Versatile Lens for D5200

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Andrew - good catch, my memory was not correct on that thread. John did comment that he knew of pros that valued the 18-200 as a flexible lens for certain applications. I realize that is anecdotal, but I don't see any reason to doubt his reasoning. Of course the pixel-peeping regulars around here are going to disfavor the 18-200. I'm not saying I want one. But I don't think the lens should be dismissed summarily. </p>

<p>24MP is a red herring. If you buy a new Nikon DX DSLR, you don't have a "low res" option. You have "no problem" using the 18-200 on a D40. Are the same sized prints going to look worse from a D5200? With improved high-ISO and DR, I would actually think it should be <em>easier</em> to get good results from the 18-200 on a D5200. </p>

[jenniferk]

I'm not too worried about the lens on the wide end. She has the 17-50 available to use. Also the reason I'm not leaning

towards the 16-85, that range is pretty much covered. The 50-150 would be a phenomenal lens choice but I think it would

be too large for her on a regular basis.

 

Doesn't seem like there are too many options, thought this would be a bit easier!

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Realising that I'm slightly veering off-topic here (but I hope in a way relevant to Jennifer...) Chip: The distinction is that with a 6MP body such as a D40, the 200mm end of an 18-200 will give you details that you won't see with a 140mm lens. This is pretty much not true of a 24MP body - the 200mm end of the 18-200 is poor enough that you see no more detail than you would by cropping a shot with a better 140mm lens and scaling the image digitally. With a D40, you're limited by the number of pixels captured by the camera if you use a "better" lens at 140mm. With the D5200, a sufficiently good 140mm lens (for example) provides the sensor with enough detail that the crop has more detail in it than the 18-200 manages. Pixel peeping aside, you're paying more and carrying more by using an 18-200. It's not a case of pixel-peeping, it's a case of whether there's an advantage to the optics - if pixel peeping was irrelevant, we could all shoot with a fish-eye and just crop as we needed. There is <em>some</em> difference in absolute aperture, but this isn't the most capable lens in that respect anyway.</p>

<p>So, yes, images from an 18-200 will look at least as good from a D5200 as they would with a D40, and likely better for the reasons you state. I just don't believe that a 200mm shot from an 18-200 will look any better than "digital zoom" from a D5200 with a lighter, cheaper lens. The D5200 (and other 24MP bodies) are just better at "digital zoom" than a D40 is.</p>

<p>Jennifer: I'd generally heard reasonably good things about the 55-200, at least compared with a superzoom, but I've not tried it myself. The 70-300 VR is supposed to be slightly better and has faster focus - but it's bigger and heavier, and if you're worried about a 50-150 f/2.8 being too big then I suspect it may be ruled out. But you're right, there aren't as many options as you'd hope.</p>

<p>Mike: Has anyone else made a DX 16-80 f/2.8? I'm not sure that DX coverage helps as much as you might hope - I strongly suspect a 16-80 f/2.8 would be substantially bigger and more expensive than a 24-70 FX lens, though I can't claim great expertise. You might be interested in the latest entry on the lens rentals blog (at time of writing) on what a 25-300mm f/2.8 looks like, although to be fair much of that size is what you get from the "300mm f/2.8" bit.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Jennifer,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not too worried about the lens on the wide end. She has the 17-50 available to use.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That might work, but then I'd first thoroughly check her habits; because it *might* mean she has to carry two lenses most of the time, and switch lenses more often. For a lot of people, the range from 18-30mm gets a lot of use, it's not just a trivial range that sees use every now and then.</p>

<p>For the more off-topic part, Chip makes an excellent point. There is no choice but 24MP, and hence getting a high resolution camera does not mean all of us are adament that we render all of those pixels perfect. Hand-held normal use with normal good quality lenses, that's never going to happen anyway. Lens choice should come down to your needs; this whole "<em>must match the lenses with the resolution of my sensor</em>" is too often over-emphasised, as if good quality photos rely on 100% perfect pixel view, and I guess deep down we all know that's not really the case. There are plenty other reasons to get the current 24MP and 36MP bodies, other than their resolution, and that does not need to mean we must sell all lenses and get other ones "because otherwise we're wasting pixels". It means we carry on making photos as we always did, albeit with larger files now.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Andrew, if they'd said someone was going to make a viable 18-35 <strong>f1.8, </strong>they'd have said exactly the same! Who else makes one? Can't be done! Fast doesn't have to mean BIG in DX </p>

<p>The Tamron 28-105mm 2.8 was a huge heavy beast for FX, but should be substantially smaller for DX.</p>

