- This topic is empty.
Walk-about Lens
-
I’m soliciting opinions on a walk-about lens for a Nikon D300 (cropped frame).
So here’s my thinking.
• For this use, I want to carry just one lens
• I’m not concerned that this lens will overlap other lens I own, or might own.
• €900 is stretching it
• Must be fast enough to autofocus well
• Image stabilization is a must
• Prefer Nikon lens, but not against other brands
• Most of my shots are in the 18-100mm range
• For family events, 100-150mm gets used a lotThere are three candidates from Nikon
• 16-85mm is a little short
• 18-105mm is OK but has a plastic mount and I broke a loaner. = expensive test |;->}}
• 18-200mm covers the bases well, but has three problems: corner sharpness, lens creep, weight.What might you suggest? Why? What other brand lens should I consider?
thanx in advance for your help/discussion,
Let me suggest something a little different – a Nikon 35mm f2/ f1.8. Fast enough not to require image stabilisation, a middle of the road focal length to be flexible enough for many situations, small as a button, and relatively cheap (~€250). I’ve always used one on my Nikon dslr’s in the past, and as a 50mm equivalent on an APS sensor, I have found it as flexible as a swiss army knife. The AF-D focuses down to 1:4 also.
If you need something more flexible, the Tamron 17-50mm has always seemed a great proposition to me; small, relatively fast, and with top notch image quality according to all reports.
Damien,
That’s a great suggestion and in my case = use what you own. I have a 35mm f/1.8 but think of it as a special purpose low light lens.
I’m embarassed that I forgot about that lens and just need better foot-zoom. It has some weaknesses for everything I’d like it to do, but so does every other walk-about lens. It’s light as a feather. And I really don’t need to spend money.
It will be interesting what other PI’ers turn up.
thanx for taking the time to respond,
No worries Ted. Always good to have options, and often when I brought a dslr on holiday, I would twin the 35mm with a wide angle zoom (18-70mm, in my case). A flexible wide aperture fixed focal lens, accompanied with the flexibility of a zoom, often proved to be a good option.
Good luck with the search
I’ve thought and eliminated the 18-105mm because of the possibility of destroying my heavy D300 because I picked it up by the lens. [Maybe I’m too conservative, but I spent 90e on repairing just the mount. If the camera had dropped who knows the expense.]
This is to be a walk-about lens and will be OK as I Iearn which primes I will actually use. After that it should serve as a more than good enough everyday lens. I’d prefer to have the camera with me, at lower image quality, than not not have the full bag because it’s to heavy.
I have tried a loaner 18-200mm. The weight is fine on my D300 and a black rubber band handled creep. The loaner sample was OK in the corners, despite some reviews. I corrected the linear distortion with Lightroom. Couldn’t get rid of it all, but I can only see it on some images. And then only when being very critical. I don’t have much interest architectural photos
It seems to be down to short zoom range (16-85) or corner sharpness (18-200)
Does anyone have experience with the Nikon 18-200mm?
BTW – I found a free program called ExposurePlot that is very helpful in looking in thousands of files and extracting focal length, aperature, ISO and shutter speed. Makes nice graphs. Lets you filter on any EXIF data field. http://www.vandel.nl” onclick=”window.open(this.href);return false;
I’m gunna go one step further then the guys above me and say i use an 18-200mm Tamron. Mines a canon mount but you can get the same lens for Nikon.
Reason i bought it was simply for holidays, i wanted one lens, for every occasion, so i wouldnt have to keep swapping. its 3.5-5.6 which isnt extremely low and at 200mm extension its hit and miss in darker situations but i love it.
I got some extremely good and clear shots with it recently, all day time or snow situations.
Its not heavy at all, a little slow sometimes to auto focus but its an excellent lens all in all.
I was considering replacing it with a Canon 24-105 f4 L later this year, as i’ve thought about it and very little of my shots go above 110mm give or take the odd full extension.
I’ve done everything with mine, landscape, sports, animals, birdwatching (not great as its zoom isnt high enough) and i still loveThough on the other hand i have to agree that fixfocal with a low f are brilliant i love my 50mm and i’ve used a 24mm and loved it. But for walk about i love the flexibility of something with a zoom.
Dave
I recently upgraded from a D300 to a D700, so currently coping with having to upgrade my lenses.
I loved my D300, and also loved my Nikon 18-200, I actually miss it since moving to full frame.
Perfect holiday lens, but also general everyday all purpose solution. Never had a particular issue with the quality of images, never going to be as good as primes or pro-level glass, but more than acceptable in 95% of cases.
ONLY issue I had was lens creep, but I had older version and believe the newer ones have a switch to help prevent.
