What's a best sharp walk around lens after 35mm 1.8G?

[benhai_zhang1]

<p>Hi, </p>

<p>I just got a 35mm 1.8G and I like it but not love it. I used to have a Nikon 18-70mm and that's an ok lens for me for outdoor. I feel I still need the convinence around 18-70mm. What's your opinion for my next lens? I want a lens that is sharp, colorful at all aperture ^_^. <br>

Nikon 18-70mm f3.5-4.5<br>

Nikon 24-85mm f3.5-4.5</p>

<p>Or some 3rd party lens? I already invested on an used Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 D ED so I am planning around $300 for another used lens as well. </p>

<p>Your recommendations is highly appreciated! </p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Ben</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>No lens is good at all apertures. Most are softer (especially in the corners) wide open, most are best about 2 stops down from maximum (f2.8 - 4 is pretty stunning on that 35mm f1.8 in my experience). Also, all suffer diffraction from some point on (usually f13 or f16).</p>

<p>Both those lenses you have or have had (my main two lenses) are capable of great images. If you're getting "ok" results, it might not be the lens... no offense intended...</p>

<p>The 24 - 85 won't be any better, it'll just not go as wide on DX, of course, being 24 at the wide end (35mm FX equivalent). For me, that wouldn't be wide enough. It'll go longer, but you already have that covered.</p>

<p>In your price range, the 18-70 or a used Tamron 17-50 (might be a teeny bit too much, can you scrape together some more money?) would be my choice.</p>

[CharlesBecker-Toronto]

<p>Benhai-consider the Nikon 16-85. I had and liked the 18-70 and replaced it with the 16-85 and I like it even more; but it is a little overpriced. regards, cb :-)</p>

[benhai_zhang1]

<p>Good advises!<br>

16-85mm's price is higher than I'd like.<br>

I'd consider Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 as well. </p>

<p>Not sure if DX will still be a format supported in 5 to 10 years. Maybe it is safe to invest in FX lens rather than DX lens? </p>

<p>^_^</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon 18-70mm f3.5-4.5<br /> Nikon 24-85mm f3.5-4.5</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Owned both, sold the 18-70 first, the 24-85 later. In hindsight, I should have kept the 18-70 - in almost every regard a tad above the 24-85. The rather weak corner performance of the 24-85 on DX doesn't bode well for using that lens on FX.</p>

<p>The 16-85 is optically clearly above the 18-70 - but the major drawbacks are the f/5.6 at the long end and the price. I suggest looking at the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 OS HSM instead</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>my 18-70 was replaced by a tamron 17-50 a while back which got stolen and was replaced with a sigma 17-50 OS. Dieter's recommendations are on point; the 17-50/2.8 lenses have a clear advantage over the 18-70 and 16-85 in that they have constant aperture. if you're considering the 24-85, you might also want to checkout the tamron 28-75/2.8.</p>

[benhai_zhang1]

<p>Should I consider 3rd party lens to replace Nikon lenses? I used several 3rd party lenses before but not quite sure if that's an upgrade. The last one I sold was a Tokina 20-35mm AF f3.5-4.5 due to the flare. It was made like a Tank but I'm not impressed. Anyway constant f2.8 is very attractive, I'd consider that as well. Meanwhile I'll just live with the 35mm 1.8G. My PS Canon S60 is still doing an excellent job for causal daytime shots.</p>

<p>For the 3rd party lenses, do you prefer sigma or tamron?</p>

 

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Benhai,</p>

<p>We still don't know what is "wrong" with your current (and former) lenses, if anything.</p>

<p>Can you post some images that aren't "up to par"?</p>

<p>I really suspect that there is no problem with the lenses. I hate to say this, but I've owned both those lenses, and if you are careful and creative, you can make stunning award-winning images with either of them.</p>

<p>Here's Thom Hogan talking about upgrading... http://www.bythom.com/blame.htm</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Should I consider 3rd party lens to replace Nikon lenses? I used several 3rd party lenses before but not quite sure if that's an upgrade</p>

</blockquote>

<p>benhai, i wouldnt rate all 3rd party glass based on an experience with any one lens, especially pre-digital era glass. just like i wouldnt rate all nikkors based on an experience with one nikkor. a constant 2.8 lens is the upgrade path from a kit lens. right now, you dont have a kit lens. so you're just making the grade, not upgrading. having used both the sigma and tamron 17-50s, i would say they are an upgrade optically from the 18-70 and other nikon kit lenses. there are reasons, too, for not getting the two nikon wide zooms (16-85/17-55)which are upgrades from Kit Lens Land. besides their cost, the 16-85 is painfully slow at the long end, and the 17-55 is painfully heavy for a walkaround lens. nikon doesnt make a compact 2.8 zoom, so that's why the 3rd party glass is the way to go here. also, nikon's 2.8 DX zoom doesnt have stabilization. so, to review: expensive and slow or expensive and heavy vs. affordable, sharp,light and stabilized. it's your call.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>I use a Tamron 28-75/2.8 sometimes on my D7000. It's an ancient version, with built in motor. I got it for $250 used, it also does time on my F100, it's not great at f/2.8 but clears right up and is super sharp at f/4.0, and it's much lighter than you expect in an f/2.8 zoom. All around I'd call it a phenomenal value buy, especially when you can find a deal on a used one.</p>

