Jump to content

Lens advice needed


jakemaryniak

Recommended Posts

I need some advice as to lens choices.

 

I have recently bought a mint used Nikon D7000 with Nikon 18-200 VR (kit?) lens. I have also acquired the Sigma 17-50 F2.8 OS lens. I have already made up my mind that the Sigma will be my main go to lens as I believe it is better lens of the two. (even at the sacrifice of extra tele range) I am at loss as to what to do with the 18-200. Shall I keep it in case I need the extra zoom, or sell it an buy say 70-200 or 70-300 VR lens? I don't use the extra zoom that much and prefer to use my feet and get close to the subject when ever I can. So my question is. keep the 18-200, swap it for 70-200/300 VR or maybe sell the 18-200 and buy a 35mm F1.8 for the times I really want to experiment with low light. Any comments / suggestions welcome

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need some advice as to lens choices.

 

I have recently bought a mint used Nikon D7000 with Nikon 18-200 VR (kit?) lens. I have also acquired the Sigma 17-50 F2.8 OS lens. I have already made up my mind that the Sigma will be my main go to lens as I believe it is better lens of the two. (even at the sacrifice of extra tele range) I am at loss as to what to do with the 18-200. Shall I keep it in case I need the extra zoom, or sell it an buy say 70-200 or 70-300 VR lens? I don't use the extra zoom that much and prefer to use my feet and get close to the subject when ever I can. So my question is. keep the 18-200, swap it for 70-200/300 VR or maybe sell the 18-200 and buy a 35mm F1.8 for the times I really want to experiment with low light. Any comments / suggestions welcome

 

One thing I'd like to comment on is, you shouldn't lump the 70-200mm and the 70-300mm together as if they were roughly equal. Sure, the focal ranges aren't that different, but one (the 70-200mm) is a high-end, expensive, pro lens, and the other is a fairly cheap & cheerful consumer one. If, as you said, you don't zoom in all that often, the 70-200mm would be overkill in terms of expense (also carry weight and bulk).

 

The reason to get the AF-P 70-300mm DX VR would be because it's a better telephoto lens than the 18-200mm. The 70-300mm DX is widely regarded as very sharp and a good performer. But, again, if you don't use the tele end that much, this may be wasted on you.

 

I do like the idea of adding a fast prime to your mix. Everyone should have one of those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the face of what you've written, there's not an outstanding reason to move to a 70-200/300 nor to buy a 35/1.8.

 

You stated that you don't have an urgent use for the extra telephoto and in any case prefer to move closer if you can: and with a camera that does quite good to very good at High ISO, there's not that much real world difference between F/2.8 and F/1.8 for your experimenting with Low Light.

 

I'd reckon that you need to establish how bad (or how good) is that 'kit lens' at satisfying your needs, before you spend any more money.

 

Perhaps you need to more clearly quantify your needs, too.

 

WW

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the face of what you've written, there's not an outstanding reason to move to a 70-200/300 nor to buy a 35/1.8.

 

You stated that you don't have an urgent use for the extra telephoto and in any case prefer to move closer if you can: and with a camera that does quite good to very good at High ISO, there's not that much real world difference between F/2.8 and F/1.8 for your experimenting with Low Light.

 

I'd reckon that you need to establish how bad (or how good) is that 'kit lens' at satisfying your needs, before you spend any more money.

 

Perhaps you need to more clearly quantify your needs, too.

 

WW

 

I see your point there. Perhaps I should be more specific as to what sort of photography I do. Mostly family photos and street photography where extra zoom is not needed. I get that adding a 35mm to my 17-50 F2.8 might be bit pointless. I would like at some stage photograph wildlife (birds etc.) where I think something like 70-300 would be sufficient for me without the overkill off 70-200 F2.8. So I could to some effect justify having 70-300 in my kit. The only reason I would now justify keeping my 18-200 was as a travel do all lens. So I guess my original question should read, taking into consideration that I already have 17-50 F2.8, should I swap the 18-200 for 70-300, and maybe add 35mm F1.8 for the sake of having a prime?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why?

 

WW

 

Three reasons:

 

(1) Occasionally being restricted to one focal length is liberating, and it will allow you to discover photographic ideas you might not have thought of otherwise.

(2) With the fast aperture, you can get better subject isolation and bokeh than with almost any normal-range zoom (some Sigmas being possible exceptions).

(3) You can more easily take photos of other people without their being intimidated by a huge lens.

