Which lens option is best this time?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by mark_white|7, Dec 7, 2009.

  1. Hi all. Im new here, but not new to photography. I have a Nikon D90, Nikon N65, Nikon 50mm F/1.8D, Nikon 28-80mm F/3.3-5.6G, Nikon 70-300 F/4-5.6G, Canon EOS Rebel 2000, Canon 28-90mm lens. Right now, I am looking for something that will get me a little more towards the wide angle field as my current lens only goes to 28mm. I dont have enough saved up for a true wide angle , so something that gets me back to 18mm will do for the time being. I am currently saving for a macro lens, so I dont have too much to spend. My budget is about $225. I know that doesnt seem like much to buy a decent lens, and it isnt. But, I have done some research and I think that I have found a few options for myself within my range. Here are the lenses that I was considering. If you can contest to which would be the best in general in terms of overall opical quality and versitility (I know, hard to have both.), I would apprecaite it. If you have anything else that would work, Id love to hear it:
    Nikon 18-55mm EDII (and possibly Nikon 55-200 (non-VR version))
    Nikon 18-55mm VR
    Nikon 18-70mm DX ED
    Tamron 18-200mm
    Sigma 18-50mm (non 2.8 version)
    Thanks everyone for your help.
    Mark
     
  2. I don't have any of these lenses so I can only offer you a guess or impression. In the local used market, these Nikon 18-xx kit lenses can be found weekly for about $200 so I would just go with Nikon. As a general rule of thumb, a 3x zoom is more likely to give you good results within its entire range and as the range expands, some compromises in IQ or the size of the lens may become an issue. You should just pick based on how much you need at the long end. I would go with the VR version since these lenses are all too slow to begin with and you will need all the help you can get for low light shots. VR also helps with video on your D90. It seems that it does not matter which Nikon you get, it will overlap considerably with your 28-80mm. I don't think 28-80 is better than the 18-55 VR so you may sell it to help buying a new lens. Your 70-300 covers the 80mm range. Nikon has come out with a new macro lens, the 85/3.5 VR, which again will cover the 80 mm or so range. It's time for the 28-80 to go, unless you want to keep it for your film camera.
     
  3. I use to have the 18-70mm DX ED (till it was stolen) & I loved it. And I think it might be in you price range.
     
  4. All of the ones listed are listed because I can buy them within my price range. I was planning on selling my 28-80 when I got my other lense(s) because of this overlap. From what I understand, the 18-55 is not a DX lens, so it should work on my film camera just fine. Ive heard that the 18-70 is a tad soft until you hit the mid-high F stops like F/8-11. My next lens will most likely be the Sigma 150 2.8 macro, then Nikon 80-200 2.8 to replace my 70-300 which I will then sell to get a true wide angle. I needed something that I could get just a little further in with. The little extra distance is a charm. I keep hearing that the 18-55 VR is a great lens and you cant get much better for the money. I just may go for that one. I would still love to hear more opinions on the subject as nothing is set in stone yet.
    Thanks.
    Mark
     
  5. "From what I understand, the 18-55 is not a DX lens, so it should work on my film camera just fine."
    You misunderstand. All versions of the Nikon 18~55mm are indeed DX, and will vignette significantly when used on a film camera.
     
  6. Oh. Thank you for informing me. Well then thats something I will have to deal with. I will use the 28-80 until it sells, then use the 50mm. Perhaps I will pick up an older lens that will work on the N65, or simply keep the 28-80. I really do love that lens.
    Thank you for telling me.
    Mark
     
  7. The 18-70 would be great!
     
  8. Mark, I still have my 18-70, when the light gets to low just use your pop-up flash.
     
  9. I purchased a 19-35mm quantaray for about $65 its an f3.5-4.5, it's a little soft, but it's AF works on film and digi (screw drive bodies). Its distortion is the only issue for me, but could be fixed in software if it really mattered to me. Most important, it'll hold me over until i have the $400-600 to buy a proper wide lens. Debating between the tokina 16-50, Tamron 17-50, and one of the many ultra wides available.
    With a budget of $225, your not going to get a great lens, so you might as well cheap out and get a workable lens, and save the rest towards the great one.
     