[benhai_zhang1]

<p>Hi Peter:<br>

It's a long journey for me to be back on Nikon. My First set of DSLR was a D70 plus some lenses I like. But it was stolen some years back. So I tried pentax instead since it seemed cheaper. After using pentax I am still missing Nikon and pentax is not cheap if you shoot prime lenses. I began to realized that how much work Nikon had done for me with the metering, focus and image tones especially for skins. So after all sorts of struggling for 2 years I decide to sell my pentax gears and switch back to Nikon. Thank God, pentax body and lenses are still worth lots of money so I am successfully switched back in budget! I got a bargain 80-200mm 2.8 D ED and together with a 35mm 1,8G. Now I'm ready to take pictures. Since I don't have a convenient mid range zoom, so I'm looking for real users inputs now. I agrees with you that it's better to upgrade the photographer rather than equipments. Right now I'm within the budget of funding from selling pentax stuff. I want to buy once and then get the right lens :). I got a D200 and which feels good in hand. </p>

<p>Hi Eric:<br>

I'll check the Sigma and Tamron out. Wish to get a light weight and compact walkaround lens soon. My Nikon 80-200mm 2.8 ED is huge. It gets lot of attention at kid school. Since it is a BGN lens and in black color so I won't get the attention as Canon users ^_^.</p>

<p>Thanks all good advices!<br>

Ben</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>just saw that your budget is $300. with that, you might be able to swing a used, non-VC tamron 17-50 (or maybe be about $50 short); the sigma 17-50 OS is considerably more expensive. i'd also look for a used tamron 28-75 or maybe tokina 28-80/2.8 although 28 is not very wide on DX as a starting point.</p>

<p>if i was using a d200, which is challenged above ISO 800, i'd want every advantage as far as aperture available. so, that extra stop of light-gathering between 2.8 and 4 would be huge, as it represents the difference between acceptable noise @800 and unacceptable @ 1600 with that body.</p>

[benhai_zhang1]

 

<blockquote>

<p>just saw that your budget is $300. with that, you might be able to swing a used, non-VC tamron 17-50 (or maybe be about $50 short); the sigma 17-50 OS is considerably more expensive. i'd also look for a used tamron 28-75 or maybe tokina 28-80/2.8 although 28 is not very wide on DX as a starting point.<br>

if i was using a d200, which is challenged above ISO 800, i'd want every advantage as far as aperture available. so, that extra stop of light-gathering between 2.8 and 4 would be huge, as it represents the difference between acceptable noise @800 and unacceptable @ 1600 with that body.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh, thanks! I'll see which lens pop up locally first. I will need to check the front or back focus on my D200. I'm totally fine with the ISO800 performance of D200. I seldom need to go beyond that cause I mainly shoot kids activities either on the field or on a stage. I will get many blurred pictures but with several try I normally can get at least one good shot. I need a flash but will out of budget now ^_^. So I'll wait until my wife doesn't feel happy about the blurred pictures I can present to her.</p>

<p> </p>

 

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Benhai, you are looking for a walk-around lens at $300. If you want something other than the 35 f/1.8 G, then for me it's the 18-70.</p>

<p>In my view, a walk-around lens is about ease and comfort, and the f/2.8 zooms are too big for that. </p>

[benhai_zhang1]

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Benhai, you are looking for a walk-around lens at $300. If you want something other than the 35 f/1.8 G, then for me it's the 18-70.<br>

In my view, a walk-around lens is about ease and comfort, and the f/2.8 zooms are too big for that.</p>

</blockquote>

 

Thanks! I'll need to check the tamron and sigma f2.8 out then to decide. If I keep 35mm 1.8G then I may get the 18-70mm to be able to within budget. Many times a simple question is not that simple to implement ^_^.

 

 

 

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>a walk-around lens is about ease and comfort, and the f/2.8 zooms are too big for that</p>

</blockquote>

<p>actually, the tamron non-VC is not much bigger than the 18-70; the sigma 17-50 OS is a bit longer but not even close to 24-70-esque bulk. the 18-70 is ok but not excellent. the sigma and tamron are both better optically. IMO, a walkaround lens needs to be compact and versatile. the 18-70 is certainly that but it's not as versatile, obviously, as lenses with constant 2.8 and/or stabilization.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>here's a pic...</p><div></div>

[benhai_zhang1]

<p>Eric: <br>

Thanks for the picture! I'm in the process of getting a Tammy 18-50mm 2.8 non-vc lens from a photo.net member. Best wishes!</p>

[benhai_zhang1]

<p>I got a good copy of Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 A16NII, made in Japan. It is sharp in all range though 50mm is a tiny bit of close focus but in real world 50mm close shot is perfect. I am happy with the new purchase :). I am going to get rid of my Nikon 35mm 1.8G. The picture quality differences can not be captured by my eyes without 100%. ^_^. </p>

<p>Thanks for all the good advices!<br>

Benhai</p>