Edited by chulster
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, I can count the good shots I've gotten at focal lengths greater than 105 mm on one hand. That's on full frame. That's also in 45 years of shooting. I don't do sports, so long teles don't get any use. I've also never seen an extended range zoom with the optical performance of more conservative designs. Though I haven't tried that one, I doubt any 18-200 would make me happy. The 35mm f/1.8 costs enough that I'd want to be pretty sure of having a use for it. I have a few fast lenses and it's rare that I mount them up anymore. Since you have the 17-50, I'd think a 55-200 makes sense and I wouldn't be surprised if you use it way less than the 17-50. I could also make a case that you might like something wider than the 17-50. I know when I use my DX camera I always miss the super wide stuff.
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, I can count the good shots I've gotten at focal lengths greater than 105 mm on one hand. That's on full frame. That's also in 45 years of shooting. I don't do sports, so long teles don't get any use. I've also never seen an extended range zoom with the optical performance of more conservative designs. Though I haven't tried that one, I doubt any 18-200 would make me happy. The 35mm f/1.8 costs enough that I'd want to be pretty sure of having a use for it. I have a few fast lenses and it's rare that I mount them up anymore. Since you have the 17-50, I'd think a 55-200 makes sense and I wouldn't be surprised if you use it way less than the 17-50. I could also make a case that you might like something wider than the 17-50. I know when I use my DX camera I always miss the super wide stuff.

 

Were you thinking along the lines of 10-20mm ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see your point there. Perhaps I should be more specific as to what sort of photography I do. Mostly family photos and street photography where extra zoom is not needed.

The 18-200mm VR is a good lens for general usage. I would take it to do street photography. In fact, I had.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . I should be more specific as to what sort of photography I do. Mostly family photos and street photography where extra zoom is not needed. . . .The only reason I would now justify keeping my 18-200 was as a travel do all lens . . . So I guess my original question should read, taking into consideration that I already have 17-50 F2.8, should I swap the 18-200 for 70-300, and maybe add 35mm F1.8 for the sake of having a prime?

 

How much travelling do you intend to do - alternatively - how valuable to you is an all in one lens for travelling?

 

When travelling I seem to have gone full circle, over 40 something years: having originally typically taken three lenses: such as three primes (long ago), then later one zoom and two primes. Establishing what I actually used (by data and not what I thought I needed), one zoom was used about 87% of the time. Additionally, of the other 13% images made, at least 70% I could have either done without or made do with the Zoom. So I now travel with one Zoom and sometimes a Prime with it. Typically, on 135 Format Cameras (aka ‘Full Frame’) a 24 to 105/4IS adding occasionally a 35/1.4, the latter because I like simply like to use (read I have a fun using it) it for Street Portraiture, though, as I allude to below, the 24 to 105 can manage Street Portraiture very well indeed. I never have pined for longer than FL=105 when travelling. I have I always taken a second Camera when travelling - that has varied, it’s now typically a Fuji x100s.

 

I think it can become a real pain in the butt carrying and changing lenses when travelling: on the other side of the argument that 'kit lens' has a very wide zoom compass and therein lies assumed a lesser IQ than having a better quality TWO zoom lens kit.

 

 

***

 

I know when I use my DX camera I always miss the super wide stuff.

 

Additionally, this comment above certainly caught my attention, because I use wider than FL = 24mm on my FF bodies very often. When travelling, sometimes I do wish for wider than FL = 24mm but I cannot commit to carrying even one of the Ultra Wide Lenses that I have. I think that's an advantage of APS-C (DX for Nikon) Format, there are quite a few good quality choices at the Ultra Wide, not too heavy and not too bulky.

 

***

 

My bottom line advice -

If it were me, I’d do nothing now and I’d have a really good play with the 18 to 200 over a month or so. I think you’ll either like it or not after using it expensively and in different circumstances for 4 weeks.

 

WW

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Three reasons [for adding a fast Prime to the mix]: . . .

 

Thank you for replying.

 

With regard to the Opening Post, and noting that the OP already has a 17 to 70, my views are:

 

1. one doesn't need a Prime lens to do that. A zoom can be set (and kept) at a range of Focal Lengths, acting as many Primes for discovery ideas.

 

2. it is interesting to compare exactly what differences there will be apropos Subject Isolation (DoF) using FL=35mm Prime vs. Sigma Zoom set at FL = 35mm on a Nikon APS-C camera at F/1.8 and F/2.8. Bokeh is a different topic and (fast) Primes often will be more praised for their Bokeh than Fast Zooms, but all lenses are different when it comes to discussing Bokeh, which by definition, is Subjective.

