Wide lens decision

[ccfutbol]

Back when I got "serious" about photography, I went to Nikon and the high

quality, fixed focus route, just to begin with. Started with a 24, 50 and 105

macro. All 52mm filters, so I had one size of filters. I added a 35, also

52mm filter. Then I added 70-300 and 28-105 zooms, both with 62mm filters, and

a 300 f4, my closest thing to a big sports or wildlife lens. The 28-105, 24,

105 and 70-300, sometimes with a diopter, got the heaviest usage. All fit

nicely into a bag. The 28-105 died a while back and the 50 just died, both

accidental deaths as a result of my clumsiness. The 35 is in the shop to get

oil removed. I have to say that the 28-105 was the best all-around lens I've

used. Great for travel and hikes. Reasonable speed and macro if need be.

Using mostly Velvia and Reala film, I was very please with the color and

sharpness of my photography.

 

Now I've started into the digital slr world and I don't have anything that is

particularly wide. My 24mm is a 36mm. On top of that, I do worry more about

dust, what will all the changing of the fixed lenses.

 

I like light, small relatively affordable lenses. I also prefer not having too

many filter sizes. I was thinking of getting the 18-55 lens because it has a

52mm filter size. I miss the 28mm and 24mm perspectives. I use both a great

deal in landscape shooting, and the 28 is great for travel and people in the

environment. Has anyone got some shots taken with the 18-55 that show it to be

a good performer for landscapes (?), ... say stopped down between f8-f16. If I

were to take it to a party and shoot it at 5.6, would I be disappointed? I'm

thinking not, as I usually figure on shooting higher iso, knowing that I'm just

printing 4 by 6, or sending pics in an email attachment. Could I expect

similar results as I had with the 28-105? I've read some reviews on the 18-55

and it's a mixed bag, some like it, ... some don't. It close focuses, which is

nice. If I stop the lens down and put it on a tripod, will it give me results

that I have come to expect from my 24mm and ex 28-105?

 

I'm also wondering if I should wait and see if Nikon will produce a dx lens in

the full frame range of say 24mm - 85mm or a bit longer, ... something with a

4.5 max aperture and some macro ability. I'm planning to replace my recently

broken 50, and I wonder about waiting on such a zoom, ... or just going for the

DX18-55. Having a 28-105 type zoom would mean less worries about dust

accumulation -- less lens changes.

 

Anyone been where I am and got some advice? Also, ... I really would like to

see shots taken with the 18-55, ... something other than targets, ... real

world shots showing off the versatility and performance of the zoom. Thx in

advance. CC

[elliot1]

Your best bet is to try the lens out for yourself. If you buy from a store that accepts returns, you can always return it if you don't like it. I believe it will exceed your expectations.

 

I have it and find it produces exceptionally good results in good light or with flash. Low light performance is typical of any 4-5.6 lens.

 

These are some test shots I recently posted. The images on the left were shot with the d40 and the 18-55. The center images were shot with a d80 and the 18-55. The images on the right were shot with a d200 and the 17-55. All images are unaltered (except the 6mp d40 image was resized). Wide open without post processing, the 18-55 images were superior to the 17-55, a lens costing over 10 times more.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=738013

 

I have yet to read a complaint from someone that owns and uses the lens.

 

Hope this helps. Again, I suggest you try the lens out for yourself.

[ccfutbol]

From what I can tell, Elliot, I don't see anything in your shots to put me off the 18-55. I appreciate your response. On your shots, it looks like the exposure or color rendering is set up, ... or perhaps just coming off, differently. The d80 shots with 18-55 are coming out more saturated with slightly higher contrast, (perhaps a little under?), qualities that I tend to like. I use a polarizer a fair amount in my landscape and nature shots. Have you tried a polarizer on the lens? Will the "regular" polarizers I have work, or do I have to purchase a thin version? I usually order from B&H and Adorama to save a few dollars, so returning the lens is a bit of a hassle. I'll check and see what Wolf/Ritz is asking for the lens here in Dallas.

 

Still looking for more shots (smile), ... folks that have a folder or two of images they are very proud of that were rendered with the 18-55 lens. CC

[ntv666]

I think 17-55 with D200 has given a better result than 18-55 with D40 or D80. D40 not sharp and little over exp and D80 little under exposure more saturated color may be 1/2 stop closed. May be some one may evaluate this shots better than me.?

