Good Mid-Range Zoom

<p>My daughter has been getting more serious about photography and I would like to get her a nice mid-range zoom for Christmas. She has used my Nikon 18-135mm in the past, but I would like to get her something a little faster at the long end with very good image quality. She has a Nikon D90 and is currently using my Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 to supplement her 50mm f1.8. She mostly shoots mtn bike racing, but also likes shooting friends and family, along with some travel photography. I would like to keep the cost under $1000. This is what I'm considering so far:</p>

<p>Nikon 24-120mm f4, I can get one used for $600, Refurb. for $700<br>

Sigma 24-105 f4, $899 but hard to find in stock<br>

Tamron 24-70mm f2.8, used or grey market for about $900<br>

Nikon 24-70mm f2.8, would be hard to find used in my budget, but I recently picked one up used for $1100</p>

<p>Any thoughts on these options or should I be considering something else?</p>

<p>Be aware that a 24-xx zoom could not be short enough on a DX camera to have a wide view on interiors, confined spaces, groups, etc.<br /> For outdoor shots 24mm on DX (35mm full format equivalent) could be fine. And she can take advantage of the longer end for that sport, portrait, etc. shots.<br /> I have the 24-70/2.8 and 24-120 Nikkors. From this two ones, I`d get the 24-120/4, just because the longer range and smaller size. But it`s still a somewhat heavy glass for trips, it`s not f2.8 and will feel somewhat big&heavy on a "compact" D90.<br /> I wonder if she could have more fun with a two lens kit...a standard zoom and a long telezoom, better for that sport shots. Some kids love to have magnification power, they prime it over luminosity.</p>

<p>Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Id'second avoiding the 24-xx zooms; the lacking bit of wide end is quite annoying, and not something I'd impose on somebody else unless I'd be 100% sure they never shoot wider than 24mm. A second thing is that all these full frame f/2.8 lenses are quite large. She may be used to it (the 17-55 isn't exactly small either), but getting a DX lens will keep things generally a bit smaller too.<br>

The Nikon 16-80 f/2.8-4VR could be an option; but right at the top end of the budget. Not faster than what she had, but a seriously nice performer is the 18-140VR. For the non-sports photos, it would work. For the sports events, is ~70mm sufficient? It seems a tad short to me; I'd be also looking at lenses as the 70-200 f/4VR, Tamron/Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 or the 50-150OS (Sigma), the Tokina 50-135 f/2.8. But maybe I'm off the mark for the kind of sports photos she takes.</p>

Her D90 is a DX body. I too would get a DX zoom that starts from 16, 17, or 18mm. One of the best choices would be the

new 16-80mm DX, but that is an E lens and the D90 cannot control its aperture.

 

If f5.6 is ok, the older 16-85 should be fine. Otherwise, there are various third party 17-50 types.

<p>I would go right to the Tamron or Sigma 17-50 f2.8 zooms. They are universally very well regarded, and cheap enough that you can take the rest of that thousand dollars and do something else nice for her!<br /><br />When and if she moves on to a different camera that either of those may still suit her well if it's a DX body.</p>

<p>Thanks for all of the great input so far. As far as sports, shooting mtn bike race is a little more flexible on focal lengths, but 35-150 is the most common I use on a DX camera. Good points on going wide for indoor shooting. She doesn't do much of this, but you never know. I wanted to stay with FX lenses incase her next camera is FX (her 50mm is FX).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I wanted to stay with FX lenses incase her next camera is FX (her 50mm is FX).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, there is no 50mm DX lens from Nikon, so every Nikon 50mm lens in the F mount is FX.<br /> <br />The fact of the matter is that there is no FX mid-range lens that starts from 16 to 18mm. A zoom that can cover that wide on FX gets difficult to make. If you want a moderate wide to short tele coverage for the D90, it will have to be a DX lens. Otherwise, you get something like 24-nn FX, but when you put that on a DX body, it will not be very wide. Some people maybe perfectly happy with that arrangement, but most are not.</p>

<p>If she upgrades to an FX body later on, she'll need to upgrade some of the DX lenses as well. But you lose reach with FX such that for mountain bike photography, she may prefer to stay with DX or she'll need some very long lenses.</p>

<p>sigma 17-50/2.8 OS works great on a D90 -- essentially the same performance as the nikkor 17-55, but smaller, lighter, and stabilized. getting something "faster at the long end" than the 18-135 means you are looking at 70-200/4, 70-200/2.8 or a 50-150/2.8 or 50-135/2.8. there just arent a whole bunch of fast DX telephoto lenses. FWIW, i have the non-OS 50-150 and it would be perfect for the applications you describe.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>one of the best choices would be the new 16-80mm DX, but that is an E lens and the D90 cannot control its aperture.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>hmm, wouldnt the lack of aperture control make this a not-so-good choice?<br>