 

3. my observation is that if people do react badly to having their image taken, then it is more likely a result of the Photographer's: demeanour; attitude; action; body language; and words, rather than the size of the Camera/Lens being used. I observed no issues with this range of different Subjects in various circumstances, just as a few examples, of many -

 

STREET (full frame of image) with 5D Series + Battery Grip + 135/2 + Lens Hood

STREET (side crop of image to 1:1) with 5D Series + Battery Grip + 24 to 105/4 + Lens Hood

STREET (side crop of image to 1:1) with 5D Series + Battery Grip + 24 to 105/4 + Lens Hood

STREET (full frame of image) with 5D Series + Battery Grip + 24 to 105/4 + Lens Hood

STREET (side crop to 1:1) with 5D Series + Battery Grip + 70 to 200/2.8 + x1.4II + Lens Hood

 

WW

Edited by William Michael
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has been a lot of negative writing about the technical image quality of the 18-200, some of it parroted by me in a potentially misguided attempt to be helpful. It certainly may not hold up as well as the state of the art, particularly compared against lenses with smaller zoom ranges (or primes), especially as the image sensor count increases - but modern image processing software is pretty good at getting rid of lens aberrations, and as a "lens to have with you" it's pretty flexible. Mary has been very defensive of hers, and while I'm sure she has a "good copy", that does mean it can't be as bad as I've heard some say. As others said, at the least, I'd try it until you're sure about focal lengths. If "family photos" includes chasing small running children, a bit of zoom range is a good thing - but the available light might be an issue.

 

For subject isolation, there's something to be said for a longer lens rather than a faster, shorter one - a fast, short prime limits the depth of field at the same background blur and, since a lot of aberrations depend on aperture, it may look worse. It depends how close your subject is to the background, of course. I wouldn't rule out a slow zoom at 300mm (or 200mm) instead of a 50mm prime, at least some of the time.

 

I tried street photography a little while back, to stretch myself (and because I ran out of new ducks to photograph near my office). A big lens gets greeted with suspicion. People in the UK away from tourist areas seem to be pretty suspicious about the motives of photographers (everyone's a paedophile until proven otherwise). As a middle-aged white male, particularly from a single-sex private school background, I have an extreme sense of personal space and impinging on that of others (the COVID-19 lockdown hasn't done much to me - I never went within two metres of people I don't know anyway); that makes me worry about how others may feel if I photograph them, which make me look furtive, which makes people assume I'm up to no good... It probably doesn't help that I don't really do social media (too much training about computer security and privacy concerns), and so I come from the premise of "what do you mean you want to put a selfie on the internet?" Oddly I found an old Coolpix-A in a leather case (which was the smallest one I could find) seemed to get a better reaction from the average member of the public because people assumed I was arty, whereas my much more expensive dSLR roused suspicion. In the end I mostly gave up and photographed buildings and flowers, but I'm glad others enjoy street photography. :-)

 

Birding gets expensive (even as an amateur like me, if you want to put more than a few pixels on the bird), and unless you're very good and patient with a hide, basically a very long lens is good. And very long lenses are expensive. The 70-300VR would probably be a minimum, I'd have though; unfortunately it's not as good as the newer AF-P versions (from the reviews I've read), but the AF-Ps won't focus on the D7000. I'd say keep saving until you can get a big zoom (200-500, 60-600, etc.) but that may be a bit extreme. If you happen to spot a 300mm f/4 (even the pre-VR) going for a bargain, it's worth a look.

 

TL;DR: Don't rush the birding lens, don't rush to a fast prime unless you're sure you want it (not because of the old "everyone should have a nifty fifty" advice - that applied more when every zoom was iffy, film sucked about ISO 400, and bear in mind that a 35mm f/1.8 doesn't isolate the background like a 50mm f/1.8), and I'd be sure before ditching the 18-200 - which isn't to say you shouldn't. Generally, I only buy a new lens when there's something specific I want to do that the old one(s) can't - then the question is "which version of the ... is better?" and that's possibly less subjective.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I guess my original question should read, taking into consideration that I already have 17-50 F2.8, should I swap the 18-200 for 70-300, and maybe add 35mm F1.8 for the sake of having a prime?

I think you should buy the lens you think you want to try, budget permitting. If you don't have a prime, you will be busy until the day you try one. Or a 70-300. Or whatever.

The 18-200 and the 70-300 are lenses for different purposes. As is the 35/1.8. So I think it's more curiosity that any other thing (and/or NAS, why not?) , so I'd just start with the most different one to the gear you already have,

When someone mentions the 18-200, I think of Richard Armstrong, a forum member that master this lens on his D300. He talently used to use it for everything, it doesn't matter how good the lens is, his images were just perfect. Check his oldest images in his portfolio (sadly, I have just checked that the gear data is not shown). I have never bought this lens, maybe because it is a "too much versatile for a highly serious photographer like me" lens, but my images with premium lenses has always been so far away from him`s.

