Versatile Lens for D5200

Trying to decide on a lens to purchase for a D5200. Was thinking of the 24-120mm f4 lens but that was just recently not favored in a

separate thread. Also thinking of possibly the Sigma 17-70mm. I currently have the 17-50 and have been very happy with it and thought

the extra range might be nice.

 

This camera and lens will be used by my teenager. She does a good deal of her school yearbook shots. Often she prefers to stand back

and get shots of the natural action happening around her, hence a little range would be nice. Often times when she is borrowing she goes

for the 85mm and that is used on a crop sensor.

 

Would also like the lens to be a little durable. Think, on and off buses, field trips, dances, etc.

<blockquote>

<p>Was thinking of the 24-120mm f4 lens but that was just recently not favored in a separate thread.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are you referring to this thread? http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00csVf<br>

That is referring to the 24-120mm/f3.5-5.6 AF-D lens, which is completely different from the constant f4, AF-S with VR version.</p>

<p>Nikon has made three different 24-120mm zoom lenses. The first two are f3.5-5.6 vari aperture ones. The current f4 AF-S VR is much better but is also a lot more expensive.</p>

Yes Shun, that is the thread I was referring. I misunderstood when people were referring to multiple lenses. It does seem

that they are all referring the variable aperture lens. Thanks for pointing that out Shun!

<p>I don't know whether it's much of a bargain bought alone, but my wife got the 18-140 zoom as a kit lens with here D7100. It's a good bit nicer than the 18-55 kit lens, still mostly plastic, but with a non-rotating front element and a metal mount with a dust seal. It's VRII as well. I tried it briefly with my D3200 and it seems good and sharp, with no surprises, and the range is quite handy. B&H has this one for about 500 bucks, not exactly cheap, but it could be worse, I guess.</p>

<p>Remember that a D5200 has no in camera motor, so if auto focus is required, D lenses and the like are out. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>but that was just recently not favored in a separate thread.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Even if it were the same lens, treat every opinion with some skepticism (except, of course, for this one). ;)<br>

Also remember that the happy ones tend to post less than the ones with a gripe. All the same, Google for the lens for reviews and such, and look particularly at <a href="http://www.photozone.de/">Photozone.de</a>, a reliable reviewer of lenses and cameras.</p>

<p>The newer 24-120mm VR is pretty good, but not very wide on a D5300. A Nikon 16-85mm VR might be considered. Plenty of them on ebay.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>For sure your daughter will enjoy a tele setting in a lens. My kids love the magnification power of superzooms, while they don`t care about image quality and sharpness. For sure they prefer a 18-200 type lens over any other option. Weight&size will be the problem.<br /> In the other side, what Kent says; the 16-85 has a good reputation (image and construction quality), and the range is close to the 24-120 on FX. Reasonable size&weight with a "realistic" useful range.</p>

<p>There are also people stating the current 24-120VR is not good, but in reality, those who use tend to like it. It is a solid performer - on FX. For DX, as Kent stated, isn't very wide, and hence not as versatile as you'd want (and it's far from cheap). Plus, it is a rather large and heavy lens, and odds are it doesn't balance all too great on the D5300.<br>

The 16-85VR mentioned above is a very good lens, though a bit pricey. Mine was a pretty impeccable performer, though. The extra bit of wide angle can be very welcome (16 versus 18mm makes a lot more difference than you might expect). Another alternative that scores extremely well in tests is the 18-140VR - more reach at the long end instead of wide angle. It isn't exactly cheap either. If the budget is tight, the 18-105VR makes a very nice option - but its construction isn't as durable (which explains the much lower price). The 18-140VR is a very recent lens, so you'll probably only find it new. The 16-85VR and 18-105VR can both be found second hand quite easily.</p>

<p>The thread referred to was <em><strong>specifically</strong></em> about that lens on FX...where it's major shortcomings are the quality of the frame edges...ie they're pretty poor. However, on DX the lens is another kettle of fish. The worst bits are now outside the captured area, resulting in good quality images across the entire frame, especially on stopping down a bit to 5.6.</p>

