A few lens options

[Artful Dodger]

Hello all,

I am looking to expand my glass in the Nikon family. I just got a D90 and wish to get some nice glass but first here is what I have thus far: On my D50 which would really stay there unless really needed, 18-55mm kit lens, 50mm 1.8, 18-200mm. I also have a good tripod and head so that part is taken care of ahead of time.

I would like to consider the 16-85mm for walk around, 80-200mm or the 80-400mm for the distance. On the wide end but not Nikkor the 10-16mm from Tokina. I have been told by a few members that the 80-200 f2.8 is a great lens and I would also then get the 1.7x or the new TC-2.0e III Teleconverter to extend the range.

I have gone through my photos and most of my range is between the 16-85 (18-35 really) for most and then 180-200 (only because my range only goes that far) for the rest. Being in the Buffalo, NY area it is easy to go to any park system for wildlife and on the other side of things, architecture is abundant.

The question relates to the quality of the said lenses listed and does anyone here really like the ones listed, such as do you have them and are you happy with them? Of course I would buy one now and one around April due to cost of better glass. I also have read some folks don't mind used glass at a great price which leads to this, how can you tell if the lens is in very good condition being used other than by taking what BH Photo have listed per say?

Thanks for the input as it's much appreciated.

 

[MMM.PWR]

Whatever you get, shoot for a fixed aperture lens or a prime lens. These will give you the sharpest image. Is the 16-85 a 2.8? if it is, that sounds very appealing. The 80-200 2.8/4 would also be quite nice. I've spent some time with the 70-200 2.8 and it most definitely is one of the better Nikkor lenses.

Go for the telephoto, unless you shoot wide. I bought the 17-35 2.8 a few years back and wish I had gone for the 70-200 instead (same price).

The 50mm is awesome, btw. Don't be afraid of getting a used lens.. I've rented quite a bit of lenses from rentglass.com and never had any issues with any of those lenses.

Feel free to browse my flickr.com/sircrowley account, all the pictures you see there were either shot with a 50 1.4, 17-35 2.8, or 70-200 2.8.

Good luck on your search!

 

[sidewinder]

Fixed versus variable aperture has zero to do with zoom lens image quality. Prime lenses are generally better than than zooms. But the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G AF-S is better optically than any prime in its range.

Fast wide angle zoom lenses are expensive and usually don't cover much range as noted above. The Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 DX lens is an extremely good lens. It is well built and optically quite sharp with excellent color and contrast. I own on of these and you will find it on my D90 most of the time. It covers the 24-128mm range from my 35mm film days. The difference between 16mm and the 18mm you are used to is quite noticeable too.

The 70-200mm F/2.8 VR II lens is a great lens. You can't go wrong with this lens if you shoot pictures in that range enough to justify the costs.

S-

 

[MMM.PWR]

Fixed versus variable aperture has zero to do with zoom lens image quality. Prime lenses are generally better than than zooms. But the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G AF-S is better optically than any prime in its range.

I am sorry, but I disagree. Are you confusing prime lenses with fixed/constant aperture lenses?

 

[Westside guy]

The prime versus zoom arguments that still get trotted out during these discussions are a bit out-dated (similar to how people used to keep bringing up the argument that "CRTs are always superior to flat panel monitors", even long after it had ceased to be true). The resolution argument doesn't really hold up to much scrutiny. You will find individual prime lenses that are superior to their available zoom counterpart; but you'll also find cases where the zoom is notably better than the prime resolution-wise.

There's certainly still advantages to getting another 1-1.5 stops in aperture range, though; and weight can be an important consideration.

 

[sidewinder]

Fixed versus variable aperture has zero to do with zoom lens image quality. Prime lenses are generally better than than zooms. But the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G AF-S is better optically than any prime in its range.

I am sorry, but I disagree. Are you confusing prime lenses with fixed/constant aperture lenses?

No, I am not confusing anything. What did I write that you disagree with?

As I said, fixed versus variable aperture has zero to do with zoom lens image quality. The reason that fixed aperture zooms are often better optically than their variable aperture counterparts is that most lens manufactures decide to design their high end zooms with fixed apertures.

Prime lenses are generally better, optically, than zooms. But the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G AF-S is better optically than any prime in its range.

S-

 

[Ruahrc]

If your shots are mainly in the 16-85 range, then that is a great option. From what I gather, it is a very highly regarded lens in all areas. If you are desiring a wider aperture, then perhaps considering the 17-55? (don't know your budget). That will give shots in the same focal range and also a wider aperture.

Ruahrc

 

[pdxflint]

It took a while, but I finally scored a Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 for $702 on ebay - in excellent shape one year old. I'll report on it when it arrives, but if you are persistant, and watch a lot of auctions, fairly regularly one slips through the cracks and sells in the $700-800 range. I've missed out on a few by snoozing...

It's a bit of an adventure shopping the public bazaar that is ebay, but as long as you're careful it can be a great way to find bargains... so it's just an idea for Artful Dodger for filling that 17-55mm gap with a pro-quality lens. For me it'll replace an original 18-55 kit lens that came with my D50, and it'll compliment my D300 very well... hopefully.

 

[Artful Dodger]

pdxflint Thanks, I'm watching my local shops and glad to see you got a deal so far on yours. I got a lens at an estate sale that someone only used once or twice and didn't like it so it was my gain but I must admit, I haven't used it either It is a 28mm f2 Nikkor which I'll be looking to sell to help pay for the next lens. I think some folks have gotten a deal or two on a few Nikon sites close to what ebay can do. I'm thinking of going with the 16-85 for now and spending the most on the zoom lens this spring. I went to buy the 11-16 from Tokina today and once again I waited a bit too long and it is sold out for a good price anyway. That really had me ask and look around more which is good and decide to go for the 16-85 unless something shows up over the weekend like a billboard sign to "buy me instead".

 

[MMM.PWR]

The reason that fixed aperture zooms are often better optically than their variable aperture counterparts is that most lens manufactures decide to design their high end zooms with fixed apertures.

Prime lenses are generally better, optically, than zooms. But the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G AF-S is better optically than any prime in its range.

S-

This is what I was getting at. One can't compare the quality of the kit lens v. a 17-55 2.8 / 17-35 2.8, and so on.

But then again, I prefer D lenses to DX. I like to swap between digital and 35mm cameras.

 

[sidewinder]

This is what I was getting at. One can't compare the quality of the kit lens v. a 17-55 2.8 / 17-35 2.8, and so on.

But then again, I prefer D lenses to DX. I like to swap between digital and 35mm cameras.

The technically accurate point is that the image quality of a zoom lens has NOTHING to do with it being a fixed aperture versus a variable aperture lens.

An AF-D lens is an older style lens that provides focus distance information to the metering and flash systems. The "D" does not specify anything else. These lenses support 35mm, FX, and DX bodies.

There are plenty of AF-I and AF-S lenses that are not DX. They all support the FX and 35mm formats.

S-