Which Nikon Lens?

<p>I am wanting to purchase a new Nikon wide angle zoom lens for my new D7000. I have narrowed my choices to<br>

1) Nikkor 17-85 f/3.5<br>

2) Nikkor 18- 200 f/3.5<br>

Normally I shoot wildlife / nature with my 70 - 300mm, but have an indoor event coming up this weekend where i will need a wide angle zoom. Are there any opinions from other Nikon users who have used these lenses? I already have a 50mm 1.4 and a 12 - 24mm f/4 .</p>

 

<p>#1 is actual 16-85, and the difference may be important to your decision.</p>

<p>The 18-200 offers you more range at the wider end, but the longer end duplicates what you already have in your 70-300. Unless your indoor event is a sports event (basketball, soccer, etc), the 200 end of the range probably won't get much use.</p>

<p>However, the difference in field of view between 16mm and 18mm on a DX camera is significant and IMHO the 16mm capability would be more useful for indoor work than having 200 available at the long end.</p>

<p>Whether the 16-85's VR feature is important to you is a personal decision - if you already hand-hold lenses in that focal length range, VR won't mean a lot. I find it indispensable because of my arthritis, but YMMV.</p>

 

<p><strong>Bob</strong>...thanks for your feedback. Please excuse my typo on #1...I meant 16-85 as you have pointed out. Right now I am leaning toward the 16 - 85 for the reasons you so kindly mentioned. I think the extra 2mm on wide end would be useful and I doubt I would use the 200mm on the long end of the other lens.</p>

The consumer grade zooms are all unspectacular in low light, so if that's the situation, have you considered 3rd party

f/2.8 zoom (assuming you don't want to pay for a Nikon 2.8 zoom) or prime lenses?

<p>Another thing to consider is how much light you will have indoors. If the light is low, you should think about an f/2.8 lens like the Tamron 17-50 VC or such, which are in the price range of the 16-85 and 18-200. Nikon has the 17-55, but it's much more expensive.</p>

<p><strong>Andy</strong>...have not looked at 3rd party lens yet. Maybe I should. This event is definitely a low light situation. I know the Nikon f/2.8 is out of my budget.</p>

<p>Bill:</p>

 

<ol>

<li>I have the 16-85 and it is a fantastic lens for the price. It is very close to my 17-55 f/2.8 in image quality. The only place where it falls behind is in speed. The clarity and contrast are superb. I don't think you will regret buying this lens.</li>

</ol>

<p>the 16-85 is only 3.5 from 16-24 or so. it would be a better overall choice than an 18-200 for a d7000, but not so good for shooting w/out flash in dim light. the tamron 17-50/2.8 or sigma 17-50/2.8 OS would be better for this situation.</p>

<p>Bill:</p>

 

<ol>

<li>I have the 16-85 and it is a fantastic lens for the price. It is very close to my 17-55 f/2.8 in image quality. The only place where it falls behind is in speed. The clarity and contrast are superb. I don't think you will regret buying this lens.</li>

</ol>

<p>I don't know why your current lenses won't do the trick but if you can use less range then the best bang for your buck would be a used Nikon 18-35mm f3.5-4.5 D ED. </p>

<p>If you're going to take pictures indoor, then as already suggested, the Tamron 17-50/f2.8 is an excellent choice. I do own one, without the VC, and it works magically with my D7000. </p>

<p>I owned the 18-200 and loved it. The 16-85 wasn't available yet.</p>

<p>Today, for a trip like the one I bought that lens for, I'd buy the 16-85 and I'd NEVER look back, especially if I already had a 70-300.</p>

<p>That said, the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is a VERY good alternative if you need more speed indoors...</p>

<p>Will add that I have the Tamron 17-50 (non VC) as well, it's a very nice lens and 2.8 throughout the range.</p>

A slow zoom like a 16-85 or 18-200 is not a good choice for low light. Yes, you can use a flash, but that still limits

your options, and the camera's autofocus speed and accuracy will be significantly reduced.

 

My most used indoor / low light lens on my D90 is actually the 35mm f/1.8, and I'd recommend it to almost anybody

based on the excellent usefulness-to-price ratio. My next choice would be an f/2.8 zoom. A 16-85 or 18-200 would be

my last choice of a lens to buy in your situation, because it's not good for low light use, and of the consumer zooms

that are not good for low light use they are the most expensive so you lose the most money learning that lesson. Since

the 35/1.8 seems to be in high demand and low supply, so it's hard to find and prices have gone up, I'd look at a

Tamron 17-50, with or without VC (which is Tamronese for VR). If the requirements are good for shooting people in

low light and around $600, that's probably the best option.

<p>I also recommend the 16-85mm for the reasons already mentioned. In low light situations, I use my Nikon my 20mm f 2.8 AF prime or my 35mm f 1.8 DX prime. If you cannot afford one of those expensive f 2.8 zooms, get a good quality zoom taht is not a f 2.8 and a prime that is f 2.8.</p>

<p>Joe Smith</p>

<p>Thanks for everyone's help. I ended up getting the <strong>Tamron 17-55 f/2.8</strong> with vibration reduction. The f/2.8 was the deciding factor. </p>

<p>Just in case you're still leaving the 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 in the consideration, from the first reply:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Whether the 16-85's VR feature is important to you is a personal decision</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Both the 16-85 and 18-200 have VR, so it's of no importance to choose between those 2 lenses.</p>

<p>The difference between 16 and 18 mm is very considerable, and to me makes the 16-85 a very good all-round landscape lens and travel companion, I think. But for indoor people work, personally, I shy away from wide angles and the 16-85 is too slow if you are not using flash. As said, the f/2.8 lenses or a fast 35mm prime make more sense. For an occassional party, the 16-85 with a SB600 or similar works excellent, in my view.</p>