[jim p]

I think it also depends on what you want to shoot. I shoot a fair amout of street stuff,

mostly with a nikkor 18-200mm 3.5-5.6 VR DX AF-S ED and found most of my shots were

at the extremes of the focal length I had available. That said I wanted something a little

wider for landscapes as well as tight urban shots, so I recently acquired a nikkor AF-S

12-24mm f/4 G IF-ED DX. It's getting most of what I wanted, but I'm still getting to know

it. Here's a shot, http://www.photo.net/photo/6151657 , shot at

sunrise with a polarizing filter. It's not particularly good for architectural exteriors because

the distoration, although fixable in ps, is a bit extreme for building, but I don't have any

complaints on the landscape side.

 

jim

[heartyfisher]

Hi CC,

 

The 18-70 would give you just about exactly what you had with the 28-105. Its real sharp as well. I have it and the 18-200vr as well and it is definitely sharper than the 18-200vr. It would work real well with your 70-300 too!

 

Another option if you like the 24mm FOV is to consider the 16-50 F2.8 Tokina. that would make it the equivalent of a 24-75mm F2.8. I don't know much about the lens though.. but the specs looks interesting. someone may be able to comment on it.

 

TW

[eivind_larsen]

Hi CC,

 

If you miss 24mm and 28mm for landscapes, the 18-55 or 17-55 may not give you the full width you are looking for. Have you considered the 12-24mm? It gives you 18-36mm equivalent (35mm). There are also 3 similar lenses produced by Tokina, Sigma and Tamron if your budget does not allow the Nikon. Plenty of tests available on the internet.

These are with Tokina 12-24mm f4.0

http://www.photo.net/photo/6061001

http://www.photo.net/photo/6060996

I use a regular polarizer, though not at the widest focal length - the polarizing effect tends to be uneven across the wide area covered.

[ccfutbol]

Thank you for your responses TW and Jim. I'd really like to have the 12-24 but I can't afford that and it doesn't fit in with the filter sizes I have. Something like that will probably be in my bag two years from now. I haven't seen it but I'm guessing that is'fairly hefty. TW, I am looking at the third party options, but deep inside, it's hard to do that as I got into the Nikon line because of the lens quality. From what I can tell, it looks like cheap can be good these days and simpler zoom designs, are still likely to outperform larger ranges. The 18-70 is like my old 28-105, without the macro performance. The 18-55 doesn't have the range and speed of my old zoom, but it does focus closely and it appears to be sharp when stopped down, where I will most use it. It also uses the 52mm filters I already have. Losing the range between 55 and 70 might bother me, but probably not often at all. The slow 5.5 aperture might be an annoyance but it's not a show stopper as I do have fast primes. Everything I have is relatively small and lightweight and so far I'm not hurting for options that provide good performance. The 18-55 returns me to the wide world, somewhat. I'm not sure that I'm seeing exactly the zoom lens I would like at this point, so it's probably best to go cheap and see if something really hits my fancy later. The 24-120 VR in full frame was always interesting to me, but I was afraid that I might be tempted to shoot at the 120 length where the zoom wasn't sharp. The 28-105 did a lot of things right. Perhaps the 18-70 is due for some upgrading. Maybe not. Consumers seem to be telling Nikon to go longer on their zoom ranges (18-135, replacing 18-70 as kit lens, and that 18-200 do everything lens). An 18-135 with VR would be interesting to me in the same way as the 24-120 was, and I might buy such a lens in the future. By then, I should be ready to buy a different size polarizer. The 18-55 seems to be the most practical thing to do while I wait. I do wish I could see more shots taken with it, though. I have seen folders with great shots here taken by the 18-70 (one of the photographer's in today's best pictures listing), but I'm not finding many with the 18-55. Thx. CC

[heartyfisher]

I have had a play with the 18-55. My brother-in-law has one. I have the 18-70 and the 18-200vr and the 12-24 nikkors. I like the 18-70 over the 18-55.. I find it a bit plasticky. Image quality wise within the same ranges of 18-55 I think they are much the same. somehow I like the images from the 18-70 better .. cant put a finger on it.. IQ wise they are both better than the 18-200VR within the 18-55 range. However, I have the 18-200 VR on my camera almost all the time... I still keep my 18-70 because its sharper.. and can be used with my 12mm extension tubes for some nice macro shots.