Recommendations for 18- or 24- zoom for Nikon DX?

[stsadasdsad]

Hi all-

 

I have a Nikon D7500 (DX). I currently have a Tamron 18-200 as a walking/travel lens for landscapes, cityscapes, etc. I recently ran EXIFTool against my trip photos and found that I live in the 18-100mm range and barely use 101-200mm (I do have a separate wide angle that I use for 20mm and under circumstances).

 

I'm thinking about replacing the Tamron with a shorter focal range so I can get more sharpness/quality in the range that I shoot (e.g. 18-?? or 24-??).

 

Does anyone have recommendations for Nikon, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina etc. lenses in that 18-??? or 24-???-type range that are known for sharpness? My budget would be around $500 or less, but I would also like to know what the best expensive lenses in this category would be as well.

 

Thanks!

[photo_galleries]

As you might already know, your $500 budget will be your biggest constraint. If you're willing to exceed your budget, then I'd start with the Nikon 16-80mm... a little short of 100mm but a very good lens. If you're willing to split the FL range to 2 lenses (and obliterate your budget), then I would highly recommend the Sigma 18-35/1.8 and the Sigma 50-100/1.8.

[Gary Naka]

Nikon DX 16-80/2.8-4, 18-140. I think the 16-80 is the better of the two lenses.

Nikon FX 24-120/4

 

If you get them factory refurbished or used, you should be able to meet your budget, or be near it.

[rodeo_joe1]

Tamron's SP f/2.8 17-50 is excellent. It stands up against my 17-55 Zoom Nikkor very well, but gets more use because it's half the weight and size. Not to mention it cost a fraction of what I paid for the bulky Nikkor.

 

I'm also impressed by the IQ of the 'kit' 18-140 Nikkor that came with my D7200. The only reason I find to change it, is if I need a wider aperture or a longer or shorter focal length. Having said that, its IQ isn't perfect, but its zoom range pretty much covers everything expected of a 'walkaround' lens, and with superb VR too.

[Matthew Currie]

I agree with Gary and Rodeo Joe on this. The 16-80 and the 18-140 are both very sharp, and nice for carrying around. I have the first, and my wife the second, so I've played with them a good bit. The 16-80 has added speed, an E aperture, and seems very resistant to misting and fogging in difficult climates. The 18-140 is much less expensive, but Adorama periodically comes up with refurbished 16-80's on sale, worth keeping an eye out. Mine cost about $670. But if you're on a tight budget, you can find examples of the 18-140 used for a good price. This has been a kit lens on several cameras including the D7100 and there are a lot of them out there.

 

The 16-80's lens hood is rather odd and bulky, making it a bit of a nuisance if you travel compactly, but it helps to avoid shading with a built in flash, and it allows you to turn a polarizing filter easily with the hood on, which I find really handy.

[Mary Doo]

I currently have a Tamron 18-200 as a walking/travel lens for landscapes, cityscapes, etc. I recently ran EXIFTool against my trip photos and found that I live in the 18-100mm range and barely use 101-200mm

If you like the lens, there's probably no need to replace it if it provides your needed 18-100mm within its range.

 

However, there are a number of other lenses to fit your more precise need and likely fall under $500, especially in the used market.

 

18-140mm - Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Review | Photography Blog

 

18-105mm - Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Review | Photography Blog

 

24-120mm - Nikon 24-120mm f/4G VR Review - Photography Life

 

Good luck!

[erichsande]

Tamron's SP f/2.8 17-50 is excellent. It stands up against my 17-55 Zoom Nikkor very well, but gets more use because it's half the weight and size. Not to mention it cost a fraction of what I paid for the bulky Nikkor..

 

I'll second this recommendation - I picked up the non-VC version on local Craigslist for $140 and couldn't be happier with color and sharpness. Good close-focus distance as well.

 

Eric Sande

[Andrew Garrard]

I can't comment on the 18-xx DX lenses, although I've heard only good things about the recommendations (and mostly bad things about every 18-200 on the market). I did want to say though that the 24-120 f/4 is not a trivially small lens to carry around, and 24mm isn't all that wide on a DX body: you're paying the premium (and it's often not cheap either) for the FX coverage. If you've also got, or plan to get, an FX camera (or film body), fine - although I got rid of mine and kept the 24-70 Tamron. If you're only using it on DX, I wouldn't consider it. The variable aperture version is smaller, but was also universally panned for image quality.

[Mary Doo]

mostly bad things about every 18-200 on the market

No.

[Andrew Garrard]

No.

