Which higher end Nikon Zoom lens, 17-55mm f/2.8G or 24-70mm f/2.8G , is good for D200?

[shallop_z1]

<p>

<p >I am planning to upgrade my primary lens but very confused by my choices. </p>

<p >I am an amateur photographer and mainly photograph landscape. I purchased Nikon D200 in 2006 and plan to keep it for several more years. I know full frame Nikon D700 and Nikon D3 and D3x are out but I can’t afford them right now. When Nikon D700 equivalent 20–30 megapixel camera price drops to $2000 I will upgrade my D200. </p>

<p >I live in Colorado and hike in high mountains. Therefore carrying multiple fixed lenses would not work for me. Currently I have couple of lower end zoom lenses and a Nikkor Macro 60mm. Of all pictures I have, I only like the ones taken by macro 60mm. Other pictures are not sharp enough. I am looking for a good all purpose sharp lens and I am willing to pay $1000-$2000 for it. </p>

<p >Here are lenses I am looking at.</p>

</p>

<h2><a name="desc" href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/300490-USA/Nikon_2147_17_55mm_f_2_8G_ED_IF_AF_S.html">Zoom Super Wide Angle AF 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor Autofocus Lens for Digital Cameras</a></h2>

<p>

<p >I read reviews on B&H. The review by Bladerunner from San Francisco, CA on 2/7/2010, said this lens does not work well on D200 but works well on D300s. No further information was provided. Have you tested this lens on D200 and compared to pictures taken by D300 or even D700? Are pictures are sharp? I understand this lens will not work on full-frame camera. If I purchased this one, it won’t work several years later when I upgrade to a full frame DSLR. </p>

<p >Another lens I am thinking of is</p>

<h2><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/520637-USA/Nikon_2164_AF_S_Nikkor_24_70mm_f_2_8G.html">AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Autofocus Lens (Black)</a></h2>

 

<p >This lens’ reviews are excellent. However my friend told me the short end will be 36mm on my D200. It will a little too long for landscape photography. I agree with him but 36mm will work for me if this lens is keeper. My main concern is if this lens is used on D200, will it produce as sharp images as on full frame cameras (assume not under extreme shooting condiftion)? </p>

<p >Another possible choice is <a name="desc"></a><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/644744-USA/Nikon_2192_AF_S_DX_NIKKOR_18_200mm.html">AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II Zoom Lens </a>. </p>

<p >My main concern is sharpness of images, so Nikkon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II might be out of my consideration. </p>

<p >Which lens do you recommend and why? </p>

<p >Thank you very much for your professional opinion. </p>

</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>If you're a stickler for sharpness, then you don't want the 18-200. It's a very useful walk-about lens, but if you have the budget for a more serious lens and are concerned enough about those issues, get the pro glass.<br /><br />The 17-55/2.8 works just <em>fine</em> on a D200. I use it on a D300 and a D200. I would find the 24-70/2.8 to be missingthe all-important wider end. And since (when it comes time to go FX) you can sell a 17-55/2.8 for a good fraction of what you pay for it, I would get the lens that will do the right job for you now - especially since it sounds like you'll get a couple years at least of good use out of it before changing formats.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Those constant f2.8, mid range zooms are optimized for event and news photography such as parties, weddings. They are at their sharpest when your subject is like 10, 15 feet away. Of course you can use them for landscape photography too, but I wouldn't get them mainly for that purpose. And most people don't need f2.8 for landscape work; you are merely carrying a lot of extra weight.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p><em>"Have you tested this lens on D200 and compared to pictures taken by D300 or even D700?" (17-55)</em><br /> I used to use the 17-55 first on the D200 and later on the D300. To me, the difference was noticeable; the D300 has an improved and more resolutive sensor. I`d not say the diference is on the lens.<br /> I also used a D300+17-55 together with a D3+24-70. At base ISO, the difference was almost unnoticeable to me, but if you look for a difference, for sure you will find it because these are different sensors. At higher ISO, the D700 start to show its higher performance.<br /> <br /><br /> <em>"... this lens will not work on full-frame camera..." </em><br /> This lens certainly works on FF cameras... but only in DX format. Not a good deal.<br /> <br /><br /> <em>"... 36mm will work for me if this lens is keeper ..." </em>(24-70)<br /> It is the best medium range zoom up to date. I have never used it on a D200 but I suspect it will be amongst the best... it`s a lens designed to be used with the latest DSLRs, and you will be using just the "sweet spot" of the image circle.<br>

