replacing 18-55 kit zoom with another zoom or more primes?

[steve_king5]

<p>A month ago, I bought a D90, and picked up a couple primes (24mm 2.8 and 50mm 1.8)...I have some old MF lenses from years ago, as well.</p>

<p>I discovered, shooting during the holidays, that I really loved the 50mm, but on the 90 it's more of a short tele, of course, and it was a bit tedious changing lenses. On a whim, I picked up the 18-55 (non-vr) kit lens for $100. People rave about this lens, so why not?</p>

<p>I will say this lens focuses surprisingly quickly and it's very sharp at f8. However -- from a newspaper-on-the-wall test, I confirmed the edge softness is really bad around f3.5-4; much worse than the 24mm f2.8 prime. Quite honestly it also feels like a plastic piece-of-sh*t, in the hand, and is hard to manually focus, as well. :(</p>

<p>Since I'm going to probably use a zoom more than I thought, I'm pondering a *good* one, though anything over $800 is out of range. The 28-85 f2.8-4 is attractive, though I hate not being able to get a wider range at the low end, and it's variable aperture. I like fast lenses from 40mm ---> ?? , but at the wide end don't tend to care that much if I have to stop down to f4+....</p>

<p>The 17-55 would probably be a perfect, but I'm leery of the complete committment to DX glass. Pretty stupid coming from someone who just bought a D90, but....Also, while the internet seems full of tales of used models for $800, the one or two I've seen have been awful rough. That's a lot of money for a used lens out of warranty.</p>

<p>Aftermarket lenses? Tokina/Tamron/Sigma in 2.8? There's got to be a reason they're $300-400 and the Nikons are $1200.... Surely there's more to it than the name.</p>

<p>What about the 28-70 AF-S 2.8? Same problems with the range, but I could keep this $100 18-55 kit zoom when I wanted something in the 18-28 zone</p>

[shuo_zhao]

<p>Steve, you should list the features you want/need in a lens, specifically:<br>

- f/2.8 speed?<br>

- 28mm equivalent coverage ?<br>

- VR ?</p>

<p>You should choose between: a) versatility of a long zoom range and b) usability and performance of a bright aperture...</p>

[todd_angood]

<p>Steve,<br>

I dumped my plastic 18-55 VR zoom a month ago. Paid 165.00 for it and receieved 110.00 on a trade in for 16-85 VR zoom. Great lens with NO PLASTIC mount. So far, it is on my D300 most of the time. BUYDIG.COM has them for 569.00. Good luck!!</p>

[alvin_lim5]

<p>Actually, if the 18-55mm serves you well in real life, there is no need to change it just yet; unless of course your everyday shots includes shooting newspapers on a wall ;-)</p>

<p>The alternative lens as Todd suggested would be the 16-85mm VR, it is an f3.5-5.6 lens but is supposedly able to produce results.</p>

<p>If you really need the constant f2.8, your best bet would be the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8; just make sure you test your copy before buying.</p>

<p>But if what you want is the speed and yet it being a Nikon lens, then I think you have little choice rather than to spend on the 17-55mm. Since you have just got the D90, it may make sense to buy at least one good DX lens for your current use. Little point in constantly planning for FX when what you have now is DX; might as well enjoy your DX now to the max.</p>

<p>For primes, you may want to look into either the Nikon 35mm f2 or the 85mm f1.4/1.8.</p>

[rick_helmke1]

I can vouch for the Tamron 28-75/2.8 as an excellent lens but it isn't really wide enough for me on a DX camera. I can say the 17-55 is a superb lens in every way. If you buy used and then change to FX you should be able to get your money back. It really is exceptional. Rick H.

