Another What Lens to get Question

[birdied]

<p>I know you guys must get tired of all these - Help , what lens to buy questions. I am, however, so confused after all the research that I would appreciate some guidance and want to thank you in advance for your input.<br>

I have the following:<br>

D300<br>

Nikon 60 mm f/2.8 D Micro<br>

Nikon 12-24mm f/4G<br>

Nikon 80-200mm f2/.8D<br>

Nikon 35mm f/1.8<br>

I am looking for something between the 24-80 range and of course the very expensive (at least for me) 24-70 f/2.8 keeps coming up. I have read some reviews that state on the DX format it is not worth the expense. Some recommend the 16-85 , but I hate to duplicate the range of the 12-24.<br>

I am not a professional by any means. I am however a perfectionist and the more I learn, the more quality I want. Oh wait, I think that trait comes with the female genes! Before I have to join the "Hide Expenses from your spouse "thread, your expertise is needed. <br>

I shoot just about anything because I am most happy with a camera in my hand.<br>

What I really don't like to shoot is posed shots, so no thoughts of ever doing studio work or weddings.<br>

Again, thank you for your patience , and experience.</p>

<p> </p>

[hal_b]

<p>Regardless of which you choose, you will be duplicating the 35mm and the 60mm focal lengths. I will assume that you are trying to get away from using primes (except when it just HAS to be right)? So I will assume you value convenience over perfection, in this instance.</p>

<p>16-85 trumps 24-70, as you get more flexibility with your focal lengths (and save about $1k). If you end up in low light, however, it will disapoint. I have a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and I LOVE it. It is as sharp as I could ever ask for, and at $300 you can't touch that price with anything that says Nikon.</p>

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p>Roberta,<br>

I haighly recommend the Tamron 28-75 as Hal does. It will fill in that gap for you. And it's a lot cheaper than the 24-70. There's also the 28-70 Nikkor to get used.<br>

Another question would be - what are you looking to shoot with this one lens?<br>

Lil :-)</p>

[birdied]

<p>What I would really want it for would be as a "walk around" general purpose lens, where you can "zoom " in on a subject if you want . I love the 80-200, but just far too heavy to hang around your neck all day , not to mention to hand hold it after awhile. I want a 2.8 for low light, as I tend to shoot with whatever light is available when possible.<br>

For lack of the technical terms - a lens that you just put on and go and don't have to or can't carry all your other lens .<br>

I will definitley look into the Tamaron !</p>

[scott_pogorelc]

<p>While I dont own it, the 16-85 seems like a pretty good range for a walk-around lens on DX. For less money, there is always the venerable AF-S 18-70 which is a solid performer and light-weight.</p>

 

[akira]

<p>"I love the 80-200, but just far too heavy to hang around your neck all day , not to mention to hand hold it after awhile. I want a 2.8 for low light, as I tend to shoot with whatever light is available when possible.<br /> For lack of the technical terms - a lens that you just put on and go and don't have to or can't carry all your other lens ."</p>

<p>Well, then I would think the 35/1.8 you already have is the best candidate to satisfy your need. Why don't you try to get accustomed to do everything just with that lens?</p>

[acbeddoe]

<p>The 17-55mm f/2.8 is a lovely lens. It's on my D300 most of the time.</p>

[pge]

<p>35-70mm f2.8 for $350 or so</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>I find funny that you don`t really have an "all-terrain" lens; to my taste it could be the 16-85AFS. </p>

<p>The 17-55/2.8AFS is a joy but too heavy (and big) for what I call a walk-around lens. Third party f2.8 lenses seem to be smaller and lighter than Nikkors. Tamron`s 17-50/2.8 is very small, if you want more reach there is a 28-75/2.8 almost equally small.</p>

<p>Anyway, I belong to Akira`s school... I`d "<em>try to get accustomed to do everything just with that lens...</em> " (35/1.8AFS).</p>

[pcnilssen]

<p>Maybe the 18-70 could be of interest? </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>it seems like you are describing the tamron 28-75. it's great as a walkaround if you already have the wide end covered with a DX body. much lighter than nikon 28-70, more modern than 35-70, and very sharp.</p>

<p>the 16-85 isnt really an all-terrain lens due to the slowish variable aperture, which makes it challenged in low-light situations.</p>

<p>if you're shooting available -light you want constant 2.8 or faster.</p>

<p>i'd also think about something like the 50/1.4 since you already have the 35/1.8, the 12-24 and the 80-200. i normally prefer zooms for walkaround but this would give you even more altitude in extreme low-light situations.</p>

[birdied]

<p>I gave my "all terrain" lens to my daughter when I passed on my D100 to her. I was hoping to upgrade and in the meanwhile have been practicing with the 60mm macro.<br>

