Recomendation for decent mid range for D200

Hi All,

 

I purchased the Nikkor DX 12-24 last winter and am thrilled with the quality

of the lens.

 

That said, I'd now like to replace my mid-range zoom (Nikkor 18-70mm dx) with

something better and am perplexed.

 

What I'm looking for is an excellent (i.e gold ring/the best) mid range zoom

that has a 'seal of approval' similar to that of the 12-24mm and with price not

being much of a consideration.

 

There's the new 18-55 DX (Generation II) which is so so but that said K.

Rockwell prefers this over the 18-70 which I find very perplexing given the

construction and price differentials. Then there's the 18-200 VR which is rated

good to very good but still not an excellent. As you may have summised I'd like

to stick with Nikkor optics but am beginning to wonder why I don't seem to able

to find a clear winner (size, weight etc)

 

 

Any thoughts on where to turn would be most welcome.

 

Jim

From a sharpness standpoint don't think the 18-55 is an appreciable upgrade.

What don`t you like about the 18/70? Need faster lens or longer zoom?

 

I bought my 18/70 because it is the range that covers most of my work. Tomorrow I am going to look at a 55/200 DX VR. Sure a consumer lens, but most of what I do is either flash or 5.6 outside. This is a decent lens, but the mechanics are consumer. But it is light and small and transports well and compliments the 18/70.

 

MAYBE THE 70/300 VR would make you happy, but that is not a midrange zoom. Nice lens though.

 

You can`t go wrong with the 17/55 2.8 if you want a faster lens. Then get the 70/200 2.8 VR. This would be top of the line in zooms. You now spent two grand +.

 

Neither the 18/135 ot 18/200 impress me much. I would rather have a two lens set up, 18/70 and 55/200 or 18/70 + 70/300.

 

My situation is somwhat different in that I have some Leica teles I use on the Nikon. One is the 125 2.5 tele. Yummy pics, but heavy.

 

Really I would use the 18/70 until it breaks unless you need 2.8.

for 12-24 Nikkor, add 28-70/2.8.

 

Then 70-200/2.8 VR, then 200-400/4 VR or 300/2.8 VR.

Ken Rockwell prefers the 18-55 because its smaller and focuses closer than the 18-70 and has less distortion. Optically the 18-70 is superior to the 18-55.

 

The question is why do you want to replace the 18-70?

if money is no an issue the already recommended Nikon 28-70mm 2.8 sounds like the right lens..

on a budget the next best thing (IMHO) is the Tokina AT-X pro 28-80mm 2.8.

I have that one and I'm VERY happy with it.

I use the 70-200VR and 17-55. I originally bought the 17-35 but my sample was soft in the corners wide open so I returned it for the 17-55 which is great.

 

I like Ken Rockwell but I don't agree with some of his stuff. I think the 18-70 is a better lens than the 18-55 and the 18-200. I mean would you really want to buy a lens with a plastic mount?

 

Sharpness wise, 70-200 takes the gold in my book.

The absolute BEST (in terms of IQ) mid-range complement to the 12-24mm is the 28-70mm. But it is hefty for a mid-range.

 

Another option (which I've taken, since I wanted something lighter) is the 24-85mm G AFS lens. Nice and small and sharp.

We really need to have more information to make a specific recommendation. What are you

looking for that you find missing in your 18-70mm? The 18-70mm is actually a very good

performer if you get a good sample (forgive me master Shun).

 

You might consider the 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX, but only if you need a faster lens.

18-55 would be a step in the wrong direction in every way, its is an inferior kit lens to the kit lens 18-70.

 

If price is no object the latest "highest" quality in mid-range would be the 17-55 2.8 and it will cost you, but the build quality, superior optics and especially the speed are what you get for it. Then for the next range the 70-200 is the business, the real "money" lens. (IMO).

 

But the 18-70 can be a very good lens, way better than its "kit" lens position in the Nikon lens line and great in daylight or with lighting. happily blast away with it all the time.

With no compromise on quality? Go for the 17-55mm f2.8 lens. You get a pro lens without compromise in built quality, optical performance (and price^^). Not only for the faster speed of 2.8. Caveat: The lens is heavy and bulky.

