lens trade up

[kira_greene]

<p>I have a lens question...</p>

<p>I have and use and love a 50mm 1.4 prime. <br>

I have and use and love a 75-300 5.6 mm zoom.</p>

<p>I have and use and like a 18-135 3.5mm zoom.</p>

<p>I am thinking about trading in the 18-135 for the 18-200 VR. Why? Well, sometimes the 135 "locks up" on me, and I have read that if you don't have it twisted on just right this can happen. I have also been advised to send it in...I might do that. I have waited, because I sent in my D80 and it was such a hassle. They "lost" the paperwork, no one contacted me about what I wanted serviced, then they tried to charge me...it was a hassle - and they had my camera for a month.<br>

I haven't yet settled on the 18-200, mostly because I don't want to keep covering the same focal lengths. I switch lenses to get different shots, but I would like a fast(er) zoom, and I like the ability of the do it all, swiss army 18-200 lens. </p>

<p>There is no way I can get a new lens without trading in one I already own. Is there another good swiss army lens out there? The 24-120 didn't seem to get such great reviews on Pnet. I do like the idea of VR, and I often shoot in low light. </p>

<p>Advice?</p>

[bmm]

<p>If you still want a "consumer grade" aperture speed (f/3.5-5.6) but want good quality consider 16-85VR. Its meant to be excellent optically, maybe a touch better than 18-200 (which I must say I have and like so I'm not bagging it). Obviously it would complement your 75-300 very well without too much overlap in focal lengths.</p>

<p>If youhave a bit more $$ then the really good option would be 17-55 f/2.8 - its faster so better for low light plus its built pro quality. Again it would complement your 75-300 well with a small gap in focal length which is well filled by your 50/1.4 prime.</p>

<p>I'm assuming you're shooting DX by the way...</p>

[phototransformations]

<p>Try sending your lens to an Authorized Nikon Repair Center like Precision Camera in Connecticut. I had great, fast service from them with my 18-200, and terrible, slow service from Nikon -- they actually broke my D80 the second time they tried repairing it (after failing to fix it the first time), and they kept my 18-200VR for six weeks and didn't improve it.<br>

The 18-200VR is convenient but probably not as sharp as your 18-135. The VR is a definite boon, however, if you are shooting stationary subjects. If I were in your shoes (and I was, but in reverse -- I started with the 18-200VR) I'd look at something like the Tamron 28-75 or Tamron 17-55 to complement what you already have, rather than replacing what you have with the 18-200VR, unless you are not picky about sharpness or bokeh, neither of which is a strength of the 18-200VR.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I have no clue what you like to shoot, and how. That makes a HUGE difference in what I would advise.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[andylynn]

<p>I tried the 18-200 and decided not to get it because of some optical compromises - the distortion was too much for me. It does have a very convenient zoom range and good AF an VR performance. It's not "faster" than your current lens.</p>

<p>My father has the 16-85 and it's really good. The sharpness is excellent. The 17-55 is of course the highest end option in the wide-normal-slightly-tele range and the most expensive, though the 16-85 and 18-200 are pushing the envelope for pricing on consumer grade zooms.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I think the 18-200 is a marvelous lens, I love mine, and you'd probably like it a lot. But I'd get the 16-85 VR. The extra 2mm at the wide end is more useful (as crazy as this seems) than the extra on the long end. You can crop in your field of view if you shoot at 85mm and lose almost nothing in terms of pixel resolution, but you can only back up so far.</p>

<p>Also, the 16-85 handles better and reviews show it has better optical performance... and it's cheaper.</p>

[ronbudway]

<p>How often do you use the 200-300mm range? If you don't use it too much you may consider selling both your 18-135 AND your 75-300 in favor of the 18-200. I have the 18-200 and I love it, especially with a polarizing filter. Yeah, it's got some issues at certain spots, but it's so darn convenient. There are plenty of samples online showing how incredibly sharp the 16-85 is, and it does have the extra at the wide end, but do you really want to be swapping and carrying lenses? If you do often use the 200-300mm range and you don't mind swapping/carrying you should probably go for the 16-85.</p>

[glenn_c1]

<p>A few thoughts.</p>

<p>The 24-120 wouldn't make any sense for you because you don't need its FX coverage and you lose the only wider-than-24mm option you have.</p>

<p>For VR on a budget, the 18-105 VR would be an excellent choice.</p>

<p>An even better choice, at much higher cost, is the 16-85 VR as others have mentioned. It has better VR - which makes a difference - is a bit better optically, and - most important for me - it goes to a truly wide 16mm, equivalent to 24mm for film which was the standard wide angle lens for film use for decades.</p>

<p>The 18-200 VR is obviously extremely versatile and could be your best option, depending on two things: How picky are you about sharpness and distortion, and is the 18mm wide end ever a handicap for you?</p>

 

[kira_greene]

<p>Thank you to all who have replied. I appreciate it very much. I always ask on Pnet, and I have never been disappointed with the advice.</p>

<p><br /> I spend enough time in the 200-300mm range to keep my zoom.<br /> I agree, switching lenses a lot isn't always the best idea, and when I go places, I usually have an idea of what I want to shoot and have the best lens (that I own) on the camera for the job I want to do. <br /> However, I have been in a few situations where I have needed that ability to zoom out and in quickly, without changing lenses. So, I really feel like I need one swiss army lens.<br /> I do not want to sell my 75-300, while it is overkill for most things, when I need to zoom in, I love that lens. I paid $100 for it, used, and it is crisp, clean, and awesome. It is also kind of slow, but the image quality is fantastic.</p>