So, now I am thinking again of what to get. Yes, I can do what I can with the 35mm, but sometimes don't like to get so up close and personal , want just a bit more reach at times. Until I decide, you can rest assured the 35 is what getting a work out :).</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>the 28-75 is good because it does zoom in for portraits. for walkaround stuff, i normally only carry one lens and one body, but if you can carry two lenses a combo of 12-24/28-75 is very versatile and might make more sense than carrying a 12-24 and two primes. as stated above, the 28-75 is very lightweight which makes it great for 'street.'</p>

<blockquote>

<p>this would give you even more altitude in extreme low-light situations.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>sorry meant to say 'latitude.'</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>how about looking into the tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and the sigma 18-50mm f/2.8. from your list of lenses, it seems like you won't be happy with aslow lens like the 16-85mm. get any of the two shorter lenses and walk the little difference in reach. maybe VR is a worthy tradeoff? to me and to some, it is not.</p>

[kari v]

<blockquote>

<p>get any of the two shorter lenses and walk the little difference in reach. maybe VR is a worthy tradeoff?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Or just get Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC, stabilized <strong>and</strong> fast. :)</p>

[Two23]

<p>Obvious answer is the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. It's high quality, a good value, and relatively light.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[joseph_leotta]

<p>Roberta - I use the 24-85 f2.8<br>

Love it, last weeks wednesday photo was shot with it. heres the Nikon Link:<br>

http://nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=1929<br>

its about $600.00 and it works on FX and DX</p>

[prettygeeky]

<p>Roberta,<br>

My response is a bit off-topic, but since you mentioned about the weight of lenses around your neck being a concern... I would suggest thinking about a shoulder strap like the BlackRapid R-straps. You'll be surprised how evenly it distributes the weight of your camera + lens. With a shoulder strap, you may be more willing to use heavier lenses. At the least, you're neck will thank you for it. =)</p>

<p>I try to take daily walks (2-3mile) around the neighborhood... yesterday I picked up my D700 + 85mm 1.4 (both quite heavy relative to normal gear) and strapped it around my shoulder using R-strap. It's a night and day difference compared to walking around with the default neck strap.</p>

<p>Ty</p>

[Kent Shafer]

<p>If you're a perfectionist, I think you should get the 24-70. It's the cat's meow, and it certainly isn't a waste on DX. While some (especially wedding and event shooters) prefer the 17-55 range for DX, others, including me, prefer the 24-70. It covers the mildly wide to perfect portrait lengths, and it fits right in between your 12-24 and 80-200.</p>

<p>Sure, it's big, heavy, and expensive. Nobody ever said being a perfectionist would be easy.</p>

[rday]

<p>If you don't want to duplicate the 12-24 range but want more reach, check out a Nikon 24-120. That duplicates some of your other gear, but should suit you as a walk-around lens. The 24-120 VR gets a bad rap at times, but used right can produce some excellent shots. However, I do think the 16-85 is typically sharper. </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Sorry, I think a lens on DX that starts at 24 or 28mm is just too long at the wide end.</p>

<p>16-85 or a 17-50 Tamron. Something like that.</p>

<p>On a budget, an 18-70 used would be a TREMENDOUS walk-around lens. A 28-105 equivalent.</p>

[jerry_milroy]

<p>Is that 24-85 f2.8 D-IF a discontinued lens. I am looking for a lens for the same purpose as Roberta. Iwas looking at the tamron 17-50 f2.8 or the 28-75 f2.8. I would like the longer reach of the 24-85. I really want the lens to be and f2.8.</p>

[birdied]

<p>Thanks everyone for all the input, so much to think about. <br>

Jerry, I tried to find the 24-85 and can't.</p>

[steve.manzon]

<p>I went through quiet a few lenses and although 17-55 f 2.8 nikon is an excellent lens. I did not find it as useful as 16-85 vr as a walk-around lens. With d-300 and vr you can achieve very good low light shots at iso's of 1600 and even 2,000..some minor noise reduction may need be applied. I don't share enthusiasm about tamron as it the iq varies widely and once again i like a little more focal range. As far as overlap on the low and high end i think it is great because sometimes you may want to avoide switching jsut for a couple of extra millimeters ( i have 12-24 as well) I'll try to upload some of the images i took with 16-85 at the very low light and with slow shutter speeds hand held. Everyones needs different but just my 2 cents in favor of 16-85( whcih is better than 18-200 in my opinion)</p><div></div>

[joseph_leotta]

<p>B&H has the 24-85 f2.8 in stock<br>

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/207358-USA/Nikon_1929_Zoom_W_A_Telephoto_AF_Zoom.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/207358-USA/Nikon_1929_Zoom_W_A_Telephoto_AF_Zoom.html</a></p>