Next upgrade question - lens

[tizeye]

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.

[Daubs]

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.

[Screenclutter]

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.

[Myboostedgst]

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.

[jcon]

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.

[photowerkz]

If you don't need a fast f2.8 lens, the 16-85 vr is a great lens. Very sharp.

[AlexMonro]

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.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

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.