18-70mm Replacement

I have to send my 18-70 in for repair and based on the cost of the repair I

want to get an idea of what I should do.

 

I liked the 18-70mm but replacing seems likes a waste since it did not take

much to break and getting something else kind of makes me feel like I upgraded

more than replaced. Although Price is always a consideration, my thoughts were:

 

18-70mm Nikon (Direct Replacement)

17-70mm Sigma, looks like it is a little better at F2.8 and does Macro.

18-135mm Nikon, increase the range a bit

18-55mm VR Nikon, Add VR

 

I am using a Nikon D50 just for fun and like to have the ability to play around

and give me a reason to read the photo mags to try new things. Plus I like to

chase the kids around and haunt them with the camera. I got the Olympus 1030 SW

as a point and shoot and it takes the pressure off getting something

immediately.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Jim

I've always been very impressed with the sharpness and resolution of the 18-70mm. Certainly there are better zooms out there, and faster ones too. Why not consider the new Nikon 16-85mm VR? I think that would be a very worthy successor if you don't want to just find another 18-70mm. They are pretty common on the auction site for less than $200.

The new 16-85VR is a pretty good all-around lens, and the stabilization will help out with lower light. You might also consider keeping that 18-70 (if the repair tab isn't too high) and adding a faster, prime lens like the quintessential 50/1.8. Very different experience than a slower zoom.

Check out Tamron's 17-50/2.8, lots of good reviews for the money. I plan to replace my 18-70 when needed with this one.

 

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/355/cat/all

Another vote for the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. Very comprable to the much more expensive Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 lens when it comes to image quality.

 

They sell for around $400 or so online.

 

We use ours extensively for our wedding work and it produces outstanding images.

I would consider the 18-200 and the 18-70. Both great lenses. If you were happy with the

18-70, then stick with it and get a used one perhaps. My only problem with the 16-85 is that

it is the same price, and maybe even about the same quality, as the 18-200. I'd rather have

the 85-200 range than the 16-18 any day.

 

At this point, any modern lens I would get would have VR.

Didn't you get a 5 year warranty with the 18-70?

I should mention I do have the 50mm 1.8 I will have to look at the Tamron.

 

As for the 18-70mm I bought it used so I am not sure if the Warranty is transferrable and I am not sure if they will fix it under warranty since it was dropped (Even though it was in a padded case from 18 inches to carpeting, but I already went there in another thread).

 

But I will submit it and see what happens, just if it is too expensive then I have to make the decision.

I'm something of an 18-200VR fan - I seem to have a pretty decent sample. For kids, the ability to take candids at the long end followed quickly with group shots at the shorter end without having to change lenses seems a good move to me. I tried the Tamron briefly - it was distinctly soft on one side (sample variation). Whichever lens you go for, I recommend trying it in the shop, take some sample shots in 'typical real life conditions' and look at the results at home before buying.

 

Example below - 18mm, f8, levels, highpass filter 2.0 + overlay @ 70% opacity. CS2 quality 6 setting, so not seen at its best.<div></div>

I agree with that the 18-70 is a great zoom lens along with the 18-200, but they are challenging in low light situations. I take a lot of indoor pictures at home (grandchildren) and at church mostly children activities that my wife heads up (Christian Ed Director). Russ thanks for sharing your experience with the Tamron and Simmon I have thought about it and have a local camera shop where I can try out the 17-50/2.8. They do have it price quite high compared to internet sites like KEH.com.

You keep looking a consumer grade lenses which are simply not well made. A good bump and they are out of wack. Tamron and sigma same thing.

 

Buy some older manual focus primes or even the auto focus ones.

 

The build quality of my primes and 80/200 4.0 Nikkor puts the consumer stuff to shame. I keep my 18/70 and 55/200 but I am very careful, they are in my hand or in the bag protected. I have no confidence they can take a hit and survive.

 

My Leica lenses put the Nikors, any of them, to shame. These are well built lenses at way more money.

 

The problem with Nikon consumer glass simply poor mechanics. The optics are ok, but then again not the best.

 

The two best Nikkors I have are the 60 2.8 and 105 2.8. These are relatively well built, sharp, good contrast, and zero distortion for all practical purposes.

Personally, I plan on replacing my 18-70 with the 16-85 VR once it becomes available locally. The one test report that I saw indicated that it has a bit less distortion with sharpness and contrast basically equal to the 18-70. Add VR to that and it's a winner for me.

If you don't need the wide end, try the Tamron 28-75 2.8 (@$275) for mint used. Picture quality is excellent. Also, the reviews on the new Nikon 16-85 VR are coming in on the positive side, but the cheapest I've seen has been $609 on Ebay.

The 16-85 VR lens is way overpriced for what it is - a slow, plastic, consumer lens with limited range.

 

You would be much better off with the 18-200 VR lens. At least with that larger focal range you get a great deal of versatility in an all-around lens at almost the same price.

<i>My Leica lenses put the Nikors, any of them, to shame. These are well built lenses at way more money.</i><P>

 

Them's fightin' words around here, Ronald. ;-)

 

I'd love a Leica lens but it won't fit on my D300! :-)

here's another vote for the tamron 17-50, followed by the sigma 17-70.

you probably wont miss the long end too much with the tamron. i'd rather have a constant 2.8 than that extra 20mm, but the sigma is supposed to be pretty good.

 

the nikon 16-85 is supposedly miles ahead of the 18-200 in IQ. (photozone rated it ahead of the 17-55 in optical quality!), but again, variable aperture. not sure how useful VR would be with a shorter focal length lens, unless you have shaky hands.

 

not sure why ronald is recommending leica lenses in a nikon forum either, that's pretty far OT. and not sure what your budget is, but from the lenses you mention in your post it looks like anywhere from $99-$400. that's just enough for the tamron but obviously not enough for the nikon 16-85 or 18-200.

I would just get another 18-70mm, new or used. Joe Smith

I recently got the 16-85, which I now highly recommend.

 

OTOH, my 18-70 is up in the photo.net classifieds for $200, E+ condition.

If you where happy with the 18-70 then get another. If something was/is lacking then get something to resolve that. I use and like the 18-70 as a one lens carry around. If I did not have fast primes then I would look at the Tamron 17-50. A Nikkor 35mm f2 or Sigma 30mm f1.4 might make a good match for your 50mm f1.8 if you want shallow dof or need the speed. IMHO the 16-85mm is not much of a value compared to the 18-70 or 18-200 accept maybe VR which I have not yet used.

Thanks for the suggestions, I liked the 18-70 but always wanted to get a macro so that was the reason I thought of the Sigma 17-70 but I have not looked at the reviews yet on it. The Tamron seems nice

It's all about price/performance, isn't it? The new 16-85mm. is apparently a great performer, but my goodness, the price! If you use a lens a lot over a period of years the extra $$ spent becomes less important, but that sticker shock at the start is hard to get over.

 

I happen to own a knock-em-dead sample of the 18-200mm. After it was adjusted by Nikon following a fall with minor damage, the lens clearly was/is sharper and snappier. In fact, it's amazing now. This is actually a little disconcerting, isn't it, i.e., that there is variation in the "new" quality of these lenses. If all samples of this lens were its equal I would recommend it without hesitation.

 

The Tamron 17-50mm. is really excellent and the build is not bad, really. In terms of price/performance it's hard not to recommend it.

You just have to live with the narrower focal length range (but you get a faster lens in the meantime).

If you want a macro lens, get a true macro lens, not a lens with a "macro feature." These really are not macro at all. Joe Smith