[Two23]

<p>There are three routes you can go. For best quality and flexibility, the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 is an obvious answer. I bought a used one from eBay and it looks like new. I'm very happy with it. Not much to go wrong with it so warranty is no big worry to me if I get a good deal. The lens doesn't have VR, and is VERY solid. I use it on a D300. Downside is this lens is heavy and pretty good sized. If you need f2.8, this is the lens.<br />Second option is to buy a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. They have very good performance, and are a favorite for those starting out as wedding photographers. They are MUCH lighter than the Nikon. These have an excellent performance/price/weight ratio. It would be a good match for a D90 in just about every way.<br />Third option is to buy the Nikon 16-85mm VR. The VR works well, the lens is sharp. If you do need f2.8, it's not an option though.<br />These are all modern lenses with coatings designed to reduce flare/CA on digital cameras, and all are reasonably well built. I see NO WAY you would be happy with a lens that goes no wider than 28mm.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Matthew Brennan]

<p>My advice is to wait for a mint copy of a 17-55mm f/2.8 they are out there and in increasing numbers in the past 6 months. This lens is the Bee Knees DX zoom, sharp across the frame and has the advantage of ED glass over the primes. Look harder................and good luck !</p>

 

[tim_knight]

<p>I switched from the Nikon 18-70 to the Tamron 17-50/2.8 and I am very happy I did. I have two grand children that are both one year old. I also have another grandchild due in June. It will be nice not having to find ways to get a picture of the mother and child in the hospital room using my 50/1.8. You will enjoy having a constant 2.8 zoom whether you purchase the Nikon or Tamron. I find the lens light but still the build good enough for my casual use. If I was a professional I wouldn't hestitate getting the Nikon 17-55/2.8.</p>

[akira]

<p>Steve,<br>

If you are leery of the complete committment to DX glass, you should stay with your non-VR 18-55 and use it until it is worn out.<br>

Shooting newspaper on the wall is not the appropriate way to evaluate this little gem. Micro-Nikkors are the lenses to be tested that way.<br>

I have owned and used the 18-55 in question, 18-70/3.5-4.5 and 17-55/2.8. The 18-55 was the sharpest of the three at the same aperture values.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> I also have one of the aforementioned tinker-toy feeling Non-VR 18-55 II's, and, as many have pointed out before, including several magazine tests, it is embarrassingly sharp at around f/8-11, as sharp or sharper than far more expensive glass, and interesting enough to use at wider apertures. At around f/4-5.6, it's far better than many old 35mm Leitz lenses which means sharp enough to make world-famous images.<br>

It's funny to read how many people think it's not good enough for a day at Disneyworld.<br>

I'm with Akira: Wear it out.</p>

<p> </p>

[bruce_margolis]

<blockquote>

<p>"What about the 28-70 AF-S 2.8?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think the 28-70 is an outstanding lens. However, it is being replaced (in a great way) with the 24-70. Basically more bang for the same dollar.</p>

<p>I used to have the 35-70. Another great lens but I just never got used to it with DX. Narrower focal length but outstanding for what it does.</p>

<p>The other lens you talked about is Nikon's 24-85mm (not 28-85). A bit weird because it is variable aperture, starts at f/2.8 and goes to f/4....... somewhere. Nevertheless, very inexpensive and Bjorn gave the lens a 4 rating. </p>

<p>Everyone is different but this is not a range that excites me in the DX format but might make sense if you are thinking your next body will be FX. I would be more inclined to go for the 16-85VR instead (yes it is slower but has VR) but YMMV of course.</p>

 

[steve_king5]

<p>Interesting comments -- many thanks. I have never owned a VR lens being so new to dSLR's...But I'm pretty critical of my own images, and hate taking a good shot, but failing to really nail the focus. My concern with VR is that -- if I need it -- the image is already in danger of being too soft...Does that make any sense? I also don't know what I'm talking 'bout. :)</p>

<p>I don't mind wearing out the 18-55. I realize we don't shoot newspapers, but, it is a slow lens, no doubt, and newspaper or Mickey Mouse it's going to be a tad soft at the edges wide open. On trips -- I do some fishing and shooting in salt-water environments -- will this lens hold up? (Actually, there's a concern here, about the D90, too). Or, on a major vacation or expensive overseas trip, is it a gamble to completely trust this lens?</p>