<p><br /> I really like the idea of the 16-85 VR, and I looked at the lens online. It looks sweet.<br /> I find myself mainly switching between my 50mm and my 75-300 mm, the 18-135 doesn't see a lot of action BUT the times I have needed it, the performance sometimes disappointed me. When I have it focused correctly, it makes brilliant images BUT sometimes it fails me.</p>

<p><br /> I think my best bet is the 16-85 VR...I do shoot in low light a lot, and good glass is important to me. I like my images to be sharp, and I am a fan of good bokeh. :) I am now drooling over that 16-85mm.</p>

<p><br /> My original intention of trading up was to replace what I have with a better version...but I have hesitated before on getting the 18-200mm. I don't feel desperate to get it...you know what I mean? How when you see a lens and HAVE to have it? I don't feel the love for the 18-200mm like that. Some people really do, and I figured it must be good. Thom likes it too. Plus, I like being able to zoom in close, but the point about cropping and not losing resolution was a good one.</p>

<p>Maybe if I was clever, I would save up for the 16-85 VR, and in the meantime send in my 18-135 for service on that 'locking up' issue...then I could have both if the stars aligned just right...<br /> Kent, you asked what I shoot. I tend towards buildings, wildlife, nature, pets, and sometimes kids. I have been asked to shoot a few events that had sports, speakers, skits, etc. and I have been asked to shoot one "sports" event that was one thing exclusively.<br>

It is those events that I would like to have a swiss army lens for - I needed to be all over the place - in terms of focal length.</p>

<p>:) Thanks again!</p>

[kira_greene]

<p>Oh, I forgot to ask this too:</p>

<p>Is there a sigma or tokina lens that is cheaper (like, $300 or under) that is sort of equal to the 18-200mm? I would not be opposed to that option. </p>

<p>Basically I want to have a bag with a few "special lenses" like my prime, my zoom, eventually a macro lens, and now the 16-85mm (to round out my special lenses focal length selections), and ONE swiss army, jack of all lengths, master of none lens. </p>

<p>I don't want a ton of gear that only a quarter of it will be used, and I have haul it everywhere. I am a one bag kind of girl. When I travel, I carry on. Even when I went abroad for 2 months. </p>

<p>But, I don't mind having that one "walkaround" swiss army lens. Even if it does repeat focal lengths. So, a third party lens might be ok, if the image quality is good. </p>

[Two23]

<p>The subjects you mentioned, kids, sports, pets, etc. are all moving subjects. In low light you need a fast lens--VR will NOT cut it. VR does NOT replace f2.8 for moving subjects. The lenses you mention are f5.6--too slow! The lens you need is the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. Trust me on this one, if you are shooting moving subjects in lower light. It's the lens of choice for many beginning wedding photographers. Now that I know what you need, I am able to recommend the perfect lens for you.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>First, I'd avoid the non-Nikon superzooms. Most of them are smaller than f5.6 at the long end, and that will make your AF hunt a lot, even sometimes in fairly decent light.</p>

<p>Also... An f2.8 standard zoom lens is nice to have, but not everybody enjoys carrying around the heavier lenses. I don't.</p>

<p>Many of the newer DSLRs do a nice job at higher ISOs. Heck even my old D50 is fine at high ISOs if you're not printing big. </p>

<p>Many of us can "get away" with the slower zooms just fine.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>"It is those events that I would like to have a swiss army lens for - I needed to be all over the place - in terms of focal length."</p>

<p> as kent said, a 5.6 or 6.3 lens trying to catch a moving object in dim light at long range is a nightmare (though if you just wanted to shoot landscapes and casual portraits, the 16-85 would be fantastic). also keep in mind that you wont see too much difference in optical quality between 18-135 and 18-200, except distortion will be worse and 18-200 overall will be less sharp/contrasty at most focal lengths. what i'm saying is that staying in the consumer-grade region might not be an improvement for what you're trying to do.</p>

<p>IMO to be all over the place with fast lenses, you have to cut the focal range in at least two, i.e. 17-xx + 50-xxx or 70-xxx. lens changing isnt too bad with two 2.8 lenses covering wide-to-telephoto, though obviously not as convenient as the Swiss Army approach.</p>

<p>i would start with something wide and fast first, like the 17-50, then add something long and fast later. if you really like your current telephoto you could get a fast prime like the 85/1.8, otherwise you're looking at spending a lot more dough.</p>

<p> </p>

[kira_greene]

<p>Yes, I know that to get a truly fast, very good zoom I would have spend quite a bit of money. :( too bad for me, I can't!</p>

<p>I think I am going to wait on the 16-85mm, and keep my 18-135mm for now. The few times I really need it don't warrant an "upgrade" to a similar lens.<br>

<br /> My 50mm is very fast, and I LOVE how sharp it is, but obviously, the subjects usually seem far away. Maybe a longer focal length prime is more what I am looking for. I still like the 16-85mm though...<br /> Thanks everyone, I am very grateful for the ideas and advice. <br /> :)</p>

[Two23]

<p>The Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 is only $420 at BH. It has motor driven focus (AFS). It takes 67mm filters, meaning it's a fairly small lens. You could sell your 50mm f1.8 as this lens duplicates it.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[dansutton]

<p>My 50mm is very fast, and I LOVE how sharp it is, but obviously, the subjects usually seem far away. </p>

<p>foot zoom might be an upgrade for you. research it. pretty cheap</p>