<p>As Kent and others pointed out, the wide end of 24mm translates to ~35mm on DX. If medium to large group shots are intended, space to move back may be a problem.</p>

<p>The 18-140mm is a very nice lens. It's only down side is it's a bit slow, aperture wise, and any degree of background blurring for subject isolation is going to be tricky. That being said, if she still has access to your 85mm, it's ideal for that very purpose. It maybe a little long for whole body portraits, so maybe a 50mm 1.8G would help on those occasions. Very inexpensive and very good IQ.</p>

<p>I also suggest an 18-200. Just perfect for that kind of body and that kind of shooting.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I also suggest an 18-200</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>It's just absolutely horrid at the edges after about 50mm. I've seem sharper marshmallow! I kept one for precisely 2 days. Now I may have got a bit of a lemon, but most review sites don't like it much either.</p>

<p>Maybe there's a lot of sample variation in this complex superzoom?.. some shooters seem to have got something fully usable.</p>

I hadn't looked at the 18-200 and didn't even realize there was an 18-140, I'll check them both out!

 

She will not have access to my 85mm or the 80-200mm since they are both D lenses. That is the battle on choosing,

either bump the camera body up to allow her to use our current lenses or get her the d5200 and a decent lens or 2.

 

Most of the large goup shots are planned in advance and she has done ok with the 17-50. The school camera lab has a

50mm and I think a 35m that she can sign out and use on school property. Nothing wide though that I'm aware of.

I have an 18-140 that came with one of my D7100s and it's been a good lens. I use it sometimes at ISO 3200 indoors for

different shots and it holds up well.

<p>I can't imagine why an 18-200 is justified on a current 24MP body, except possibly because it lets in slightly more light in total over the image area at 200mm than you'd get by using an 18-140 and cropping the result. The 18-200 is a perfectly good idea on a 6MP body, and vaguely sensible at 12MP, but I've heard nobody claim it's sharp at 200mm by 24MP standards. For similar reasons, I stand by a 28-200 on a D700 but not on a D800, and I'd be quite nervous about the 28-300 on a D800 as well. "Versatile" does not necessarily mean "good". Given the choice, I'd always go for the 18-55/55-200 pairing if I wanted a budget way to get from 18-200mm.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>She will not have access to my 85mm.......since they are both D lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ah OK, I wrongly assumed it was the more recent 85mm 1.8 G. The line that read..</p>

<blockquote>

<p>....she goes for the 85mm and that is used on a <strong>crop sensor</strong>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>was referring to her D5200.....thus it would need to be the AF-S variant. So what's the other (your!) DX body?<br /> <br /> I've got the Sigma 17-70mm OS and use it as my walkaround lens. It's only weakness for me is the extreme frame corner/edges are a bit soft when used wide open @ 17mm. As my D5300 doesn't have AF Fine tune, I use the Sigma USB dock and software to dial in a bit of adjustment at the long end.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I can't imagine why an 18-200 is justified on a current 24MP body, except possibly because it lets in slightly more light in total over the image area at 200mm than you'd get by using an 18-140 and cropping the result.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Andrew, not everyone has the same pixel peeping priorities. 24mp is now standard on all Nikon DX DSLRs, so the OPs daughter may not need or use the extra resolution. I am sure you are right about the 18-200 weaknesses, but that doesn't make it a bad lens. The lens has not gotten worse, just because we have higher MP bodies.</p>

<p>See this thread, where experienced photographer John Miller describes why the 18-200 is useful to him: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00cjtH</p>

<p>If the OP's daughter is looking for top optical quality, I agree the 18-200 is a bad choice, but the range is excellent and she apparently likes extra reach.</p>

<p> </p>

Yes, currently when she needs a camera she borrows my d300. The school lab has, I believe a nikon d70/80 for students

to borrow but she prefers the d300. One of the nice options of the d5200 is the wifi that will allow her to directly upload

images to school pages. Yearbook pictures an such will obviously go through post processing before going to print.

