference between 24mm and 28mm can be big, especially on DX... 24mm can be just wide enough where 28mm is often just barely not wide enough. Something like the Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 EX DG or 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro might be a good choice... a fast aperture can open options that VR never can, especially if you need to keep shutter speed up to capture action.

    That said, since you don't have anything to go to if you do need wider, something starting at 17/18mm might be a better option. The Tamron 17-50/2.8, Sigma 18-50/2.8 Macro, or Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 Macro are all good walk-around options, the last two especially if you want to try some mild Macro photography. Still, if you're looking for convenience over speed, the 18-105mm VR looks like it might be a great value whenever it becomes available... I would expect it to be available for around $300, especially from folks selling it out of their D90 kits.
     
  16. 18-70 is the best bang for the buck period.
     
  17. Phillip Ino

    Phillip Ino

    Nov 26, 2007
    Austin
    Nikon 24-85mm f2.8-4
     
  18. rgordin

    rgordin

    623
    Jun 3, 2008
    Washington, DC
    Still have the headache that Terri started.

    I have found a great deal on a new 17-55 USA lens from a legitimate seller. If I can do this - and I am not sure I can - I will likely need to sell my 50 f1.8. I realize there are some additional benefits to a fixed lens with this speed. My question is how much do you think it will be missed if I have the 17-55? I notice that Terri has both and weiran has the Tamron 17-50 and the Nikon 50 f1.8.

    Thank you.
     
  19. mood

    mood

    Jun 27, 2007
    So Fla
    absolutely..

    I've thought about myriad of other mid zooms and always stay put with mine

    I don't need 2.8 for it, it has everything else
     
  20. I've had a couple of different 50/1.8 lenses... both times I thought they'd be great for low-light use but in both cases they were never regularly used. If getting rid of the 50/1.8 means being able to get a 17-55/2.8 then I'd do it in a heartbeat. I think alot of people buy this lens because of the speed it offers at such a low price, then don't let it go because there's not all that much to gain by selling it... but if it makes the difference in being able to get a 17-55mm f/2.8 then I would definitely let it go.
     
  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.