 

Mostly. In the "I think getting better quality by trading the 140-200mm range for a shorter zoom has a good chance of helping" sense. An 18-200 has its place, whatever the optical compromises, and getting the shot is the most important thing. Even a "soft lens" can produce a good image, especially with processing, but if the long end of the range isn't getting used, you may as well see whether you can get anything back in return. If nothing else, the 18-140 is a bit lighter than the 18-200. The 18-300 looks a bit more competitive if you really don't want to give up the range, but the 18-140 still tests better; here are the three according to DxO, and here's the Tamron 18-200 against the Nikkor. To be fair to Tamron, their newer 16-300 falls firmly into the "not as terrible as you'd expect" category - but I'd still take the 18-140 unless I was trying to compete with someone with a superzoom compact.

[Mary Doo]

An 18-200 has its place, whatever the optical compromises, and getting the shot is the most important thing. Even a "soft lens" can produce a good image, especially with processing, but if the long end of the range isn't getting used, you may as well see whether you can get anything back in return...

The 18-200 is not a 24-70 or a 70-200. However, I have seen rather impressive bird-in-flight shots with it. I also remember using the full range. I am not sure if you are familiar with wildlife photography; beside good composition, the images have to be at least sharper-than-average to be "impressive." Surely the lens has compromises, as is every one of the other lenses you mentioned. Then there are multiple versions of 18-200 . But to single it out saying that [you heard] "mostly bad things about every 18-200 on the market" is inaccurate, and also cannot possibly be true unless you heard about every unit on the market. ;)

 

The 18-300 looks a bit more competitive if you really don't want to give up the range,

Likely false. I have tested this lens at 300mm for wildlife and it was no way "impressive". Also, the answer is irrelevant as the OP mentioned he is not interested in focal range beyond 100mm.

 

Note: Just discussing. :)

Edited August 31, 2019 by Mary Doo

[CvhKaar]

It would help if you could fill in the other end of the zoom range you want, or really need i think.

There is a large difference between limmited ranges ( like 12-24 for example) and a bit longer ranges (like 16-35) , yet a bit longer ( like 18 -100mm) .

 

Another idea might be just adding a fixed primary like 18 or 20mm to your bag..?

[rodeo_joe1]

The 16-80's lens hood is rather odd and bulky,

Nothing to add on lens recommendations, but Matthew's comment above reminded me that Nikon, tight-fistedly, don't provide a free lenshood with the 18-140. So I bought a cheap compatible 'knock off' online. It's branded Osrso - palindromic but nearly unpronounceable. Anyway... it's made of good thick material and fits the lens perfectly.

 

Just thought I'd mention it for any 18-140 AF-S Nikkor owners that don't already have a hood/shade.

[Andrew Garrard]

Mary: I read a lot of random lens reviews, even for DX superzooms, for which I'm not exactly the target audience. (I have exactly one DX body, which is IR converted.) Admittedly I don't give them my undivided attention, and something may slip through the cracks. I've not used them, except briefly an original 18-200 on a low-MP body, but I've read about a lot being tested (certainly both versions of the Nikkor, several Tamrons, several Sigmas) and I've universally seen low image quality both numerically and in sample images, and I've never seen anyone respond favourably to the image quality, except in an elderly Ken Rockwell review (he tends to call all kinds of things "sharp", and the test in question wouldn't have been on a 24MP body anyway). Most in-depth reviews have explicitly provided warnings about the image quality of these zooms. It's not that anyone did a bad job, it's that it's incredibly difficult to make a portable 10x(+) zoom on a budget that resolves 24MP well, especially transitioning the retrofocal-to-telephoto range.

 

These lenses have their place - a soft image is better than no image, and image processing can work wonders. There are some that aren't awful over a subset of the range, especially near the frame centre. If you're taking an image for Instagram and don't want to edit in post, there's nothing wrong with a superzoom - and you'll likely still have a larger effective aperture than if you decided to crop out of a shorter, sharper lens. Sometimes you really can't change lens, or you're surprised by the image you need to take (rare birds passing by etc.) - and they're obviously useful for things like school sports where the fields are well-lit and and there's a wide range to be covered.

