help with lens choice

[kaio1]

<p>Hi,<br>

I've started out to learn photography using a D70s with the 18-70mm kit lens for a few years and have decided it's probably time to upgrade to a better system. i've come to love Nikon so am hoping to stick with it. (am sure that will go down well on this forum :-) )<br>

i use my camera for general travel photography - architecture and landscapes, mainly - and am looking for a good general purpose lens. i've also begun to take a few shots at night. trawling through the nikon site, i notice that these two lenses seem to fit my requirement pretty well:</p>

<a href="http://www.europe-nikon.com/product/en_GB/products/broad/1548/overview.html">16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX NIKKOR and</a>

<a href="http://www.europe-nikon.com/product/en_GB/products/broad/391/overview.html">17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX NIKKOR</a>

<br />

the second one is a lot more expensive than the first, which also has VR. any help in making the choice between these, <strong>or any other recommendation</strong> (even non-nikon lenses) would be very appreciated.

<br />

<br />

Thanks a lot in advance,

Kaio.<br />

[richard_thomas9]

<p>16-85 is one of the best lens for DX. Sharp as heck but might be too slow for your night time photography. I'd get the Nikon 17-55 2.8 if you can afford it, you won't be disappointed but other alternatives would be the tamron 17-50 2.8 VC for $600 or the Sigma 18-50 2.8 HSM for $400. If you don't mind Prime (fixed lenses), there are also other great selections such as the Nikon 35 1.8, Sigma 30 1.4, etc....This German site http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests might be able to help you with your selection.</p>

[stephen_fassman]

<p>The 16-85 is a better choice: the 24mm equiv WA, zoom range, and newly optimized design, has tyhe advantage over the older and still quite expensive for its age, 17-55. It has a much more favorable cost: features: resale (if necessary) ratio. This lens is a keeper as a walk around, with semi pro specs, as per all the reviews. The upgrade to the high iso D90 body would be the missing part of the equation. You can always pick up a 50/1.4, or 60/2.8 Micro for low light & portraits, or the 105/2.8VR to extend the range of the 16-85. Those are all keepers as well: ideal for travel & landscape photography.</p>

[enrique_r.]

<p>Why not keep the 18-70mm (<strong> f/3.5-4.5 as I remember before it got stolen)</strong> just move forward or back a little. & get a 70-300mm VR & a 35 or 50 mm prime or get a 18-200mm VR with a 35 or 50mm prime & sell ( I always keep my lens) the 18-70mm?<br>

Also learning Just my $0.02</p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>If you have 18-70 that is quite a good lens, I agree with Enrique that is better to keep it. Since you are doing architecture and landscape, it seems more logic to buy Nikon 10-24mm lens that performs very well, I have it and I am fully satisfied with it on a D5000. For your night shoots you can add an unexpensive prime like Nikon 35mm f1.8 or Sigma 30mm f1.4 as Richard adviced. There are options as well for 50mm or for 85mm if you prefer these focals.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>I consider those two lenses to be for different purposes. The 17-55mm I would use for event style photography while the 16-85mm I would use for travel or landscape. For low light I would look for a fast prime in the focal length required. I don't shoot architecture. I enjoyed using the 18-70mm when using DX. It was a keeper, if it needed replacing I would look at the 16-85mm. I was not real happy with the D70 and its viewfinder. You would get better low light results with a D90 and your 18-70mm.</p>

[enrique_r.]

<p>Another option is a 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 & a 55-200mm f/4-5.6 VR on a D90 and add the $100 50mm f/1.8. It would set you back $1400 or so.</p>

[j.art.photo.]