---------------<br /><br /> Anyway, I (almost) never used this lenses for hiking... too much weight. But if your concern is to get the highest IQ and the possibilities a f2.8 lens brings, these are the best choices. And I`m with Matt, on a DX I`d get the 17-55. If you plan to switch to FX soon, the 24-70.<br /> <br /><br /> My most used lens for hiking has been primes and a 24-85 on bot DX and FX. A lens that calls my attention for DX is the 16-85, but I never used it.</p>

[shallop_z1]

<p>Thank you, guys. This is very helpful.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>If I wanted one lenses for dx landscape I would look closely at the 16-85mm, reads as a decent lense. The range would fit most of my landscape needs. I would carry the body, lenses and tripod around a bit easier then my current FX setup. The other two get to heavy paired with a metal body and tripod for me to hike with.</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>your lens choices are not for landscape shoots but you can certainly use them. they are both event lenses like for weddings, etc. it's nice to have an f/2.8 readily available but i wouldn't carry either one on a hike up the mountains. but if you are sticking to those two choices, it will have to be the 17-55mm. you have the 60mm anyway. you don't need the extra reach of the 24-70mm for your purpose.</p>

<p>i will second the recommendation of the 16-85mm. it's not f/2.8 but you have the wide end favoring landscape and the extra reach is a plus. maybe a tamron 17-50mm or a sigma 18-50mm will complement well your 60mm.</p>

<p>the closest to the sharp/landscape/all-purpose category in your generous budget is the 17-55mm f/2.8</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i would really question whether you need the 2.8 aperture for landscape. also if you are hiking, both of those are big and bulky. if all you really need is the 16-85 VR, then just get that. no need to overspend.</p>

<p>i also have to wonder about your technique. are you using a tripod? even kit lenses should be able to produce sharp images at f/8, especially if a tripod and/or cable release is used. so maybe what you really need for outdoor landscapes is a lightweight carbon fiber tripod, instead of a high-end zoom optimized for event photography and PJ work.</p>

<p>also, comparing any zoom to a macro/fix-focal lens will usually favor the prime in terms of sharpness. i'm also not sure why multiple primes wouldnt work for you, if you are considering big, heavy zooms.</p>

<p> </p>

[benjaminm]

<p>I would recommend 17-35/2.8 or 16-35/4VR Nikkors. On DX bodies they are nice normal zooms and after switch to FF they will be nice wide angle zooms. I would not recommend the 17-55/2.8 because you will have to sell it (and you will lose some money) when you will switch to FF body. I also don't recommend the 24-70/2.8 for DX body.</p>

[bj_larsson]

<p>I'm also curious about the technique. I bet you could get sharp shots with a tripod mounted 18-55 lens. </p>

<p>How big are you looking to print?</p>

[shallop_z1]

<p>Eric, I do use a Manfrotto tripod probably will upgrade to a carbon fiber one soon. Of course, when we I climb difficult 14ers I only carry a small point-n-shoot camera. I think I can handle a D200 + 1.6 pound lens for not so difficult hikes.<br>

Will this 16-85 VR give me sharp images? I really want a lens that will give me sharp images. I have an old Nikon 35mm from my old F100 and a crappy SLR specific zoom lens, I can't get sharp image at F16 even if I put them on tripod. I am so tired of looking at fuzzy images and have to use Photoshop to sharp them up. Exchange lenses is a big hassle for me especially when I am somewhere dusty like Monument Valley. <br>

Maybe I should get a second job to buy a Nikon D3x and 24-77mm.</p>

[shallop_z1]

<p>Thank you, Benjamin. This</p>

<h2><a name="desc" href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/186250-GREY/Nikon_1960_AF_S_Zoom_Nikkor_17_35mm.html">Zoom Super Wide Angle AF-S Zoom Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF Autofocus Lens</a></h2>

<p>sounds like a good idea. I will look more into this. If I can still use it once I upgrade to FF, it will be great.<br>

Has anyone tried this on D200? Can you give me some insight thoughts of it?</p>

[cc_chang2]