 

So... no, I'm sure I've not read a review of every superzoom on the market. But I've read quite a lot of them, from quite a lot of sources (DxO, photozone as was, lenstip, lenscore, Thom, KR, Amateur Photographer, DPReview...), and haven't seen anyone say "actually, this one's good" - I've mostly seen people say "well, if you must", but to be fair they're probably tailoring those comments to some people who are expecting miracles. DxO's graphs for the 18-300 f/3.5-6.3 look less-than-usually terrible for a zoom like this, but it's not cheap - and the 18-140 seems to have a number of relatively happy owners,

 

For decent affordable telephoto on DX, I'd be looking at the latest batch of 70-300mm AF-P lenses - but that's a lens change away from what we've been discussing.

[Mary Doo]

etc etc

If you read a lot of reports, you should know enough that statements such as "every 18-200 on the market" is clearly not an appropriate one, especially not on a public forum where some people may rely upon to make purchase decision, especially when you have never used any of it. Do you believe that every unit of the lens has been reviewed and you have read them all? I am telling you now that you are wrong to make such a statement. Sorry.

 

I have also owned the 70-300 you men

 

PS - Just made a casual check. Have you read the 5-star user comments on B&H? (Click here). One should think twice or thrice before saying "all" or "every", especially when one has never read all or tried any. Seriously, as a past 18-200 user and friend of some good photographers who used it for wild life, I was shocked to see your comments about this lens on a Nikon advice/discussion forum.

Edited September 2, 2019 by Mary Doo

[Andrew Garrard]

Hi Mary.

 

Okay, I'm prepared to check whether I'm missing something, so I looked. B&H lists precisely three current 18-200mm lenses for the F mount: the Nikon VR II, the Tamron Di II, and the Sigma Contemporary (there are various 18-250, 18-300 etc. lenses too; reviews seem to suggest sample variation). Adorama lists the same three, in various bundles. I have read a number of reviews of all three of these lens designs, and what I have heard about them in terms of optical quality is mostly bad. Most of what I've read has been in full reviews with a technical analysis, not a three line "I'm happy with the lens I bought with my new camera" report (not that I reject those entirely - they're a good way to check quality control); "sharp" is hard to evaluate without measurement, and a lot of images look acceptably sharp until you have something to compare against. "Bad" is equally subjective - in some cases, I see optical measurements that fall far below what I would expect from a quality lens but might be good compared with some alternatives, in others I look at images and have seen optical aberrations that would annoy me but may not bother someone else; in some of these cases the review summary has been somewhat... polite.

 

No, I can't comment on every sample of every lens; it would be a bit weird for me to have broken into your house and tested your own one, and I would question the definition of "on the market" in this case. All reviews have a limited sample count, although I greatly appreciate Roger Cicala's reports of sample variation on LensRentals.

 

All I can report is that I have read several technical reviews covering every one of the current new 18-200 lenses available for the Nikon mount (and a number of previous ones), and what I have read about those lenses has mostly not been flattering; this is what I intended to say, so apologies if I'd been less than clear. I have obviously not read every review of these lenses, but I have read some reviews of each of them; I was speaking only of the consistency in the reports that I'd read, but it's possible that every reviewer had a poor sample and that other reviews exist which are incredibly flattering (or are outdated and a little simplistic, if we bring KR's "everything is awesome" review into the list).

 

"Mostly" does not mean these lenses don't have a place or redeeming features, as I suggested, just that they are necessary compromised. The OP seemed to be hoping to improve on the image quality from the sample that kicked off this thread; what I have read about 18-200 lenses - and indeed the MTF curves that Nikon themselves publish - suggests that this should be an achievable goal. My own 18-200 experience was very limited, and being on a borrowed D40 wouldn't have said much about how the lens performed on a D7500 anyway.

 

So, barring a technical review telling me otherwise, I'm going to stand by my advice: when used on a modern, high-megapixel dSLR, I have reason to believe that any current 18-200mm lens will be visibly optically compromised compared with most alternatives with a smaller zoom range, possibly to the extent that a potential purchaser should think carefully before buying one. "Think carefully" does include "have perfectly justifiable reasons to get one anyway". I really did carry a 28-200 (which probably isn't optically much better) around on my D700 for years, for a reason that wasn't "best possible images".

 

Picking on the Nikkor 18-200 VRII:

• Thom Hogan: "Just doesn’t hold its own with the 24mp sensors. You can see that it’s not as sharp as the other super zooms Nikon made."
  
• Opticallimits (photozone as was): "The image center resolution is quite high, especially towards the short end of the focal range. The borders and corners are a different story though, offering a rollercoaster ride from poor to very good values throughout the zoom and aperture range." "In summary the Nikkor is a very capable super zoom lens, however one should be aware of its flaws and limitations in the field. They are the price to pay for the convenience of carrying just a single lens."
  