<p>Jennifer, there is an earlier version that is much smaller, referred to as the HSM II. It will focus happily with all DX cameras. 2nd hand is quite affordable. My copy is very nice on my D300. The new version is indeed HUGE by comparison. It covers the same area as the 70-200mm on FX.</p>

[peter_petrov1]

<p>If it has to be one versatile lens, then perhaps the new Nikon 24-120/4 is the best option. 24mm on DX body should be wide enough for group shots, and 120mm could be pretty good for head&shoulders shots.<br>

While it is not mentioned which 17-50 you have, I suppose it is one of these with constant 2.8. If it is acceptable to use a second lens in addition to 17-50, there are dedicated telephoto DX zooms that could do the job. For example, there is 50-150/2.8 from Sigma, and I think there was 50-135 from Tokina. The new stabilized Sigma is a bit expensive; on the other hand, the previous non-OS version should be cheaper second hand, and the Tokina too (see <a href="https://www.keh.com/search/list?n=147&category[]=Zoom+Lenses%2C+Non-Mfg&mnt[]=73&fl[]=50-135mm&zf[]=Zoom&fl[]=50-150mm">KEH</a>). Finally, if 2.8 is not mandatory, there are several slower 55-200 and 70-300 lenses from Nikon and other manufacturers.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Mike: I don't think I knew about the 28-105. Learn something new every day. Okay, fair cop, I guess it should be technically possible - though the over-size mirror box for DX doesn't help with the wide end.<br />

<br />

Wouter: I agree with you and Chip that you don't necessarily have to make the most of every megapixel you have. I was just suggesting that a really soft longer lens is not necessarily better than a sharp shorter one when it comes to resolving detail at a distance, when the body has enough pixels to get the best of both. There are other reasons to buy a lens than sharpness, but I'm not sure that the 18-200 is the most compelling sell by many other categories either - if its primary merit over a shorter zoom is the ability to show detail at 200mm, it doesn't do so convincingly. An 18-140 is hardly a pixel-peeper lens either, but it's certainly cheaper and lighter than the 18-200, and probably does the same job better for 99% of people with a current camera. If I managed to imply that the 18-200 was only poor for pixel peeping purposes, my apologies. But, as ever, YMMV, and if I've not managed to make my point coherently by now it doesn't look like I'm going to!</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Andrew, I'll happily admit the 18-200 makes a terrible example of my point. I'd take the 18-140 over that everytime. Heck, even cropped images of the 16-85VR tend to look better. But again, that's me (and shooting primes most of the time, I can't say changing lenses bothers me much).<br>

Anyway, hopefully we did not scare away the OP :-)</p>

[jenniferk]

Jennifer, there is an earlier version that is much smaller, referred to as the HSM II. It will focus happily with all DX

cameras. 2nd hand is quite affordable. My copy is very nice on my D300. The new version is indeed HUGE by

comparison. It covers the same area as the 70-200mm on FX.

 

Mike are you referring to the 50-150, in the post above?

[jenniferk]

I don't think she needs a lens that goes up to 200mm. It might be nice if she has it once in awhile. Yesterday she left the

house with the 50 and attended a cross country meet, she just moves her location and shoots what is available. Most

often she likes the 85 but that lens is a bit slower on my d300. Rarely she chooses to take the 17-50, usually only if she

knows that she needs that range ahead of time. She is not going to take multiple lenses. She leaves the house everyday

with an overloaded backpack and sports gear. Another reason why we wanted to get a smaller body for her.

[mike_halliwell]

<p>There are 2 main versions of this lens. The older, smaller Sigma 50-150mm 2.8 HSM II and the newer version, the Sigma 50-150mm 2.8 OS OS (stabilization)</p>

<p>The later version is fairly new, and about 1.1/2 times the size and weight of the old one.</p>

<p>The OS version is the better lens, but the older is considerably smaller and cheaper, but no less able.</p>

<p>I own the older but hanker after the newer!</p>

<p>LATE EDIT.. For a single lens trip you can't beat the 18-140mm</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Jennifer, I am surprised to hear you had poor results with the 55-200 on your D300. I used the 55-200 VR previously (recently sold it when I got 70-300 VR). I always thought the 55-200 VR did a great job. I wonder if you used the VR or non-VR version? 55-200 really sounds like the ideal lens for your daughter, since you said she usually disfavors the 17-50. the 55-200 is small, light and has nice image quality if you don't need wide apertures. Maybe it is worth another look?? You can get a refurbished copy for less than $150 - how can you go wrong? </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Jennifer, sorry I did not pick up earlier she doesn't care much for the wide end at all.<br>

And how about a AF-S 85 f/1.8G ? She seems to get along with the focal length, every test this lens comes out shining, not too expensive, solid, light and small and it does AF on a D5200. Pair it with a 35mm f/1.8DX, and you've got a pretty versatile, light, small kit with very high quality lenses.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

My one son who is a hobby shooter has a 55-200. Cheap and quite good, just remember it has a very light build and

plastic mount.

