Jump to content

Moving from 18-70DX and 80-200/2.8... I think.


alex_iwonttell

Recommended Posts

<p>Hi everyone,</p>

<p>I don't usually talk about lenses or this vs. that, but I've got this bug in my head, I can't move and need some rationalizing.</p>

<p>I've got the 18-70DX and 80-200/2.8 push-pull, plus 50/1.8 non-D and 18-55 VR. The last two are keepers, I'm not sure about the first two.</p>

<p>18-70/3.5-4.5 is nice, but since I've got the 18-55, I practically don't use it. Here's what I'd want from a replacement:<br>

-longer reach, doesn't need to be wide (a 28-105 would be nice)<br>

-better low-ISO capability - speed or VR. I think I'd rather have speed, since I've got VR in the 18-55.<br>

-same or better build quality and handling - no rotating focusing ring, weather resistance is welcome.<br>

-same or better focusing speed<br>

-same or better picture quality (sharpness wide open, distortion, aberrations)</p>

<p>Staying with Nikon, there's the 24-120 VR, which can be obtained cheaply, but I'm not so sure about it's quality. Then there's a 35-70/2.8, which I've just found for sale for 200 €. No chance I'm paying for the 16-85 VR. Tokina 28-80/2.8 seems to be unobtainable. Tips?</p>

<p>Than there's the 80-200. It's definitely cool, but I don't really like it. For landscapes, it's too heavy to carry and sometimes short. For portraits, it's range and weight are an overkill. For sports, it's focusing is way too slow. And I don't do indoor sports anyway.</p>

<p>The combination I'm considering most is 35-70/2.8 + 70-300 VR.</p>

<p>But a more versatile normal lens would be nice, so another option is 24-120 VR + 85/1.8 + 55-200 VR. Neither is too close to perfect.</p>

<p>Or i could just use the 18-55, add a Sigma 50-150/2.8 and see if I really need anything longer. But the Sigma is not exactly cheap and I'd like to have VR at long reach.</p>

<p>Any other recommendations?</p>

<p>Thanks and sorry for the long post :P</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alex- I can't speak to your other choices, but I have a 24-120 G AF-S VR as the kit lens on my D700 and have been very disappointed in its performance. It's soft and lacks contrast despite the tech reviews I've read. I've been able to improve its raw image quality by going to manual focus, but even with PP contrast additions I'd not bother printing over 5x7 or doing heavy cropping on its captures. I shoot wide with a 20/2.8 and bought a new 105 which is fantastic, but I'm currently looking for a sharp alternative zoom without having to take out a loan for a 24-70.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Why would your prefer the 18-55 over the 18-70.<br>

the 18-70 is a shaper lens with a lot more range and a much better build quality.<br>

It seem like a no brainer when chosing between those 2 lens. the 18-70 does everything the18-55 does better,and does more. You never know when you'll want that little extra pull.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>What do you use the Sigma successfully for? Portraits, landscape, sports?</p>

<p>The 50-150 is looking good as an all-around lens (I wonder if this wouldn't become my 'kit' zoom). But winter is coming, it's gonna be dark most of the day, I don't use a tripod and so for a long lens, I'd rather prefer VR. The Sigma would be cool for a lower price, but for 700 €... I just don't know. It's tough.</p>

<p>The question is - would you trade a 80-200/2.8 for the 50-150/2.8?</p>

<p>As for why I prefer 18-55 to 18-70 - reason 1: VR, that's a Joker right there. I get better low-light shots with 18-55 VR than 50/1.8. And while the 18-70 used to be sharp indeed, it's build "quality" didn't help it remain that way. It's way softer after just 3 years (I've checked some older photos recently, quite a difference).</p>

<p>I've actually been toying with the idea of getting a 24-70/2.8 or 28-70/2.8, but I'm rather saving for a car - after all, I believe that will improve my photography much more than some lens.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I too would skip the 24-120mm. I think the lens for you is the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. It's fairly compact and is fast. It has very good image quality too. The 35-70mm just won't be at all wide on your camera. Add the 50-150mm f2.8 and you have f2.8 speed from start to finish.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I don't need the wide end. Basically, I'm looking for something like the Canon 28-105/4 IS, which would fill the bill perfectly. Or Canon 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS, which is dirt cheap, or, again, Canon 17-85/3.5-5.6 IS, which is half the price of the Nikon 16-85 VR. And don't let me started on 70-200/4 IS.</p>

<p>The best I've found is Tokina 28-80/2.8, which I can't find even on eBay, or the expensive Sigma 50-150/2.8, where I'd miss VR on the 100+ focal lengths.</p>

<p>Frankly, I'm beginning to be quite pissed at Nikon and its lineup, with selection between a ton of f/5.6 zooms or insanely overpriced f/2.8 stuff.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I just bought a Nikon 55-200mm VR zoom on fleabay from Cameta. It was one of their refurbished ones, and I got it including shipping for around $170. I tested it against my Nikon 70-300mm ED zoom, which I wanted to replace and get something smaller and lighter, and I was pleasantly surprised. It gets a lot of knocks because of the plastic mount, but I rarely ever use a telephoto so I don't think that's a big deal. Seems sharp enough to me, and VR does help for those slower shutter speed shots. $170 for a VR zoom is awfully cheap, it might be worth it to pick one up.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>And while the 18-70 used to be sharp indeed, it's build "quality" didn't help it remain that way. It's way softer after just 3 years (I've checked some older photos recently, quite a difference).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Alex, your statement triggered my curiosity. How? I didn't think this was possible. Are you comparing the same lens taken with the same camera? (Not wanting to be negative here, I just don't understand - I thought lenses were quite stable??)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>What do you use the Sigma successfully for? Portraits, landscape, sports?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lately, the Sigma has been my standard "walk-around lens", but to be specific, I have been especially fond of it when taking portraits and when using it in badly lit sports arenas. I was previously a bit concerned using third party lenses, but bit the bullet a year ago and bought the Sigma 50-150. In fact, I have been so impressed that I yesterday also bought the Sigma 150-500.</p>

