Looking for a 'wonder lens' to replace the AF-S Nikkor 18-55

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by lamina, Aug 30, 2007.

  1. lamina macrumors 68000

    lamina

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Location:
    Niagara
    #1
    I'm going to China next August, and I'd like a more versatile lens, something where I can get a wider shot, and also one that will let me zoom in, but still be 'fast'. Yeah, a miracle of physics, I'm sure.

    Can anyone recommend a replacement for the kit lens that came with my D50?
     
  2. the Helix macrumors regular

    the Helix

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    #2
    try...

    First of all, don't expect an all-in-one lens to be as good as what individual lenses can do better. Having said that, the experience of many Nikonians with the Nikkor 18-200 mm VR lens is quite positive. Be aware however, that the price for that one hovers between $700 - $900 US dollars.
     
  3. anonymous161 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2003
    Location:
    Where the wind comes sweeping down the plains
    #3
    you didn't mention a budget, which is usually the deciding factor with most lenses. To be honest the kit 18-55 is really a nice lense. As is nikon's 18-70.
    wider is very difficult in the DX format

    you could try the 12-24 nikkor which is certainly wide and fairly fast but doesn't "zoom" much and is pricey.

    my personal favorite is the 17-55 nikkor. The fixed 2.8 throughout is just amazing. Its also pricey and pretty hard to come by right now for some reason.

    The 18-135 is nice because of the range, obviously the 18-200 vr even more so, but I like really fast glass and those two just didn't have wide enough apertures at the wide angle.

    Tokina makes a 12-24 but i haven't tried it. Sigma and Tamron both make equivalent lenses to the two above at far cheaper prices, but I really prefer Nikkors.
     
  4. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #4
    Tokina also makes a 2.8/16-50 zoom; it's quite a bit cheaper and for all intents and purposes just as good. 16 mm corresponds to 24 mm on film, so you have the equivalent of a 24-75 mm zoom.

    I'm not decided yet whether I should get the 12-24 zoom or the 16-50 …*;) :)
     
  5. wmmk macrumors 68020

    wmmk

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Location:
    The Library.
    #5
    The Tokina 12-24 and 16-50's are both great lenses. If you wanted, you get those two as well and a Tokina 50-135 for your longer stuff. 3 quality fast zooms won't be cheap, but Tokina will be cheaper than Nikkors with better build and IQ than Sigma or Tamron.
     
  6. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #6
    So you want an f/2.8 zoom lens that is wider than 18mm and longer than 55mm? Not going to happen. Anything that is wider than 18mm will not be any longer than 55mm. You are going to have to carry two lenses. Once you decide to carry two then you have a hundred options
     
  7. serpent macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    #7
    as ChrisA pointed out what your asking for can't/hasn't been made. Nor do I think its worth spending the bucks for a proffesional "G" or "D" series or new "FX" lens to attach to a D50. Everyone can rave all they want about the 17-55 but the fact is "The Beast" 28-70 f/2.8D blows it away. And probably the new 24-70. On the longer end VR 70-200 f/2.8G, but again your talking around $1500 new for ea. and weigh between 2-3lbs.
    I would outfit my bag with the above two lenses and throw in a 10.5mm FE for close-up wide shots and use capture nx to straighten. But for what I think you're looking to do, you're best bet for a all-in-one walk around lens is the VR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G. Tho not as fast as any of Nikons 2.8's you will get very nice shots and be able to use one lens and not break the bank.
     
  8. Digital Skunk macrumors 604

    Digital Skunk

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Location:
    In my imagination
    #8
    The 17-55 f/2.8 was just as good as the 28-70 f/2.8G, have used both and both are wonders. The latter being back ordered for some months now. It was never blown away by the 28-70, not in sharpness, or other areas. They were pretty much on par sans the smaller image circle of the 17-55 to fit the DX sensors. Many a photog has sold their 28-70 for a 17-55, being happy with their decision and not suffering any loss of IQ.

    Yup!
     
  9. regan2 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Location:
    hyde park, ny
    #9
    For me, upgrading to the 18-200mm was a no-brainer. I wanted something that could do it all reasonably well. I paid $749 on amazon and wouldn't go back if you paid me. The versatility and quality of the lens have made it my go-to lens. The only real times I take it off is for shooting with the 105mm, but that's not too often.

    It's a great lens, worth the cash, with few drawbacks.


     

Share This Page