  10. The 18-55 VR is DX, but it seems to work fine on my F65 in the 22-55 mm range, at least in the viewfinder (I haven't seen prints yet).
     
  11. Mark, I usually don't jump into the "what should I buy" threads, but I would save your money and buy a 50mm f/1.8. Use it. Understand how good Nikon lenses can be. Then judge all other lenses you buy from then out on this $120 lens.
     
  12. I have a 50mm F/1.8 from Nikon. Ive had it and used it for just over 2 years now. I can appreciate a good lens, I just dont have experience with these ones and I cant seem to find agreeable reviews on them. Thank you, though.
    Mark
     
  13. I am very fond of my 18-70, which is my walk-around lens. Sharpnesswise, however, it can not be compared to the 50 1.8
     
  14. The 18-70 is the best lens in your shortlist. But you may want to consider the 18-105VR (D90 kitlens) as well, it should be around your budget. It's a very nice allround lens.
    I've owned a Tamron 18-200, and while it was not a bad lens for the money, it also wasn't a very good lens for the money. Mine showed significantly more sharpness issues after upgrading from a D50 to a D80, so I think it just cannot deliver the resolution needed. Meaning on a D90 it would be even worse. Tempting as the superzooms may be, I would pass on that one.
     
  15. Why don't you buy a prime 20mm or so, second hand should be in your budget. You are much better of with such a lens then with those zooms that are all a compromise.
     
  16. None of the Nikkors you list will give you full focal range for film use to replace your 28-80, they are all DX. I have owned the 18-70mm Nikkor and think well of it. If your budget is tight then just get the cheapest 18-xx you can find. I also use a 20mm f2.8 Nikkor in DX and FX. I think it works very well for DX and good on FX. Not very wide for DX but I liked its FoV very much.
     
  17. Have you considered the Nikon 20mm f/2.8 ?
    It is an amazing lens, and can be had for about $200-300 used.
    The best part is that it will probably appreciate with time.
     
  18. Since you love the 28-80 and because it's a good midrange FX zoom, keep it and just bolt it on to the N65 as a second body.
    Without much money, you should never double up on focal lengths -- do that when you have more cash to get some exotic primes.
    If you have to get somewhat wide, I'd go get the 18-70. If you can though, hold off and save for a 10-24 or a 16-85. When money is an issue, it's best to buy what you really want, and buy it once, not buying lenses that will hold you over until you can get what you really want. Think of it this way: the more you spend on a lens to "tide you over" is money that could have gone toward a lens you really wanted/needed. With a D90, a killer system would be a 10-24 with your nifty 50, and your 70-300. OR, a 16-85 paired with your 70-300 with your fast 50 for lowlight.
    Good luck.
     
  19. Alright, thanks everyone whos posted so far!
    I was looking around these past few days and I found a man that was getting rid of his Sigma 10-20mm F/4-5.6. He wants $340 for it or would figure in a trade of my 70-300 and bring the price down to $215. Ive done some research and this looks like a pretty well rounded lens. I think I will go with this one, but im not quite sure if I will factor in the 70-300 or not. I dont really use it that much.
    Mark
     
  20. I have another question. Since I have been shooting a D90, a 1.5x crop DX camera, with a non-DX 28-80 lens, does that mean that I have really been shooting with a 42-120mm DX lens equivalent? I understand how the DX lenses will effect the photos on a FF/X camera, but how about the other way around? Never heard this discussed before..
    Mark
     
  21. Mark, the focal length of a DX lens is marked just the same as the focal length of an FX lens, so a DX camera will treat both FX and DX lenses the same way. For example, Nikon now offers a 35mm fixed focal length lens in both FX and DX versions. Either one will make essentially the same pictures on a DX camera. On a film camera (or FX digital without the DX-sensing auto-crop feature enabled), they'll make the same pictures except that the DX lens will not cover the corners of the frame.
     

Share This Page