I don't think this is shocking or particularly unfair advice? I've never really heard otherwise on this forum: if you're buying an 18-200, don't do so for image quality, or caveat emptor. I'm just repeating what I've heard.

 

Having said all that: Mary, if you've had an unusually good sample of an 18-200 and have managed to get images out of it that you have been happy with on a high resolution dSLR (that is, not a D40 or similar that would mask the aberrations), I do take that under advisement. The MTF curves I remember seeing would generally suggest that one shouldn't expect this, but if it's happened to you, I'm going to say I'm happy for you rather than trying to call you out on it - and I'll be more wary about being too binary in my evaluation of these lenses. I'm here mostly to learn, and new information is good information; I certainly don't want to spread misinformation. But your report is an outlier compared with what else I've heard; if I'd seen some good reviews and some bad reviews, I'd have commented about consistency and not tried to be authoritative.

 

(I would also say "pics or it didn't happen", but only to tease you!)

[Mary Doo]

Andrew, can't read the verbose essay but I can tell you, again, that you are wrong, and you don't know the lens.

[Ed_Ingold]

When is good enough good enough? I'm not a personal fan of extreme range zoom lenses, which generally suffer from soft edges and excessive distortion. Most, not all, have a variable aperture, which is a compromise in order to improve results in other ways without excessive cost, weight or bulk. For some, even the most egregious examples of 18-xxx zooms are preferable to carrying a large bag and changing lenses frequently. My brother is an avid photographer, yet traveled frequently with a single lens, a Nikon 18-300, and got excellent results with it. Of course there few straight lines in nature.

 

There are ways to "get it all" in one package, but be prepared to pay a heavy price for it, with emphasis on "heavy." There are cinematic zoom lenses with an extreme, if equivalent, focal length range. They usually have minimal focus breathing, low distortion, uniform sharpness and parfocal zooming (focus doesn't change). Many have a constant aperture range, which isn't actually requires with auto exposure. (Auto focus lenses are usually used in manual mode for video.) They get really expensive for super-35 format and larger. A Sony PZ 18-110/4 is 7" long, 4" in diameter and weighs over two pounds. At a list price of $3600, it is not cheap, but far cheaper than similar lenses by Fuji and Zeiss, which start at $5K, with no upper limit.

 

In the long run, mechanical quality, size and ease of handling may trump any of the optical properties prized by enthusiasts.

[Mary Doo]

When is good enough good enough?

Absolutely. If a lens is good enough to satisfy some good nature photographers shooting moving/flying wild life images, it cannot be that bad as to be singled out for "badness" under and below some of the other lenses which probably have worse compromises in term of many criteria.

[Andrew Garrard]

Mary: TL;DR version: Until now, almost every (which doesn't mean absolutely every) reputable review I've seen of every (yes, every, there are only three) current 18-200mm lens available for the F mount has been highly critical of the quality of the optics when used on a modern high megapixel body, to the extent that they strongly suggest considering whether this compromise is worth the flexibility of a zoom with this extreme a range. With one exception, I've never seen an in-depth review claim the optical quality is "good".

 

A portable, cheap lens with a very wide zoom range is obviously very appealing for a number of reasons, and I don't think anyone would suggest that they have no place at all - especially if you don't want to edit the results. On the other hand, I would not be surprised to learn that benefits over, say, using an 18-140 and cropping the result are likely small. To an extent, reports of quality need to temper the enthusiasm of the many who otherwise might expect such a lens to be perfect, and perhaps need to emphasise the limits. Still, the best lens is always the one that's actually on your camera.

 

I do consider you to be a reputable source. If you're happy with the lens, good, and that's a report that others (including me) should consider. But I stand by my observation that your report is an outlier compared with the conclusions of multiple other reviews that I have read. I don't know the lens, and have no personal opinion on it; I'm just reporting the fact that there exist many negative in-depth reviews about whether the quality compromise is too great for modern sensors, and I think those stumbling on this thread and considering an 18-200 in 2019 should take that into consideration too. In the OP's case, that just means hoping for better optics is reasonable given the willingness to reduce the zoom range.