</p>

<p>I'd get her one of the 17-50 zooms. If you wanted to get her more you could add some kind of tele and still keep things under the $1000 mark. Those 24-xx FX zooms become very large on a small DX camera, so not great for travel, and the 24 end isn't very wide.</p>

<p>If the 50 end isn't long enough, there's a Sigma 17-70 lens that gives you a bit more tele and is pretty good.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>one of the best choices would be the new 16-80mm DX, but that is an E lens and the D90 cannot control its aperture.<br>

hmm, wouldnt the lack of aperture control make this a not-so-good choice?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Right, therefore, you take advantage of the D7200 refurb deal and upgrade the body as well to gain better AF: <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00dcYa"> Nikon USA: Refurbished D7200 Deal at $800</a> :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>She doesn't do much of this, but you never know. I wanted to stay with FX lenses incase her next camera is FX (her 50mm is FX).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I went from a D7100 to D800E, and really, I ended up dumping virtually all my lenses in the process. You are better off buying a lens for a camera that you have than trying to "buy ahead." There could well be better choices in the future anyway. For mountain biking, I'd much rather have a D7200 instead of FX.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Any thoughts on these options or should I be considering something else?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Give her a gift certificate and let her shop for her own lens.</p>

<p>Leigh,</p>

<p>I also think that this is something that she needs to be involved with. From what you said, and other people's suggestions based on that, it seems that she will have to choose what she wants to prioritize in her next photographic step:<br>

* Always handy: That is small and light and just good enough for lots of different things. For me that would be a 28 to 90 full-frame equivalent (FFE), favoring light weight over large aperture. This is more or less what I heard you thinking about in your OP.<br>

* Bike racing first: A longish zoom. FFE starting at 35, 50, or even longer and going up to some long/fast trade-off that is within budget<br>

* Do both: continue to use one of your lenses for family and walking around. An even longer zoom or even a long prime for the racing.</p>

<p>In any case, she should be making the detailed trade offs. Do I want a little more speed, a little less weight, or a little longer?? Learning that you can never have it perfect, that we always have to decided what is good enough, that's as important as learning to take the actual pictures. </p>

 

<p>The 24-120 f4 is really nice, especially after they lowered the price. Very useful range.</p>

<p>For travel, friends, family the top 3 lenses you mention would work, but as mentioned in the responses would leave something to be desired at the wide end. I wouldn't spend the $ on a 24-70/2.8 to pair with a D90. For mountain bike racing, something that I actually participate in, only the 24-120 would be sufficiently long in my opinion. When I'm shooting instead of racing, I usually use my 70-200/2.8 (most often in the 120-200 range) and sometimes I use my 300/2.8.</p>

<p>If you are getting a DX lens, definitely consider the Sigma 18-35mm/1.8, assuming 35mm is long enough (FOV equiv to 52mm FOV).</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>She has used my Nikon 18-135mm in the past, but I would like to get her something a little faster at the long end with very good image quality. She has a Nikon D90 and is currently using my Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 to supplement her 50mm f1.8. She mostly shoots mtn bike racing, but also likes shooting friends and family, along with some travel photography. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>It would be useful to know what focal lengths she mostly uses. For mtn bike racing I guess a short telephoto would be useful, unless you can get really close to the action. I suspect many of the options suggested may not be long enough, but I could be wrong - I don't shoot mtn bike racing.<br>

<br>

I don't buy the argument that 24-xx zooms aren't wide enough on DX cameras, that's equivalent of about 35-xx on FX. In the 80's there were plenty of zooms which started at 35mm, and they worked fine for general photography. In that case, I think the 24-120/4 might be a good choice for this purpose. You can go from slightly wide, standard and through the short telephoto range in one lens, which is a very useful range. It's only when you are shooting in restricted spaces, or big landscapes, that something wider is useful. If something wider is also needed, it could be supplemented with a wide zoom like the 12-24/4, or the 16-80 as a good all-rounder.</p>

<p>Leigh, I appreciate that you would like to get her something faster than the 18-135mm. However, the 18-140mm on a D7200 not only focuses faster and more accurately than the 18-135mm on the D90, it also allows her to raise the ISO several steps.</p>

<p>Why not start with a D7200 and your 18-135mm?</p>

<p>I second Kent Staubus' endorsement of the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS.</p>

<p>That is one fine little lens, in my opinion. </p>

<p>At the end of <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00ddNc"><em><strong>a related thread</strong></em></a> I have posted a couple of links to shots made with it.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>