Time for a new lense

<p>Hello,<br>

Recently my Nikon D80 and lens (18-135dx) was drop about half a meter and landed lens first. I didn’t think there would be any damage from that height, But as soon as I turned it on I realised the AF on the lens was broken, I put my other lens on and tried it out and the af worked fine. I took the broken lens into the shop and they said they can send it way and get it check for $100 which I agreed to. They emailed me back two weeks later and said they lens is totalled, they said it has received impact damage to main zoom barrel and focus motor assembly. And it's un-economical to repair. Which is a down buzz :(<br>

Now I am left to find another lens to replace it because my 70-300 is too big for what I shoot sometimes. I am debating between a Sigma AF17-70mm f2.8-4.5 DC, or a Nikon AF-S 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 G IF-ED DX or a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II SP Asph. I’m after a 2.8 because they give a really good images and I also shoot in some low light areas. I don’t really want to pay at lot, $200-600 at a max. I shoot mainly sport a little family and just other stuff I come across. What do you guy’s recommend I get?? Any advice would be great or if theres any other lense that mite do the Job better.<br>

Thanks Jono</p>

 

<p>If you can afford the constant f/2.8 lens, that's the way to go.</p>

<p>I think the Tamron 17-50 would be a great match for that camera.</p>

<p>But alternatively, you could get a used Nikon 18-70 and then buy a 35mm f1.8 or 50mm f1.8 for real low light stuff. Nothing beats a lens under f2 for low light. In fact, you can often find an 18-70 for under 250, a 50mm f1.8 for about 120 new, and a 35mm f1.8 is about 200 new. All three together are under 600, which is your top end of your budget. That trio of lenses might work well for you.</p>

<p>If you want to stick with just two from that list, I'd get an 18-70 used and a new 35mm f1.8, then add the 50 if you find you want it later.</p>

<p>I like the idea of the tiro idea. Do u recon if I didnt have a wider angle like the 18mm and went for a 24mm I would find the a pain??</p>

<p>I just got the 18-70 , 3.5-4.5 and it is a really great lens..I have Leica, and other exotic Nikon lenses, and I was surprised just how good this lens actually is.</p>

<div></div>

<p>More 18-70</p><div></div>

<p>Why the non-VR versions of the Tamron and Sigma options? The VR versions (Sigma calls it OS and Tamron calls it VC) are in your budget. </p>

<p>I would go for the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 since you shoot a lot in low light. I would also think about replacing the D80 if you shoot a lot in low light. While it's still a good camera, it's behind the times in terms of performance at high ISO's.</p>

<p>If you want constant f2.8 and below $600, you are certainly talking about some 3rd-party f2.8 mid-range DX-type zoom. I am not familiar with the specific brands and lenses, but that is clearly the direction you want to investigate.</p>

<p><em>I’m after a 2.8 because they give a really good images and I also shoot in some low light areas.</em></p>

<p>out of the three lenses you mention, only the tamron is a constant 2.8. you already have a 70-300, so not having the 50-70 range isnt such a big deal.</p>

<p>peter has some decent suggestions, except...a) the 17-50 is better than the 18-70 as a walkaround lens; b) it's silly to get three lenses when all you need is one which makes the others largely redundant (speaking from personal experience here--i've owned the 17-50, 18-70, 35/1.8 and 50/1.8, also the sigma 30/1.4); c) you can get a new copy of the original 17-50 (non-VC) for $450 new, which leaves $150 toward a faster prime. however, IMO if you have a constant 2.8 zoom, you're better off saving for a 1.4 prime than using a 1.8 in a duplicated focal range, especially since the 50@2.8 is comparable in sharpness to the 17-50 wide-open. to me it doesnt make sense to get an inferior lens to save money to buy an additional lens which you wont use most of the time, when you could have just gotten the better lens in the first place.</p>

 

<p>Did you like the lens you had? If you did, I would suggest getting another one (pretty inexpensive used) and then getting a 50mm f1.8 for your low light shooting. Please keep in mind that an f2.8 lens will not necessarily produce a better image than the lens you had when shooting in good lighting. And a f1.8 lens will produce superior results in low light (allow you to shoot at lower ISO and perhaps have better AF) than an f2.8 lens.</p>

 

<p>Tamron 17-50 f2.8.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Did you like the lens you had? If you did, I would suggest getting another one (pretty inexpensive used)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Elliot, it seems to be apparent that the OP has found out the hard way that those plastic-mount lenses such as the 18-135 DX are flimsy and cannot survive a bit of impact. That is a fact you have attempted to deny several times. But the fact of the matter is that we have read similar stories on other plastic-mount lenses such as the 18-55 DX and 18-105 DX quite a few times in this forum. The problem is not necessarily on the mount itself, but the overall build quality on those lenses are poor.</p>