<p>I think right now I'm leaning towards keeping the 18-55, and using it for the wide range (from 18 --> ?) then getting either the 24-85 2.8-4, or an old 35-70 2.8. What I like about these two lenses is they offer macro, which on rare occasions I might use. I've actually had an old 35-70 (non-D) model in my film days, and liked it very much, though the DX view will be vastly different. How fast will these two lenses focus on the D90? The 24-85 is not an AF-S lens, right? The problem here, too, is I'm back to swapping lenses, when I want a wider perspective.</p>

<p>Second choice is finding a good, used 17-55 2.8, although it's truely disconcerting to hear the $100 kit lens I already have is *sharper*....Is this true? But y'all are right -- there are more out there than I thought.</p>

<p>Third choice is the Tamron, I guess -- it's cheap enough, especially used, and I do like the fact it's lighter. Much to ponder. :)</p>

[luis_g]

<p>The VR does help with low-shutter speed sharpness, but it has its limitations: It does nothing for moving subjects.</p>

<p>For repeated saltwater trips, unless you're a working pro, buy a sealed/waterproof P&S. Olympus and Pentax make them.</p>

<p> Trust any single camera/lens combo on a major trip? Not a good idea. Take a back-up, even a decent P&S will do. The 18-55 has a weight advantage on almost any other zoom, an asset on long travel days, and that leaves room to sneak something like a fast prime along.</p>

<p> As a step up, the 16-85 is still slow, but it expands the range of the 18-55, extends both the wide & tele, while gaining you VR. Probably my favorite option for an upgrade (though it won't be much of an upgrade, if any, in image quality over the 18-55).</p>

<p> The thought of a 24-anything zoom as my only lens leaves me cold on a D-SLR Nikon body. While I love the 35mm focal length, being able to get to 28mm really matters, and 24 is even better.</p>

<p>A 35-70 on a Nikon DSLR is OK for portraits, but not having the wide angle means more lens changes.</p>

<p>The Tamron 17-50 lens has a great following. Its range is less than the 16-85 Nikkor, and no VR, but it's a tad faster. All of these optics are capable of making world-class prints. It boils down to personal preference and intended use.<br>

Don't get too overly hung up on sharpness. Yes, I too, read Hansen's comparos and pore over test curves, etc., but the line of diminishing returns is passed early on with these things, and in the right hands anything (even a disposable or old Brownie) can make great photographs....and that's the issue, making those hands your own. No amount of pricey hardware or MTF curve worship will ever overcome that. The real upgrade that's needed is inside us.</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>steve, in my experience, there is no substitute for a wide 2.8 zoom. i got the tamron 28-75 and was very happy with the optical performance--it was sharper than my 18-70 nikkor--but found it was just not wide enough on DX. so i got the tamron 17-50 too, and it's easily my most-used lens, and very good at 2.8.<br />the 24-85, 28-70 and 35-70 nikkors you mention all involve compromise with a DX body. realistically, switching out to go wide will be a pain. 16-85 would give you better corner performance at wider apertures and VR, but it's not any faster than the 18-55. so 17-55 is the obvious choice if you want a speedier lens while staying loyal to nikon, although IMO it's overpriced by about $400 considering how nice the tamron is in terms of IQ. (for $1200, the 17-55 should at least have VR; you're basically paying a premium for AF-S, build quality and brand name.)<br />still, if your budget is $800, you might be able to find a good used copy. resale value will still be fairly high if and when you go FX, and IMO it makes little sense to plan for a camera you dont even own yet when you have a new one you just got.</p>

[cardens]

<p>I just got a tamron 17-50 2.8. It is very sharp and gives me a wide enough angle and a good enough zoom for most shots I take indoors. plus it is only about 400 bucks</p>