What would be the next step up in Nikon lenses?

Hello, I am new to DSLR's and I am in the process of purchasing a Nikon D80

set-up, including a Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 lens. I heard many good reviews

about this lens, and I just simply do not have the money for the Nikon 18-200 VR

which is what I wanted. I have only been photographing for about 1.5 years, but

it was in b/w film, with self-done darkroom processing so I feel I have a pretty

good knowledge of the art. I was wondering what might be a good lens to step up

from the 18-70mm once I get my bearings in Digital, and can afford a new one? I

enjoy taking mostly day photos and refuse to use a flash for any purpose. I love

great detail so sharpness is a must. I photograph mainly old buildings, abandon

railroad tracks or establishments(zoos, parks), corroding ocean objects, barns,

a little bit of animals photography such as goats/sheep, an an occasional street

person if I find a friendly one. Any Suggestions?

 

Thanks,

Tony D

I would suggest you use the 18-70 for a couple thousand pictures in your normal pattern. When you have a large enough sample, analyze the EXIF files to see what the distribution of focal lengths you use looks like. If it's weighted toward one end or the other, look that way for your next lens.

 

There are programs out there to analyze the EXIF files in a group of photos in a batch, so you don't have to look at each one individually.

 

http://www.cpr.demon.nl/prog_plotf.html

I'd suggest one (or more) of the large aperture primes in the range 28mm to 85mm. The 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8 jump out as two that I would consider for most of the subject you mention.

hi Tony ...

 

you might want to round out the bag with the 55-200, reviewed here by Hogan: http://www.bythom.com/55200lens.htm

 

this will get you everything from 18-200 at a very reasonable cost. the 18-200 VR would be a natural "upgrade" allowing you to eliminate 2 lenses. however, my opinion is that the true upgrade path would be a pro-level lens. nothing beats great glass. something like the 17-55 (http://www.bythom.com/1755lens.htm) or the 24-120 VR (http://www.bythom.com/24120ens.htm - even though this lens is not considered a pro-level lens.)

You've received excellent advice so far, especially Dwight's suggestion of checking your

EXIF

data for focal length preferences.

 

If you shoot old buildings and such, you might find that a 3rd party 12-24mm would come

in

handy. I have the Tokina and it is 95% of the Nikon for 55% of the price (around $475).

Sigma has a 10-20mm that their owners like for an even wider view. Don't forget that your

18mm is an effective view of 27mm on a 35mm camera so it's not really that wide.

 

Again, see what you need most.

I am very pleased with my 18-70mm lens that I rarely use my more expensive Nikon lenses in the same focal range. If you have a lot of images less than 70mm, you might want to consider buying a used Nikon 35-70mm f 2.8. It is a push pull zoom and very sharp. I own one and just do not use it that much any more. I also like to use my 20mm f 2.8 AF lens on my D 200. If you do not have a tripod, get one. It makes all lenses "sharper" because it makes the platform more stable and improves the whole shooting situation. Joe Smith

I second staying with your 18-70 until you are no longer new to digital photography. Your images will tell you if (not necessarily when) you need another lens. Enjoy the freedom of being a one lens photographer for a while before loading up with more stuff.

 

Ken

From your post, I'm guessing you might understand photography pretty well.

 

The 18-70 is great. Keep it until you can afford to replace it with the 17-55. I'd add two

lenses. First, the incredibly cool and cheap 50mm f1.8 which so many rave about for only

the price of a great filter. Second the 70-300 VR. Then... you might be set for a VERY long

time, unless you want to go wider. But I'd go longer first.

 

Looking at your EXIF data to see where you shoot the most is good, too. Also, keep track

of the times you say "I wish I could go wider" versus "I wish I could go longer". I have the

18-200 and I say "I wish I could go wider" just a touch more than "I wish I could go longer"

but ymmv.