So personally, I´d start with the 35/1.8, that you can use as the classic standard prime. I like to go this way, although my most used zoom Nikon lens has been a 24-105/4 on FX (I also use a 24-7/2.8 but only for "serious" events, because the limited zoom, the size and weight seem to me a penalty for everyday use).

Edited by jose_angel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Nikon the D7000 can still work with an AFP FX 70-300 lens, but not with the DX. Not sure why, but that's what they say.

 

Oops. Sorry, you're right - the FX 70-300 has slightly wider compatibility than the DX version. (It's also more expensive, of course.) According to Thom's tracking of it, on the D7000 it'll lose focus position when the meter turns back on, which is a little inconvenient but not the end of the world - whereas the DX version won't work at all. Which is a shame, because the DX version is supposed to be pretty good for the money. The older 70-300mm VR AF-S G works fine, of course, but is a little less sharp.

 

Re. superzooms, I used my 28-200 (full-frame, not the 18-200) on my D700 a lot. It was pretty small and could act as a body cap until I knew what else I needed. On a D800, where I had more pixels to see what was going on, the newly-visible chromatic aberrations rapidly bothered me, and I traded it; it is very difficult to build a zoom lens that is well-corrected throughout the range, at least without spending TV lens money. (Similarly I suspect a lot, but not all, reviews of the 18-200 were on lower MP bodies, where it was fine.) I've since revisited some of the few raw images I shot with that combination with DxO, and it recovers enough detail that I vaguely regret getting rid of it. However, the 28-200 was a lot smaller than the 18-200 or the 24-120 (which I also had and disposed of). I don't mind carrying a big lens, but only if I know I want it, and a superzoom is a "just in case" lens. I used to carry the 28-200, a 50mm f/1.8 and the 135mm f/2.8 AI (for portraits) in a smallish bag, when wandering around.

 

Getting rid of the 18-200 isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I'd ensure that you have a replacement - otherwise you're guaranteed to see a rare bird that you could capture at 200mm when you've swapped it for a 35mm prime or even a 200-500 that you've left at home. While manual focus of telephoto lenses is annoying (especially if the subject moves), if you do ditch the 18-200 for something shorter, you might like to seek out a cheap pocketable 200mm f/4 AI or similar, just in case...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first DSLR body was the D5100, with the same sensor as the D7000. (I'm still sorry I didn't opt for the D7000.) I primarily do landscapes, nature, wildlife, and architecture. I very quickly realized my two kit lenses (18-55 and 55-200) were fine for most subjects, but did not fit the need for a lot of nature, wildlife, and architectural subjects. My first additional lens purchase was an 11-16mm UWA (for architecture, particularly interiors), followed quickly by the 70-300 VR and then a 150-600 Tamron (for wildlife). (The Tammy was fine on 16 MP, but quickly fell apart at 24 MP on my D7100.) With this collection I've been able to capture virtually any subject, within my own skill levels. I've upgraded further over time, but the principle still remains. There are some subjects that demand specialty lenses. When travelling I still rely on a basic zoom as my primary lens, for simplicity's sake if nothing else. 18-105mm on DX, and 24-85mm on FX, with other lenses in the bag depending on what I expect to encounter.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Nikon the D7000 can still work with an AFP FX 70-300 lens, but not with the DX. Not sure why, but that's what they say.

There are three AF-P 70-300mm lenses. The two DX models are f6.3 on the 300mm end, and they cannot AF with the D7000 and many other older Nikon DSLRs. However, the D7000 can AF with the FX version.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Were you thinking along the lines of 10-20mm ?

Caveat- I've never used one, but yes, I know I'd get a lot of use out of it and if you tend towards the lower end of your existing zoom, you probably would too.

Re birds- We don't have much interesting in the backyard and they mostly poop on my car. Some of the bird shots people post here are spectacular, but I suspect it takes not only skill, but significant money, to achieve those kinds of results. Same with astronomy. The more time and money invested in equipment and software, the better the shots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are three AF-P 70-300mm lenses. The two DX models are f6.3 on the 300mm end, and they cannot AF with the D7000 and many other older Nikon DSLRs. However, the D7000 can AF with the FX version.