 

Is the 55-200 an option? Has anyone used the combo successfully? I tried the 55-200 on my d300 and the results were

not very good. Also an option might be the sigma 24-105?

<blockquote>

<p> the 18-140VR - more reach at the long end instead of wide angle. It <em><strong>isn't exactly cheap</strong></em> either</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Just had a look around and NEW white-box (ex kit) 18-140mms are going for ~£200 ($330) here in the UK....although Amazon UK seems out of whack @ £425. That's a lot of lens for the money. I feel tempted....:-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>One of the nice options of the d5200 is the wifi that will allow her to directly upload images to school pages.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I thought that built in wifi was only on the d5300, not the d5200. <br>

Steve</p>

<p>Well spotted Stephen S! Correct!</p>

<p>You could buy the Wu-1a for the D5200, but I'd get the D5300. There are some very good value Nikon refurbs around. I love mine. AF in Live View is greatly improved. GPS might be handy. 60P HD video is fun too. Good for slo-mo footage.</p>

A wifi adapter is available for the 5200.

<p>Jennifer,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Also an option might be the sigma 24-105?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Same problem as the Nikon 24-120 - no real wide angle. There is little point in using FX standard zooms on DX format - they've got more awkward ranges typically, and the DX zooms are a lot cheaper. You're really better of with a 17/18-something zoom.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There is little point in using FX standard zooms on DX format</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Very True. About the only good reason is a foreseeable shift to FX in the near(ish) future, say maybe 3 years.</p>

<p>Chip - I'm being a little unfair, since I don't own this lens (or a crop body). But in the thread you refer to, John - who by his tumbler page has mostly been shooting a full-frame 16MP Canon body with a 28-200mm lens - is <em>considering</em> getting an 18-200mm lens for a 12MP DX Nikon. The feedback on that thread was universally against the 18-200mm choice, and that's for a 12MP body. I have, and heavily used, a 28-200mm lens on a 12MP D700, but it just doesn't hold up on a D800; similarly, I've nothing against the 18-200mm if you want to use it on a 6MP D40 (as a friend of mine did).</p>

<p>On a 24MP body, the 18-200 simply doesn't get near to the resolving power of the body. Taking a 1.4x crop from a decent 140mm lens - and I'm not claiming either the 55-200 or 18-140 is brilliant at 140mm (there's a comparison <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-18-140mm-F35-56G-ED-VR-on-Nikon-D5200-versus-Nikkor-AF-S-DX-VR-55-200-on-Nikon-D5200-versus-AF-S-DX-VR-Zoom-nikkor-18-200-f-3.5-5.6G-IF-ED-on-Nikon-D5200___1208_850_235_850_206_850">here</a> - that's the old 18-200, but I believe the optics are unchanged) - would get you the equivalent of a one-stop-slower 200mm, but with more cost, size and weight. If you need the extra speed either for (limited) DoF control or low light, an 18-200 might be worth it - though it's hardly an obvious choice for either DoF control or low light. For a sharp image, given the pixel density of a 24MP sensor, I really doubt it's a useful trade off. I think it's a lens whose time has passed. But YMMV.</p>

 

<p>I think what we have here is a perfect example of the complete lack of fast Nikon glass for DX. Even a constant f4 zoom would help.</p>

<p>That's why FX lenses are being suggested on DX bodies. There's no Nikon alternative.</p>

<p>If Sigma can make a very high IQ <em><strong>&</strong></em> affordable DX 18-35mm f1.8, why can't Nikon make a DX 16-80mm f2.8? </p>

<p>Maybe the very sharp and fast Sigma 50-150mm 2.8 OS gives the reach with the 17-50mm 2.8 OS* covering the wide?</p>

<p>Nikon where are you?</p>

<p>______________</p>

<p>*or indeed the 17-70mm 2.8/4 OS</p>