I have and enjoy the 18-70mm on my D200. Value wise I believe its a very good compromise. I do have need for faster lens's at times so I now have some primes. I think all the advice about using what you have to understand if you need more is great advice. If you need something longer consider the 180mm, wider then one of the 1x-2x zooms should do the trick. Need speed then a mid range prime is cost is a concern.

You've gotten plenty of good advice, especially about keeping the 18-70.

 

It's already been mentioned, but the 55-200VR is a lens which doesn't get nearly the respect that it deserves. Maybe it's the plastic mount or maybe the non-VR left a bad taste in some mouths.

 

In any case, for about $230, the 55-200VR will indeed fill in the gap between 70 and 200mm and do it very well. It's a different optical formula than the non-VR version so be sure that any review that you read applies strictly to the VR version.

 

Granted, it's not the fastest (aperture-wise) but if you pick your battles, and thanks to VR, it's a very usable piece of equipment.

hi knees, any relation to legs mcneil? j/k

 

i'll second a couple of opinions here: the nikkor 50/1.8 and the tokina 12-24 are excellent values considering the quality of their optical performance. for $115, the 50/1.8 is a no-brainer. the tokina is considerably more expensive, but compared to the nikon is quite affordable. also it's built like a humvee. the reason to get this over the sigma is the build quality, constant f/4 aperture, and longer end, unless you think most of your shots will be taken at the wide end (which isn't the case in my experience).

 

if you refuse to use a flash, i'd also recommend some faster lenses. the nikkor 17-55 is the pro-level step-up from the 18-70, but the tamron 17-50 has comparable image quality for 1/3rd of the price. it's a razor at f/4 and below and very useable wide open. (unlike the sigma 18-50, it uses the same size filters as the 18-70, which is nice) i rarely use my 18-70 since i got the tammy. only quibble is the build quality, but so far it's held up, and the light weight is actually a plus for walkaround use.

 

for ultimate sharpness, primes are the way to go -- you might want to also look at the sigma 30/1.4, the nikkor 35/2 and the nikkor 85/1.8. also the tamron 90 is an afforable, sharp macro.

 

the 55-200 VR is a good value, but it's not really an upgrade in optical quality from the 18-70; neither is the 18-200. i'd recommend the 70-300 vr over the 55-200, but it's 2x the price. i'd also much rather have an 18-70/70-300 vr combo than an 18-200, since an 11x zoom means more compromises in optical quality.

 

the pro level tele-zoom is the 70-200, but for your type of photography, the sigma 50-150 could also work. it's much less ostentatious and almost 2/3rds less expensive than the 70-200, which you probably wouldn't want to use for street and doc stuff unless you're doing pro PJ work. the 50-150 balances well with the d80 + battery grip and has super-fast AF, nice bokeh, and gives you more options for portraiture than a fixed-focal length lens.

 

if you aren't sure you need a telephoto right away, though, i would think a wide angle and a fast prime would be just the ticket.<div></div>

Hay thanks so much for your responses, they are a lot of help since I am new to the DSLRs. I just had one more question. I heard a few people mention EXIF files, and I have no idea what they are. Could someone tell me how to access an EXIF file from a d80?

What are thoughts on the 70 -300 vr. I hear it is soft between 200 and 300, but that's at a 300 to 450 equivalent. I dont know how much I would use that range, but want more than my 24-120 gives me. But is the 70-300 so soft above 200 to be unuseable would I be better off just going for a 55-200 mm? Does the ED make that much difference over the non ED lens because sample photos seem to show some chromatic problems with the non ED lens? Could that be corrected in photoshop? I guess what I am looking for is more compression and ability to reach further out when my foot zoom wont work. I dont shoot much wild life or sports so dont need that kind of length. Is it true that the VR should be turned off when shooting on a tripod?

If I had 300 I'd use it all the time. CA can indeed be corrected in post processing to a large

extent, even to the point that some who find fault with lenses with this problem say you

might not have to worry about it, since you can fix it. I disagree, but opinions go both ways.

 

Yes, you should turn VR off on a tripod, but if you forget, I have found with the new VR II

lenses, like the 70-300, it's no big deal.