2nd zoom lens for D90

[fabian_anthonioz]

<p>Hi,<br>

i like to carry two zoom lens to cover from ultra-wide to telephoto and i also take with me a sigma 30 f1.4 for low light and portrait shoots. The ultra wide zoom is covered by a sigma 10-20 that i like and use a lot and i would like to replace my older nikkor 18-135 as wide to telephoto zoom. I've seen a second-hand nikkor 24-85 2.8-4 for 290$ and also a nikkor 18-200 vr for about 550$, the 24-85 seems well built and good quality lens, but the 85mm is not a very long focal length... the 18-200 offers a great range but i find it expensive for what it is (costs more than my sigma 10-20 which is my main lens). I'm not considering having a two lens combo as for example 24-85 + 80-200 or so because i don't want to carry more than three lenses with me all the time.<br>

maybe someone here can tell me about those lens or even propose me a better choice. thank you<br>

Fabian</p>

[bruce_margolis]

<p>Fabian, I can tell you about the 24-85 and 18-200 because I have both of them. I really like the 24-85. It is fairly lightweight (about half that of the new 24-70) but doesn't have a cheesy build. And the 1:2 macro at the long end is pretty decent.</p>

<p>But like all lenses, it has its downsides. It is variable aperture so you lose a full stop between 24mm and about 70mm or so. Also, it is not AF-S so the focusing can hunt if you are working with less than good light. Most important to me, it is not a pleasing focal length on a DX body. I prefer a wider zoom, around 16-18mm or so for a crop body so my lens only gets used when I chase around my dog for photos outside. That said, $290 is an excellent price if it's in good condition. It sells new for more than twice that.</p>

<p>The 18-200 is a good daytime lens, certainly not as sharp overall as the 24-85 but the extra reach on both ends meaning having to change lenses far less often. As for it being expensive, remember that your 10-20 covers a comparatively narrow focal range. IMHO, the 18-200 is not an expensive lens when you figure it has VR and covers an area at least what a couple others lens would require.</p>

<p>However, the 18-200 also has downsides. The most annoying to me is zoom creep where the lens drifts open all the way to 200mm. While it does have more reach and VR is fantastic, it also is a full stop slower than the other lens at its long end. Moreover, it performs best in the f/8-11 range, meaning slower shutter speeds.</p>

<p>It really comes down to the better optics and faster aperture of the 24-85 vs the far superior range of the 18-200. Another option, pick up a longer prime in the 150-200mm range to go with the 24-85 if you can live with the gap.</p>

 

[rarmstrong]

<p>Fabian, I have the same two Sigma lenses and I like them both for the reasons you mentioned. I also have the Nikkor 18-200 VR which really lives on my D300 most of the time. Mine doesn't have the zoom creep problem that Bruce mentioned. It is great for versatility and range. It can produce some very sharp results, especially between f8 and f11, but it's no slouch at the low end. It has some significant barrel distortion at the wide end and gets a tad soft above 150, but not soft enough to be unusable. For my use it has been great and I'd recommend it for a standard walk-around lens.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>Have you considered the 55-200mm Nikkor or one of the third party 50-150 f2.8 type zooms? IMHO that range would fit better with your other lenses. I use an older 75-150 series E Nikkor or two primes 105 and 180 in that range</p>

[travishoover]

<p>I would vote for the Sigma 50-150 f2.8. It has HSM and fast focus, and is very sharp. very good at 150mm. nice and compact, not very heavy, and does not extend while zooming or focusing. i have it, and really like it. i also have the 10-20 and the 30, i think the 50-150 complements them well.</p>

[jeffrey_lebowski]

<p>Hi Fabian,<br>

my best suggestion is Nikon's 70-300VR. It's a very nice lens, not too big or heavy. And it's VR is amazing, allowing you to hand-hold at 1/30 at 300mm and to look through the viewfinder without seeing the image "bounce around", typical of long non-stabilized teles.<br>

I had a tokina 50-135 2.8, and traded it back for the 70-300. Wonderful for portraits, but not an inch as flexible as the nikon zoom; you'll always need high shutter times, and then 135 or 150 of the very nice sigma 50-150 is quite short. My other lens was the kit 18-105vr, and between 105 and 135/150 there's almost no difference.<br>

Good luck!<br>

Lory</p>

[fabian_anthonioz]

<p>Thank you all for your advice. I would like to ask Bruce which one of the two nikkors do you use more often. I also would like to know if the better optics of the 24-85 comes close to a 2.8 nikkor prime or not.<br>

Someone also said something about two 105 and 180 nikkor primes, i just saw the nikkor 180 2.8 D for 400$ in very good state, maybe this would be a good option, but i'm not sure if a 180mm prime on a dx body is a useful focal length, it's not so much about the money but about the convenience what i'm concerned of, i don't want to carry a 600 or 800g lens all the time in addition to the 10-20mm and the 30mm to make a couple of shots every two months<br>

i've considered the sigma 50-150 2.8, it's a very good quality thing, i also like the bokeh and fast focusing and i find it not so expensive, but the focal range is a bit short on both ends... however i'm going to try it on the d90 next time i'll pass by the store<br>

definitively i'm going to pass on the 70-300 vr, it's surely good but i find it way too big. I understand that people here find it not so big in comparison to the 2.8-aperture telephoto giants from nikon, bur it's way too big to carry as third or fourth lens of choice<br>

the 18-200 vr surely stays on my short list, the 10-20 + 18-200 zoom lens combo seems the better choice to me right now.</p>

<p>thank you again and any other input will be much appreciated</p>

[martin_aspeli]

<p>My choice would be the 18-200.<br>

I have a similar setup, with a Tokina 12-24 for wide angle, the Sigma 30 f/1.4 for low-light, and two other zooms: a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and the Nikon 18-200. The Tamron produces maybe slightly better images, and is useful because of the 2.8 aperture. However, I'm very happy with the Nikon as a "long reach" lens. The picture quality is great, unless you happen to be shooting mainly lens test charts from afar. It's light and versatile and works well hand-held. Also, I don't think you'd find 85mm long enough for outdoor telephoto use.<br>

Martin</p>