[peter_petrov1]

<p>There is a simple to remember rule for choosing lenses: cheap, fast, or good - pick any two.<br /><br />If you need a single low-weight versatile zoom, with built-in motor, and a bit longer than 50mm - here are some options:</p>

<ul>

<li>Cheap and fast: perhaps some old 17-70/2.8-4 or 18-70/3.5-4.5.</li>

<li>Cheap and good: 24-85(AFS), 16-85, 18-105, 18-140, and so on.</li>

<li>Fast and good: 24-70, 24-120. (Fast zooms are definitely not low-weight)</li>

</ul>

<p>HTH, YMMV, and so on.</p>

 

[jenniferk]

Quite a few options are on the table, really appreciate the feedback!

 

I actually have a 55-200 in the bag already, maybe we will try it out when we get the new camera. When I first got the lens

it wasn't bad but after awhile it seemed to be more disappointing. What I was shooting also changed though and I needed

more speed. However even when I tried to use it as a light walk around lens the images needed post work, with or without

the vr. I ended up normally choosing a prime and typically am much happier with those results. Might be exciting to pull

that lens back out and see the results, maybe she'll hav the 200mm range after all.

 

Peter, I like the trio, a pretty good way to look at things and very true.

 

Wouter, we most likely will pick up a G version of the 85 for her. Was already thinking along those lines. Oringinally i was

thinking as a follow up birthday gift. Maybe we'll change it up though and go will the 85 initially, and then later pick

something else up if she needs/wants.

 

Certainly appreciate the time you have all taken to respond!

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

<p>If you REALLY love your daughter then get her the AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8G ED VR II :-)</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>The 50-150 would be a phenomenal lens choice but I think it would be too large for her on a regular basis.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>gonna chime in here: the original, non-OS sigma 50-150 is the best possible choice for what your daughter will be shooting. it pairs perfectly with a 17-50 (which i assume is 2.8 constant aperture), covers the entire portrait range and then some, and is fast enough for sports or indoor use. best of all, its super compact for a 2.8 telezoom lens. i just recommended the lens for another P.Netter and he emailed me to say how happy he was with it. i have had mine for 6 years and kept it even after getting an FX body, because it's so good. i consider it a must for DX. today's used prices make it an even sweeter deal, but to me it was well worth the $750 i paid for it new.</p>

[jenniferk]

The 50-150mm is near the top of the list right now. Plus I wouldn't mind borrowing it once in awhile :)

 

Nope John, really don't love her that much!! She said she might ask for it for her sweet sixteen though. We may have

started a slippery slope here!!

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

<p>Righto Jennifer. That's such a great card to play though. If YOU really loved her.... <br>

Haha. NOT that much. Heck *I* wish I had that lens. Oh, btw, fwiw, I have the 2nd gen 24-120 f3.5-5.6 zoom. Despite what everybody says I think it's a fine lens. I've used it for magazine assignments and haven't heard any complaints.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Incidentally, if looking at the 70-200 f/2.8, I'd give serious consideration to the mk1 version, used. The biggest advantage of the mk2 is that the corners aren't mushy at 200mm on an FX camera - but if it's used on DX, the mk1 is a very fine lens, and obviously much cheaper on the used market. Not that it's exactly small. I wouldn't sweat the lack of the 50mm-70mm range, but if size is an issue, the 50-150 is obviously going to be more portable.<br />

<br />

My $.02. :-)</p>

[glen_h]

<p>When I was doing yearbook pictures 40 years ago, 35mm was my favorite lens. That comes out to about 24mm for a DX sensor. That suggests that 24-120 would be fine. <br>

The 18-55 kit lenses are also very affordable, especially if people buy others and want to sell them.<br>

Either range would work fine for most yearbook, or other school, photography.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>I also suggest the 18-140. I use the old 18-135, when I'm not shooting my pro work events and concerts, for "snap shot" travel, family casual stuff. It's very sharp and I even dropped it once on the camera and the only problem was a cracked lens hood. The 18-140mm VR is that much better in specs.</p>