<p>Kaio. Both good lenses. Both DX. It seems you enjoy what you are doing. why not a FX lens ? eventually if you decide to try a FX body you wont find yourself restricted . a 14-24 or 17-35 are also great options. more expensive too but there are also third party equivalents that are very good and not as expensive.</p>

 

[luis_g]

<p> I'd keep the 18-70 and add a 30/1.4 Sigma for available light pictures.</p>

[kaio1]

<p>i've further complicated the issue for myself and thrown the 18-200 in the mix too. There are lots of discussions on 16-85 v. 18-200 on this site and others, so am poring through those. I think i'm set up for a great weekend :-).<br>

Thanks a lot everyone.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I found VR is just plain great for night-time photography. Since I'm usually too lazy to take a tripod, it's either wide aperture or VR. Having tried both (24 f/2.8 and 35 /2 mainly, and the 16-85VR), I'll take the 16-85 for night-time photos. That said, mine are pictures of static object mostly, so I don't care about longer exposures, and therefor the VR advantage wins. So it really depends on what you want to capture after dawn.</p>

<p>As for 16-85 versus 18-200... Whether the 16-18 range is more useful than the 85-200 range (and do not underestimate the difference of those 2 millimeters), is a personal preference. To me, the 16-85 is more versatile, but that's just me.</p>

[alvinyap]

<p>You are using a tripod for architecture, aren't you Kaiomurz? If yes, then the 18-70 stopped down with your current body should be fine. The 16-85 is great for a slightly wider and long fov and has VR. Otherwise, maybe you'd want to look at either a super wide like the 10-24 nikkor or a longer zoom (55-200vr/70-300vr) for more varied photographic choices.<br>

16-85 vs 18-200 - never used the later, but so far generally most of my excursions do perfectly fine with the 16-85. If anything, when I <a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_KY8u6Ufs4rs/SwkbblTmtHI/AAAAAAAAEnw/CSxNwjOVpVg/s1600/WLF_1620.jpg">took this shot at 85mm last weekend</a> , I'd have much prefered to use my 70-200 wide open for more subject isolationi but oh well.<br>

Alvin</p>

[kaio1]

<p>Hi Alvin,<br>

no, i don't use a tripod as I do all of my photography while i'm walking around or backpacking. I know that ideally I should, but think i'll have to make do with the VR.<br>

I just want one GOOD general purpose lens. i really don't want to carry anything but the camera, and so a second lens is (almost) out of the question.<br>

i think i have decided to go for the 16-85 with a d-90 body. but now am wondering whether the leica x1 (or whatever their cheaper rangefinder is) is more suited to me. so now am trawling through stuff on that :-).<br>

talk about paralysis by analysis...</p>

 

[enrique_r.]

<p>Kaiomurz if you want 1 lens I would go with the 18-200VR, my $0.02. Whatever you pick....HAPPY SHOOTING!!!</p>

<p>Nice pic Alvin.</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>the 16-85mm and a D90 will be a great combo. but i will still try to stick a 35mm f/1.8 in my pocket. it's so small and not expensive.</p>

<p>less reach and not as wide as the 16-85mm but the 18-70mm on a D90 with a lightweight monopod would have answered your needs. good luck in your decision. oh, and don't sell your D70s.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>How big do you print? How do you use these photos? an 8 x 10 or 11 x 14 properly shot with both the 16-85 and the 18-70 will be pretty much the same. The 18-200 is nice (I have one), but since the 16-85 came out I don't think it's a very good choice. The 17-55 is VERY big and heavy. Keep that in mind.</p>

<p>If it were me, I'd stick with the 18-70 and maybe add a 35mm f1.8 if you want to do more low light, a longer tele if you want to do more tele, or a wide zoom if you want to go wider... only you know.</p>

<p>But there's nothing wrong with your lens. It's a great general purpose lens. Now your body is another story... I think a D90 would serve you well, especially if you like to above ISO 400 and 800 much. 1600 on a D70 is pretty darn noisy.</p>

[kam_kozalak]

<p>I would also say stick with the 18-70. Add a fast lens: Nikon 50/1.8 for low light, price and weight (155 grams) or 50/1.4 for lower light, higher price and slightly more weight (230 grams). Weight should not be a problem for the two lens combo.</p>