<p>Do you notice what the OP wrote?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Recently my Nikon D80 and lens (18-135dx) was drop about half a meter and landed lens first. I didn’t think there would be any damage from that height ....<br />They emailed me back two weeks later and said they lens is totalled, they said it has received impact damage to main zoom barrel and focus motor assembly. And it's un-economical to repair. Which is a down buzz :(</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I doubt that the OP is interested in another flimsy lens which has no VR.</p>

<p>There's a reason for plastic in lenses, and that's cost. We don't know what the OP can afford. I would stay away from lenses with plastic mounts, but with prices as they are pro quality lenses are out of the reach of many amateurs. Lenses with metal mounts and plastic in the barrel can be well made enough for most amateur use.</p>

<p>I hear you, Mark, but plastic mounts is absolutely where I draw the line. And almost <em><strong>all</strong></em> my lenses are consumer lenses.</p>

<p>There is nothing wrong with using plastics in lenses per se. The more recent 500mm/f4 and 600mm/f4 from Canon and Nikon are getting lighter because they are using more carbon fiber on the barrel. When they can bring the weight down from 10 pounds to 8 pounds, it makes a big difference. The problem is using plastic on moving parts. E.g. on some older AF-D lenses there is an AF/MF ring that is made out of plastic, including the mechanism that engages AF, and they break on a regular basis after a few years: <a href="../nature-photography-forum/000T15">http://www.photo.net/nature-photography-forum/000T15</a> (That thread was from 1999.) My 200mm/f4 AF-D macro finally broke and it was a $200+ repair.</p>

<p>The plastic mount on some of the recent Nikon lenses is a very clear indication of lower construction quality (but not necessarily optical quality) as the OP found out. I would buy those only if you absolutely cannot afford something better.</p>

<p>BTW, the OP does provide a $200 to $600 price range. He can certainly afford something of higher quality.</p>

<p>So then what sturdy lens to fit a decent walk-around range in the f2.8 range for $600? The 18-70 I think is capable of surprinsingly good pictures, but even though its better made than the 18-55, its still very suseptable to damage as it has a plastic lens barrel and internal parts. It does have a metal mount, but its not a f 2.8 lens. I had to send mine in twice for warrenty repair because it spontaneously kept trying to seperate, But I still liked it...until the moment I dropped it after some beers with fellow photogs at the beach.<br>

Maybe something used? Unless you can find compromises, its difficult to get the sturdiest gear with the lowest constant apertures for cheap. Maybe the OP could look for all manual AIS lenses. Those are built like trucks and can still take great pictures.</p>

<p>Barry,</p>

<p>Are the other lenses in that price range really any better built than the 18-70? I don't think most amateur photographers, even "serious" ones, are really that well served by a set of AIS primes on a camera that won't even meter with them. Especially those who are photographing "whatever comes along".</p>

<p>There are various 3rd-party constant f2.8 zooms that fit the OP's price range, e.g.:</p>

<ul>

<li>Tokina: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/498658-REG/Tokina_ATX165PRODXN_16_50mm_f_2_8_AT_X_165.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/498658-REG/Tokina_ATX165PRODXN_16_50mm_f_2_8_AT_X_165.html</a></li>

<li>Sigma: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/689623-REG/Sigma_583306_17_50mm_F2_8_EX_DC.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/689623-REG/Sigma_583306_17_50mm_F2_8_EX_DC.html</a></li>

</ul>

<p>And of course it'll be even cheaper if you buy used. But I have no experience with those lenses so that someone who is more familiar with them should provide the specific recommendations.</p>

<p>The OP has a D80. Any no-CPU AI-S lenses will have no metering with the D80.</p>

<p>Sorry, i didn't realize that ais lenses won't meter on the D80 like they will on the D200, 300, 700 etc. my bad. I'm just responding to people saying he needs a better built lens. I'm not sure any of the really well built lenses of today that will work for that camera will be less than $600. So, if you just want to get a good walk around lens with a metal mount, the 18-70 is a good choice. You could probably get one and lets say the last before present version or possibly even the latest version of the 50 1.4 (which is pretty solid) for under 600 bucks. Don't know anything about the other lenses quoted, including the 3rd party 2.8 17-50 zoom. </p>

<p>Still not sure what im heading towards, Maby the 18-70. Is Vr or OS really the helpful at this focal length??</p>

<p>at wider end, I don't think VR is really helpful, I suppose in lower light especially at the longer end it could extend the usefulness of the lens to a little slower speed though it doesn't help if you are trying to capture non-blurred motion.</p>

<p>VR can't hurt, at any focal length. It can be useful in low light for still subjects, even at wide angles. I have a sigma 18-50 f2.8 and it is an ok lens. Not super duper sharp at any focal length but very affordable. I got it used on ebay for $300. There is a newer version (17-50) that has VR (os in Sigma-speak) that may be even better. I think a fixed 2.8 is the way to go, for me at least.</p>

<p>VR is very useful at wide lengths imho indeed.</p>

<p>How about a used 16-85mm VR?</p>