 

Also the Tamron was historically considered to be quite good (at least compared with the AF-S G), and works with everything. Anything resembling a 70-300 from before the time of the 70-300G VR was likely awful, though - there was a jump in image quality from lenses in that class around the time Canon launched their version. Choices choices. :-)

 

I use my ultra-wide (14-24, in my case) for landscapes, but of course perspective distortion looks awful if you put people near the edges of the frame, so it's not a "fit everyone into the living room" lens, even if I've had to use it like one occasionally. (See my photos this Nikon Wednesday - my neighbours aren't that fat. I am, but I'm not in the shot...) For what it's worth, some fish-eye lenses are a lot smaller and cheaper than rectilinear ultrawides, and if you don't mind losing some pixels you can "de-fish" the result in software.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 18-200mm VR is certainly not a bad lens. That said, people prefer to use certain lenses for a lot of reasons. But since OP already has the 17-50 lens, getting the 70-300 is not a bad decision.

 

Anyhow, since some are talking about the quality or non-quality of the 18-200mm again, here are two videos showing how this professional wedding photographer uses the 18-200mm.

 

 

 

It is very important, especially for beginners (and for some not-so-beginners), to understand that most bad and mediocre images have more to do with other-than-lens issues. I have seen many mediocre images made with expensive lenses.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my perspective, I don't see any reason to think that you need to make a decision urgently - you have time on your side.

 

I suggest using the Sig 17-50 and carrying the 18-200 for its longer focal length when you need it. After some time, you will accumulate personal experience about how often 50 mm isn't enough, and about how often, if at all, you find yourself wanting something longer than 200. THEN you can make an informed judgement about what lens you would like to buy. Just be sure to check the compatibility of any lens you consider for your D7000.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my perspective, I don't see any reason to think that you need to make a decision urgently - you have time on your side.

 

I suggest using the Sig 17-50 and carrying the 18-200 for its longer focal length when you need it. After some time, you will accumulate personal experience about how often 50 mm isn't enough, and about how often, if at all, you find yourself wanting something longer than 200. THEN you can make an informed judgement about what lens you would like to buy. Just be sure to check the compatibility of any lens you consider for your D7000.

 

That is exactly what I am thinking right now. My original thought behind this post that there is a large overlap between these lenses. In most situations (about 85%) I tend to use the Sig 17-50. But I always worry that I might miss a good shot because I don't have a bigger zoom on me. On the other hand from zoom perspective 18-200 is perfect lens on paper, at the cost of IG if or when I need a faster lens. In the Ideal world I would love to keep my 17-50 (which I will) and swap the 18-200 for a 70-200 F2.8. I might still go down that route subject to finances allowing. Probably will look at a good second hand copy. So in the shorter term I might end up keeping the 18-200 as a stop gap for when I need the zoom while saving my coin until I can replace it with a 70-200 F2.8.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have found the 18-200VRII to be a great "carry around" lens and it's one of the primary lenses that I use in wedding photography. I don't see much point in picking up a 35 or 50mm prime, even a fast one and even though I carry both a 30f1.4 and a 50f1.4 in my bag. Those, it seems to me, are for later. As to the idea that anything longer than 105 isn't very useful, I have to disagree. My 80-200f2.8AFS is one of my favorite portrait lenses for singles, doubles and some triples. Head shots, head and shoulders and even 3/4 length shots. If you get close enough to do these with the 18-50, you risk distortion and you will not be able to soften the backgrounds as much as you might like.

 

My usual suggestions in these circumstance is to look less at what you have done in the past and more at what you want to do in the future. How does your current kit limit you in the direction and then figure out what lens you need to accomplish that task.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would sell both of them and get the 24-120 mm f4 VR Zoom which is a great lens. However that's an expensive lens probably more expensive than your camera. Another problem is that 24 mm is actually 36 mm on a cropped camera. So that lens may not be wide enough for you. The way I purchase lenses is that I draw a mental scale from 20 mm all the way to 135 mm then I try to buy lenses that cover that range without overlapping. It seems to me you already have an overlap since the 18-200 mm covers much the same territory as the 17-50 mm.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is very important, especially for beginners (and for some not-so-beginners), to understand that most bad and mediocre images have more to do with other-than-lens issues. I have seen many mediocre images made with expensive lenses.

+50 to Mary's comment. My experience is it's best to develop skills to the point where the technical limitations of your equipment are the barrier to improvement before dropping money on new equipment. It's far too easy to develop a serious case of GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome). Better to wear out what you have becoming a highly skilled photographer, and use the money saved to create more and better photographic opportunities. Many, many outstanding photographs have been made with what we might consider less-than-outstanding lenses and bodies. A 16 MP body will be far more forgiving of intermediate-grade glass than would a 24-35-45-50 MP body. However, if a high resolution body is in the planned future, don't waste money on glass that won't match performance of that future sensor. (See my note about the Tamron 150-600mm, above.) Remember AA's famous quote about the most important piece of photographic equipment being the 12 inches behind the viewfinder.:)

  • Like 3
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...