Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    285

    Next upgrade question - lens

    A while back I upgraded the D40 to the D90, body only. Retained the 18-55 f3.5-5.6 (non VR) kit. That lens now needs to be replaced and would appreciate suggestions on which way to go. Retaining my 55-200 and 10-20.

    Obvious would be the Nikon 18-105 f3.5-5.6. Considering it is also the least expensive, potentially include a 50 prime.

    Competing with the 18-105 is the 16-85 f3.5-5.6. With the 10-20, I don't really NEED the 16mm, but obviously is nice. All three are the same variable f-stop and have had no issues with low light. Both would give a greater "walk-around" factor than the current 18-55. Optically, is there that big a difference between the 18-105 and 16-85 that would justify double the price for the 16-85.

    Also, looking at, but leaning towards Nikon:
    Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4
    Sigma 17-50 f2.8 - fixed
    Tamron 17-50 f2.8 - fixed
    General discussions have indicated that the non-VR versions are better than the newer VR versions of those lens. Within that focal range, I generally consider VR to be 20% functional/80% marketing hype. Besides, I have a tripod although I don't use it that much with the 18-55 due to walk-around bulk.

    Any suggestions would be appreciated.
    Digital: Nikon D40; Nikon D90; Nikon D7000 Nikkor 18-55; Nikkor 55-200VR; Sigma 10-20; Tamron 17-50; SB-600; SB-900; Pocket Wizards
    Film: Canon AE-1; T70; FD 28mm 2.8; FD 50mm 1.8; FD 135mm 3.5
    Wish List: Unlimited! Let's not go there.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    164
    I had kit lenses with my D80 and D300...and sold them all on ebay after I got the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8. Amazing lens! Rock solid. Great images. Yes, pricy, but well worth the money for me.
    Nikon D700
    Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G AF-S VR
    Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8 G ED
    Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 D
    MB-D10
    SB-800 (x2), SU-800
    Canon SD1400IS


    Nikon D300 - for sale
    Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX - for sale
    Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S DX - for sale

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    667
    Having the 18-105, I can say:

    1) There is some sort of distortion in the top left corner which can make faces and straight lines there look a bit strange

    2) It's works very well for outdoor landscapes since no one is going to notice distortions for things like the sky, clouds or natural landforms. It's also not too heavy so bringing up a small mountain was no issue for me.

    I'm sure the 16-85 is better (18-105 has a plastic mount) but then again, the cheap pricing of the 18-105 meant that I didn't worry too much about losing or breaking it on my vacations. I'm completely satisfied with my 18-105 for what I use it for.
    Nikon D40|Nikon D5100|AF-S 50mm f/1.4|AF-S 18-105mm DX|SB 900|SB 400|AF-S 35mm f/1.8 DX|AF-S 10-24mm DX

    Canon A610

    Flickr

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    295
    I loved the Tamron 17-50 when I played with it at the Camera store. If I was looking to upgrade to a more expensive lens, this is the one I would go with.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,929
    Quote Originally Posted by tizeye View Post
    A while back I upgraded the D40 to the D90, body only. Retained the 18-55 f3.5-5.6 (non VR) kit. That lens now needs to be replaced and would appreciate suggestions on which way to go. Retaining my 55-200 and 10-20.

    Obvious would be the Nikon 18-105 f3.5-5.6.
    I would try to stick with the same focal range(17/18-50/55). If you did get the 18-105, youre covering the same range as the 55-200, for the most part. I think you would be better off getting a constant 2.8 lens.
    Jason

    "A coward dies a thousand deaths, a soldier dies but once."-2Pac


    A bunch of Nikon stuff!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    oslo, norway
    Posts
    1,019
    If you don't need a fast f2.8 lens, the 16-85 vr is a great lens. Very sharp.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Exeter, UK
    Posts
    883
    I have the 16-85VR that I use on my Fuji S3. Although sharp enough, and 16mm at the wide end is nice for landscapes, it does suffer rather more for chromatic aberation / fringing and from flare than my 18-70 did. I think the 18-70 is probably the best budget non VR DX standard zoom for Nikon, but if you can spend a bit more, I hear good things about the Sigma and Tamron constant f/2.8 zooms.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Terra Australis Incognita
    Posts
    3,877
    Because I spent so much on the 24-70 I have it on my camera a lot. I always regret not having the 16-85 on there when I'm trying to shoot though. I like it's sharpness and wide angle versatility on a walkaround.

    I don't like the old 18-105 I use at work but that is an old non VR version.

    Daubs' used 17-55 2.8 DX ?

    Also search past threads as there are of heaps on this.
    Last edited by Dread Pirate Roberts; 12-30-2010 at 05:31 AM.
    D800, D300, D90, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200VR f2.8, 300 F4, 105 micro, 16-85VR, 50mm 1.8, Tammy 90 macro, 70-300VR, SB900, 2xSB600, MB-D10, 055XPROB 322RC2. New computers to run photoshop faster. C&C always appreciated. PhotoGallery
    Pressing the shutter is the start of the process - Joe McNally ... Buying the body is the start of the process - Dread Pirate

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •