What would you replace a broken Nikon 18-135mm lens with???

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by eddx, Jun 18, 2008.

  1. eddx macrumors regular

    eddx

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #1
    I have had my Nikon D80 and 18-135mm kit lens for 18 months. I am a full time student and semi professional photographer. I also own the Sigma 10-20mm and the Nikorr 50mm f/1.8

    Recently my 18-135mm has started to fall apart, it is coming away from the body and thus occassionally not letting me press the shutter because I get the F-- error (meaning no lens attached).

    I feel that I have narrowed my replacement lens down to...

    A - Nikon 18-200mm VR

    B - Nikon 16-85mm VR

    C - Nikon 24-120mm VR

    I am putting all the money I can earn from photography back into lenes and am saving for a D300 so that my D80 can be a backup. In an ideal world my lens would be better quality than the 18-135, still Nikon and with VR.

    Any suggestions of which I should get or if there are other lenes I haven't considered?
     
  2. Westside guy macrumors 601

    Westside guy

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Location:
    The soggy side of the Pacific NW
    #2
    I have the 18-200, and like it very much. However I'd suggest the 16-85 - from what I've heard, it's a pretty darn good consumer lens. Its predecessor, the 18-70, was excellent - that was my first lens, actually.
     
  3. eddx thread starter macrumors regular

    eddx

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #3
    A close friend has the Canon 17-85mm IS and it is a nice lens when I have played with it. However, the Nikon 16-85 and 18-200 are the same price! Ultimately I would like to have both, the 18-200 for travel and the 16-85 for more professional work.

    If I had the money it wouldn't be a problem because I would have a longer second lens like the 70-200 or 80-400 but at the moment my money is saving for the D300 body and not a long focal length expensive zoom.

    I do a wide range of photography with my 18-135mm (see my website if your interested) and feel that it might be compromise to go down from 135 to 85mm - its a very difficult decision.
     
  4. Cliff3 macrumors 65816

    Cliff3

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    #4
    I'd probably opt for the 16-85. By most accounts, it's a competent lens. I haven't been too impressed with most of the samples I've seen from the 18-200 and the 24-120 has not generally been well regarded.
     
  5. taylorwilsdon macrumors 68000

    taylorwilsdon

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #5
    I entirely agree with this post. The 24-120 is underwhelming and almost all copies are very soft, not to mention its an odd range much better suited for full frame. Too long on the wide end on a crop body.

    18-200 is good but not great. The range is unbeatable and it takes fine pictures, but its a bit slow to focus, etc. The 16-85 (which I have not owned) seems to be an excellent performer and comes well recommended.
     
  6. leighonigar macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    #6
    I'd seriously look at f/2.8 lenses from sigma, tokina and tamron. I like speed and shallow dof. I suppose you've got the 50 but something to consider. Not sure if many of these have got AF-S equiv yet, that's the main downside.

    Otherwise I think the 16-85 is likely the way to go.
     
  7. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #7
    Get the 18-85 now then pick up an 80-200 later. If budget is an issue buy a used, second generation 80-200 for about $650. If you are really broke buy the push-pull version of the 80-200 for about $450.
     
  8. billferreira macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2008
    #8
    16-85 is best quality but

    What are your requirements? Your selection should be based on meeting your goals and not those of someone else.

    Objectively
    • 16-85 is the highest quality
    • 18-200 is the most versatile
    • the 24-120 is the lowest quality

    However, I own the 16-85 and have considered replacing it with the 24-120 because that range of focal lengths is better suited to my favorite subjects. I've also considered replacing it with the 24-85 f/2.8-f/4.0 macro lens because of the macro capability. I agonized long and hard between these 2 lenses before opting for the 16-85. BUT these are my preferences, not yours.

    So I'd suggest that you describe your favorite subjects and let viewers with similar interests describe the lenses that work for them and most importantly, why they are successful with those lenses.
     

Share This Page