<h2><a rel="nofollow" name="desc" href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/186250-GREY/Nikon_1960_AF_S_Zoom_Nikkor_17_35mm.html" target="_blank">Zoom Super Wide Angle AF-S Zoom Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF Autofocus Lens</a></h2>

<blockquote>

<p>sounds like a good idea. I will look more into this.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>If 17-35mm is the range that you are interested in and you want to have a lens that works on the Fx, you may want to consider the 18-35/3.5-4.5 lens, much lighter and cheaper. Stop down, it is as sharp as the pro version.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>"Will this 16-85 VR give me sharp images? I really want a lens that will give me sharp images."</p>

<p>as i said before, any lens, even a kit lens, should be capable of sharp images at f/8-11. to answer your question, the 16-85 is also fairly sharp at shallower apertures. where it's better than kit glass is in less distortion (and better corners). VR will also help when shooting handheld at lower shutter speeds. if you go to photozone.de, they have MTF charts which show the 16-85 is capable of excellent resolution at various focal lengths and apertures. interestingly, the tamron 17-50 VC also rates pretty high, even in corner performance. so those two lenses are pretty comparable in IQ. where the 16-85 would be better for landscape use is because of the extra 35mm on the long end. as an all-in-one solution, it's much better from an image quality perspective than the 18-200.</p>

<p>that said, most likely the 16-35/4 VR is even better in terms of sharpness. but its more expensive, not as compact, and more limited in focal length. as for the 17-35, that's somewhat of a big beast which is, again, optimized for event photography and isnt as good in the corners as the newer 16-35. if i was a landscape guy, i would get the 16-35 over that in a heartbeat.</p>

<p>to sum up, both the 16-85 and 16-35 are good landscape lenses which should suit your purposes better than either the 17-55 or 24-70. between the two, it comes down to ultimate sharpness or ultimate versatility. you probably cant have both.</p>

<p>.</p>

 

[shallop_z1]

<p>Thank you very much, Eric.</p>

[fhmillard]

<p>The 17-55 f2.8 for landscapes on D200 is an excellent combination. Moreover, the 17-55/D200 does a good job when taking panoramas of 3 or more images with minimal perspective adjusments when stitching.<br>

But as mentioned by another, the 17-55 delivers FAR superior performance for landscapes, and everything else, on a D300 than the D200 -- I do not miss my D200 at all.<br>

I have posts on this site, many of the same scenes, taken with both D200 and D300 w/17-55.<br>

D200 takes good landscapes w/Tokina 12-24 too.</p>

[g-man1]

Reconsider: try a 20mm ais manual focus nikkor first. Light. Good quality. Cheap. Indestructable.

[leigh_mazion]

<p>What about the Tokina 12-24mm or 11-16mm? I think both of these would work very well for landscape and are incredibly sharp.</p>

[penwaggener]

<p>I've got to agree with the previous posters about the 17-55 (and probably the 24-70 as well). It's a phenomenal event/people lens, and is an absolute pig to carry on a hike. I don't think an f2.8 normal zoom is the right horse for the course.</p>

[daniel_bliss]

<p>Owning a D200 with a 17-55 the most obvious functional problem is that the camera's autofocus doesn't deal very well with the 17-55 at the widest angles. I've not tried the lens on a D300, not owning one, but on an F100 (granted, not a body I use the lens with), the AF never misses at 17 to 20 or so like it does from time to time on the D200. I've noticed the same thing on my 18-70 DX as well. I just don't think the D200's AF tolerances are tight enough for dealing with wide angle lenses. In practice, this won't be a problem for landscape as depth of field takes over; it has only arisen for me indoors at closer distances.<br>

The 17-55 is very, very good but I'd say the 16-85 would be even better for the job. It's another 10 ounces or so lighter than the 17-55, from what I understand it's close to as good optically -- bear in mind the 17-55 is exceeding the D200 sensor most of the time -- and you get the extra zoom range as well. I think you're going to find that you want to carry the big rig, so to speak, up the high mountains -- and with one digital body and a 16-85, you just about have Galen Rowell's early 1980s mountaineering getup completely covered (FM or FTN body, 24, 55 macro, 75-150/3.5), only with even less weight.</p>

[shallop_z1]

<p>Daniel, your comment is very helpful. Thank you very much.</p>