How big are you printing? How are you using your photos? This is important to know. If you

are not going beyond 11 x 14 very often, you will likely not see a big difference between

what you are shooting with now and an expensive optic like the 28-70. I would find the

28-70 tough to use on digital after using the excellent 18-70. 28 just isn't wide enough, and

80 just isn't long enough. Some would suggest a 50mm prime or a 60mm micro and a long

zoom and forget about the "missing range" in "excellent lenses" and keep thw 18-70 just in

case.

To be better than the 18-70, you will either have to go with the 17-55, 28-70 or 35-70, all f2.8. Everything else is a step down.

On a DSLR, either the 18-70 or 17-55 DX will give you a moderate wide to short tele. That kind of range is ideal for event photography such as weddings. The 17-55 has the obvious advantage of being a constant f2.8 so that it works much better indoors.

 

If you replace that with a 28-70 or 35-70, you'll be missing the wide end. As a result, you'll need something like a 12-24 to go along with it. The problem is that whenever you need the transition from 28 to 24 back and forth, you'll need to change lenses. If you need to change lenses very often and under pressure, you will miss shots and tend to make mistakes, such as dropping lenses, accidentally scratch the rear element, etc. The 17-55 is a great event lens because all by itself it covers a very useful range.

 

If you shoot landscape and have all the time in the world to change lenses, this is of course a non issue.

I have the 17-55 and 18-55 II and in good lighting or with flash, you really cannot see a difference in picture quality (sharpness, contrast, color). The 17-55 is heavy while the 18-55 is light. The 17-55 has a 2.8 aperture which is a big advantage in less than ideal lighting conditions but you pay the price with very shallow depth of field.

 

If budget and weight are not issues, the 17-55 is probably your best choice.

Lots to digest - thank you all for contributing.

 

I have been eyeing the Nikon DX 17-55mm f2.8G for some time - at least ever since buying the 12-24mm. More than anything its size and weight concern me. I live in Nova Scotia where anything this esoteric I have to buy sight unseen (and ordered from away - NS slang).

 

Given the comments, I am beginning to wonder if my 18-70 has taken a little too much abuse or was perhaps a tad soft to begin with. I was perfectly happy with it until I fell in lust with 12-24. At a cost of 1/4 of the DX 17-55mm I'm beginning to think I'll just order another one and take my chances.

 

Cheers

 

Jim

I have the 70-200VR and 17-55. Those two lenses allow me to skip the midrange. Although the 17-35 is built better, I like the 17-55 on digital bodies.

My ideal setup: 12-24mm f/4, 28-70mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8 VR

For mid-range, on a 1.5 crop factor, the 17-55DX is the best. It's a highly corrected zoom with 3 ED and 3 aspherical elements in there, the images have a tactile feel. I am very pleased with the resolution of this lens and the speed of the AF.

Jim,

 

I hope I'm not too late to throw my hat into the ring.

 

I like the sound of the setup Alex Markin suggests. I currently have the 17-35mm f/2.8,

28-70 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8.

 

I would recommend the 28-70mm it's a wonderful lens - I'm always cautious of too much

overlap in the zoom range between lenses. I would love to get a 12-24mm but

considering I have the 28-70mm this combination would make my 17-35mm virtually

redundant, such would be the overlap.

 

You might try to consider the eventual collection of lenses that you might aspire to down

the road and consider choosing your focal lengths based on this, that's what I tried to do

and several years later (and a lot of saving) - I've got the lenses I always wanted without a

lot of trading in.

 

That said I hadn't anticipated the 1.5 crop factor of a DX sensor when I was making the

same decisions as you (when I still had film bodies) and I've now ended up lacking a lens

that's sufficiently wide for some of my needs. I'd love a 12-24mm but I'm loathed to get

rid of the 17-35mm as it's such a nice lens.

 

Getting back to you..

 

I can't say anything but good things about the 28-70 f/2.8 AFS, it gives a good, wide

zoom range on a DSLR and the build quality is superb. It is a heavy lens but balances very

well in the hand on a D200 and its so, so sharp you'll never wish for better quality, the

optics deliver stunning images. The AFS is wonderful, just being able to take manual

focus when ever you need is great for me.

 

Here's a photo that I took fairly recently with the 28-70:

 

www.eyeswitching.com/es_56.html

 

If you want to email me I'll gladly give you some more feedback on this lens if you're keen

on the idea of the 28-70.

 

Regards