 

Ed: I vaguely wonder how good cinema lenses tend to be. I've seen more chromatic aberration on TV recently than I think I used to, but that may be wider apertures being used. "Good" TV tends to be recorded at 4K (aka 8MP), which isn't exactly taxing on the lens by modern stills sensor standards, especially if you have the budget to throw at the design and its calibration; the majority of content is at best HD, which is only 2MP. A very small amount of TV is recorded at 8K, with rare demonstrations of 16K. I'm sure these lenses are "good", and there are other benefits you mention (which are arguably more important for TV use), but I'm not totally sure that even the TV industry has a supply of critically sharp 8K-capable super-zooms - or at least, I don't think we can yet have seen evidence of it. While 8K is coming (and devices are available), HDR and wide gamut images are likely to make much more of a practical difference to most scenes.

[Mary Doo]

I stand by my observation that your report is an outlier compared with the conclusions of multiple other reviews that I have read.

I stand by my observation that you are picking on this lens.

[Andrew Garrard]

Fair enough, Mary. I'll certainly bear in mind your glowing endorsement - and sorry for sounding argumentative. I can't really try one myself (my IR D90 isn't a very good test basis, and I don't use it enough to justify picking one up, unless I find the Sigma one used), but I'll stop asserting that the opinions are universally one-sided. I honestly thought the advice about superzooms on this forum had been equally consistent, but maybe I have confirmation bias. And I really did use that 28-200 a lot on FX before I gained another 24MP.

 

If I've been misjudging any of these lenses, thank you for correcting me (and apologies to any lens designers feeling maligned - although in this case I only ever meant to claim it was an impossible task rather than doubting their abilities). I'd be confused about the diametrically opposite opinions rather than there being a continuum of people reporting that it's "kind of okay", but in the current political climate I've become used to it. :-)

[Mary Doo]

I appreciate your patience in this community, always with a heart to help others. I am sure others feel the same in appreciation of your analyses. Not doubting your sincerity, but perhaps you were just missing some other areas in your search for reviews. I searched on YouTube and came up with the following. Note that a professional wedding photographer highly recommends this lens featuring remarkable sample shots (the first two videos below). Others contain many positive adjectives.

 

https://www.cameralabs.com/nikkor_dx_18-200mm_vr_ii/2/

[Andrew Garrard]

Thank you, Mary - you're very kind, and it's very possible that I've picked bad reviews. (I once read a number of reviews that claimed the 150-500 Sigma was sharp, and I learned the opposite the hard way.) Thank you for digging out the links - I'll have a look through the youtube videos later. (Video is quite a good reason to have a zoom, although ideally one with a somewhat smoother motion than one of these will; while cropping a still image is trivial, consistently cropping and changing the crop amount through a video sequence is likely a bit more tedious, although I don't know video editing tools well enough to know how easy they make it.)

 

FWIW, the cameralabs report (which I've skimmed) kind of agrees with what I've understood of this lens: it holds its own at some focal lengths against very cheap alternatives, but - especially off-centre - it's very smeary, even on a 12MP body. They do give it a (qualified) "highly recommended", admittedly. On a 6MP body (which would hide more aberrations and have less ability to crop) I really would have rated any of these zooms very highly; I think the trade-off has changed with modern bodies, but for a very specific set of circumstances it's still useful. I mention this only to provide a little reassurance of my sanity, not to try to kick off a further argument; I'll see what I can take from the videos. And, to be clear, I'm not arguing that the 18-200 Nikkor is bad for an 18-200.

Thanks again, Always here to learn.

[Ed_Ingold]

My Sony GM zooms are noticeably sharper than my Sony PZ 28-135 (FF) when shooting 4K video, and my Zeiss primes are sharper yet and more contrasty. However the 28-135 has several features which distinguish it for video, notably zero focus breathing, low distortion and parfocal zooming. Focusing is mechanically coupled with hard stops when in manual mode. The switch between auto and manual focus is done by sliding the focusing ring about 1/8" toward the body.

 

The PZ 18-110 has even better specifications, but for Super-35. Mine arrives Thursday, for use with an FS5 video camera (4,2,2, GOP-I 10 bit, or 12 bit RAW).

 

The CA you observe may be due to the encoding process for broadcast. NTSC has many compromises to accommodate broadcast requirements, particularly in. the red channel. Viewed raw,, even as MP4 video, I see no CA. Broadcast lenses cost many times what I can afford. Furthermore, I shoot and edit in ProRes HQ 4,2,2,, which uses short-frame compression (and very little at that). Typical 4K has 4,2,0 color and GOP-L compression, both of which degrade sharpness. 10 or 8 bit matters only for grading, not the appearance of raw video.

 

Even at 8 MP resolution (4K), the lens affects the apparent sharpness until it is about 3x as sharp as the medium. Squared, that means the lens should be capable of resolving the equivalent of 64 MP or more.