<p>I live in Norway, where the darkness comes fast in the afternoon now. I have not experienced any low-light problems due to the Sigma missing the VR (or OS as they call it). It balances wery well with my D300 and MBD10.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Well, my sample of 18-70DX was insanely sharp when new; it used to be so sharp, that I sold my 50/1.8D (and changed a few other lenses) and I didn't want a 85/1.8, because this lens was sharper on any comparable aperture. Now, after 3 years, it's of course still very good and far from unusable, but the crazy detail-capturing razor sharpness that can cut you if you're not careful is not there anymore. At first I thought I'm just spoiled by another 50/1.8 (non-D, excellent sample), but I've been recently checking some of my old photos and there's a visible difference. Apparently it wasn't just my feeling when I've bumped the sharpness setting to +1 a year ago or so (same camera of course). It probably wouldn't be noticeable on an average sample. I believe one needs to go to pro-grade equipment for robustness. I'm not extra careful around my equipment (e.g. the lens was soaked once), but I'm not playing soccer with it either.</p>

<p>I may just have bad luck, but it's one reason why I'm not paying for the 16-85 VR. I wonder how those lenses are gonna cope with age.</p>

<p>Thanks for info on the Sigma. I'll go for it if I can find a deal on eBay... Which can take a long time by the looks of it.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have to try out that Sigma, all these recommendations are making me curious. I'll check with my colleagues if I could rent one.</p>

<p>When I think about it, this 50-150 and a 55-200 VR would make a nice combination for various situations, although mostly overlapping. Don't you think? At least until someone creates a 70-200/4 VR/VC/OS for Nikon mount.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The 16-85 and 70-300 VR are the best choices re IQ: moderate price: keepers. The 18-70 will outperform all of the other "plastic mount" kit lens' except the 16-85, so that should be considered a keeper. The 24-120 : save your $ ...google it, and you'll read all about it. The 18-200 is a notch below the 16-85 in IQ and will need DxO software to correct the barrel/PC distortion inherent in the 11x design. This is not a criticism. Its a fine walk around - do everything lens. You have a f2.8 in a nice zoom range, so keep it for now.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>So far only Steven gave a brief mention of what I'm thinking: Why give up the 80-200 2.8? It's too heavy and not fast enough? I use this lens for all kinds of sports, weddings, and even portraits and find it extremely sharp and fast focussing. I'm using a D300 so my focus drive motor may be faster but I wouldn't dream of giving this up for a shorter Sigma! I find plenty of uses for the 200mm range.</p>

<p>As for the 18-70 that came with my D70- it served it's purpose for a few years but eventually got replaced by a smokin deal on a used 17-35 2.8 which is faster, sharper, more rugged, and ready to be a killer super-wide on FX. Are my lenses heavier than I could get away with? Yes. But I refuse to go back to anything slower than 2.8, I just need the speed. I also bought the Tamron 17-50 2.8 but never got it close to sharp, even after two trips to warranty. Some have had great success with this lens though.</p>

<p>I saw you mention 28-105. I have that in Nikon D and it's pretty nice. It's well built, has a macro setting, and can be had pretty cheap. Far sharper than my buddy's 24-120.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Why give up the 80-200 2.8?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sean, Horses for courses, I guess. </p>

<p>For my photography, I thought of the 80-200 for indoors sports dancing, but found it too long on the short end when sitting on the ring side, and I did not want to use 2 camera bodies (been there, done that, and would rather not go back ;) ), the 70-200 was far too expensive, so the Sigma 50-150 was <strong>for me </strong>the perfect match.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I find the 18-70 and 55-200 are a pretty good zoom combination. I bought a used 18-70 about 2 years ago primarily because, at the time, it had less distortion than most of the other 18-xx Nikkors. Mine is still sharp. I also bought a 55-200VR. The image quality is surprisingly good-- probably doesn't compare to your 80-200, but is more than acceptable. Finally, I have a 28-105, mostly for my F100--and my wife has another one for her N80. Again, sharp, good contrast and little distortion. </p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks for more answers. Sean: The 80-200 is cool, no doubt about that, but it's so big and heavy I just don't use it. When I had a Sigma 70-300/4-5.6 APO, I had it with me most of the time. With Nikkor, I don't. Basically I think I have exactly one good photo with this lens. Well maybe two, but that's it, because I just don't carry it with me. And those times when it did its job well (like for portraits), the results would be better with a 85/1.8 or something.</p>

<p>Plus, when I need long reach for some reason, it's not long enough; it also doesn't have VR, which is limiting on the long end. Focusing can also be a drag. And so on.</p>

<p>But who knows. I've ordered the Sigma and perhaps I'll find it too limiting or inferior and I'll be stuck again.</p>

<p>I'm also sure the 17-35/2.8 is nice, but I hardly use the range below 28 mm (40 mm EQ). I'm rather looking into the wide range, like the Tokina 11-16/2.8.</p>

<p>28-105 is no VR, unlike the Canon version... So that wouldn't help me much.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...