Cheers…
thanx everyone. I’m still thinking.
What is your opinion if I said the 2011 purchasing plan is: I own the things in blue
35mm f/1.8
walk-around <- purchase soon
10-24mm f/3.5 – 4.5
55-300mm f/4.5 – 5.6I’d never carry all that.
Light weight kit:
walk-around
35mm f/1.8
holster bag = also holds 35mm, tiny flash, filters, extra battery, lens cloth (I pack very lean, but it works for me)
no tripodFull kit:
35mm f/1.8
10-24mm 3.5 – 4.5
55-300mm 4.5 – 5.6
holster + chimp bag = adds full size flash, one lens and junk
add L-bracket to camera
tripodHi Ted,
In the days of manual slr’s and prime lenses, standard practice was often to have a general kit that had a wide, a normal, and a telephoto lens. Often special purposes lenses such as macro’s would be added then, as need dictated.
You’re thinking along the same lines, and suspect you can’t go too far wrong, but as always let your own needs guide you :)
Damien,
Guilty as charged. :D I’ve been away from SLRs for years. But I got into the game in the ’60s.
Choices get more expensive as you go down my list.
Because it is so light and has a great range, I tend toward the 18-105. But, like I said, I’m afraid of breaking the plastic mount again. :oops: :( :sick :?
Second choice is the 16-85. It seems just as sharp as the 18-105, both sharper than 18-200 which weighs more and creeps.
Third choice is 18-200
The 16-85 might push out any need for a wide lens.
Can someone comment on my phobia about the plastic mount?
BTW – I found out that the mount part is easy to replace and Nikon will sell it to me for small money. I’m more afraid that the next time the mount breaks I’ll damage the camera body. I could keep a spare mount for $30.
Hi Ted,
Had a plastic mount on my first two lenses (18-55 & 55-200) for my first Nikon dslr, a D50. I never had any problems with them, but to be honest I’m not too hard on my gear, and never had any of the plastic mounts break on me.
Mount-aside, generally there’s a lot of plastic in most lenses these days but it seems to hold up and do the job pretty well. I think all but 2 of the Nikon lenses I had (17-55 & 85 f1.4) had quite a bit of plastic in their construction, but all held up ok.
Do you think there may have been an isolated quality issue with regard to the lens you had that broke ? The reason I ask, is that I’ve seen the online debates on the merits of plastic lens mounts versus metal mounts, and aside from my natural aversion to non-metal construction, I haven’t read too many cases of where plastic lens mounts broke.
I haven’t looked into these debates in a while though, so perhaps things have changed since the time of my own experiences as a user.
Damien,
thanx
Yours is a good and experienced insight. And I’m not hard on my gear either.
No problems with plastic. It’s just the broken mount that’s up my nose. :(
It was Conn’s used loaner. So maybe I should decide it was cracked before I banged it?
That lens was very sharp and it just came back from a full overhaul and repair by Nikon Ireland.
I like the price, light weight and range of the 18-105mm.
Michael will give me a 1 year guarantee. I’ll think more about purchasing it.
With the money I save, I could have my next lens sooner. :wink: :twisted: :P :lol: :wink:
damien.murphy wrote:
If you need something more flexible, the Tamron 17-50mm has always seemed a great proposition to me; small, relatively fast, and with top notch image quality according to all reports.
My favourite lens over the past 3 years. It is perfect as a walkabout lens. I’ve also shot portraits and landscape with it. Very sharp, and nicely built. Not as sturdy as the Nikon 17-55 2.8, but then it’s only 1/3 the price and little difference in IQ.
Thanx. Cagey
I’m still messin about with what to purchase. No great hurry while the 50mm and 18-105mm allow me to keep learning.
My biggest problem is the guy on the shutter.
Ah, I have that problem at times too ;)
It really depends on whether or not you really need 2.8. if you shoot a lot on dull days, or in darker areas, like woodland etc … then 2.8 can be a gift. The 17-50 I hype up is far superior to the standard kit lens say, and is pretty solid. best of all, it’s a lot cheaper than the Nikon equivalent. for you €900 you could buy the Nikon, but you can get the Tamron for less than half of that, and could get something like an 85mm f/1.8. these would make your 18-105 pretty much redundant, you could sell it maybe.
But … if you’re doing alright with what you got, then no need.
With that money I’d buy a Tamron or Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. really need one of those. No way I’ll ever afford the nikon in that range, think the new version is over €2000. On Amazon you can get either the tammy or sigma for around €550. I’d put the rest to a 105mm macro.
Course, if you ever want a nice macro for out and about, I’m selling a 60mm atm :P
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
