What would you replace Nikkor 18-200 with?

[JDDavis]

If you're going to buy the 70-200, don't buy the 17-55. I say that because it's a DX lens and once you convince yourself that you can spend >$2,000.00 on a lens, a >$2,000.00 FX body isn't far behind!

In all seriousness, I'd be looking into the 16-85 VR and the 70-200 VR (first or second generation). Good luck using the 70-200 while dangling from a rock, it's a huge sucker.

I've got the 70-200 VR1 and the 24-70 f/2.8 Nikkors, that's a fantastic combo. But on a D90, I'd be worried that you'd want something wider than 24mm so I'd stick with the 16-85 VR.

SLC

Good point I'd like to move into a D700 (or whatever is next) at some point but I think I'd like to have a crop sensor around as well.

 

[telecomm]

The 16-85mm is a DX lens too, but the 70-300mm is FX.

 

[leighonigar]

Galen Rowell (if still with us) could probably get better pics out of a gas station diposable camera then me with a D3 / 70-200. That's not a fair comparison. Ansel Adams was a Rowell fan. He was also a much, much better climber then I'll ever be. Anywho...I like the 55-200 and have used one (and the 17-55). The results are good and acceptable but it's not really what I'm looking for. I'd rather have the constant aperture and be able to keep the ISO at 200.

http://www.mountainlight.com/rowellg.html

It seemed fair to me, all the articles I have read about him say that he sacrificed quality of equipment for mobility when running and climbing. I therefore imagined he would use the lighter 55-200 than the heavier 70-200. He got the shots because he was there at the right moment. I don't know why you would want to make it harder for yourself with more gear when the agreed master of the art would not have done so.

 

[ronjon10]

+1 to the 17-55 2.8

You can find them for under 1k used these days. They're rock solid and sharp as tacks. I had a collection of lenses that I hardly ever use since I got thing.

 

[Ruahrc]

From what I have heard (anecdotal evidence and reviews), the 16-85 does perform somewhat better than the 18-200 in the 18-85 range. The build quality definitely seemed a step up (think Nikkor 12-24 or 10-24) when I handled it in a store compared to my 18-200. It's not a bad lens by any means, if you are willing to take that focal length/aperture combo in trade for a lot of bulk/weight.

I don't really find myself shooting much in the mid-focal ranges myself, I have thought about trading in (i.e. selling off) my 18-200 for a 16-85 as their prices are very similar, and then add more capability/quality on the long end.

I guess it's really up to you. The takeaway here is that moving up to a pro 2.8 zoom or even long prime is going to be a massive gain in weight and bulk. Nothing with the quality you're after is really going to be usable 1-handed, and all of them require a fair amount of shot discipline to really get the maximum image quality out of. You will have to decide if this weight/bulk is right for you, given your rather extreme operating conditions.

I would suggest renting one or more of these lenses and taking them on a climb, before you sink a couple thousand on one of your own. You can compare specs all day but this will really be the acid test to determine if you can effectively handle a pro lens while on a cliffside.

Ruahrc

 

[ManhattanPrjct]

Or, hey, look into a PEN or GF1.

I bet you'll find the weight trade-off desirable (for sure), the cost acceptable (you can get camera and lens packages for the price of a new DSLR lens), the ability to shoot one-handed much easier than any DSLR, and you can be the judge of the performance. I think most people's complaints about the EVIL format are regarding low-light performance and focus speed. I don't think they would affect you much while dangling from a rock. Check out some samples.

 

[JDDavis]

It seemed fair to me, all the articles I have read about him say that he sacrificed quality of equipment for mobility when running and climbing. I therefore imagined he would use the lighter 55-200 than the heavier 70-200. He got the shots because he was there at the right moment. I don't know why you would want to make it harder for yourself with more gear when the agreed master of the art would not have done so.

A fair statement for sure. I just meant his work is so far out of my league that there is no comparison. Rowell was a master of light and a genius with filters. Two things I'm not but I'm not trying to be Galen Rowell. A point well taken though about mobility and being in the right place. I always try to have a camera with me when hiking or climbing even if it's just a compact P&S. Some of my favorite pics were taken with my Minolta D7i. This is excellent research for me and all of these responses are exactly why I asked on this forum. I knew you guys would get me thinking. If I do make the leap into something like the 70-200 it would not be for strictly climbing and hiking photos and I would probably keep a lens like that the rest of my life.

 

[JDDavis]

From what I have heard (anecdotal evidence and reviews), the 16-85 does perform somewhat better than the 18-200 in the 18-85 range. The build quality definitely seemed a step up (think Nikkor 12-24 or 10-24) when I handled it in a store compared to my 18-200. It's not a bad lens by any means, if you are willing to take that focal length/aperture combo in trade for a lot of bulk/weight.

I don't really find myself shooting much in the mid-focal ranges myself, I have thought about trading in (i.e. selling off) my 18-200 for a 16-85 as their prices are very similar, and then add more capability/quality on the long end.

I guess it's really up to you. The takeaway here is that moving up to a pro 2.8 zoom or even long prime is going to be a massive gain in weight and bulk. Nothing with the quality you're after is really going to be usable 1-handed, and all of them require a fair amount of shot discipline to really get the maximum image quality out of. You will have to decide if this weight/bulk is right for you, given your rather extreme operating conditions.

I would suggest renting one or more of these lenses and taking them on a climb, before you sink a couple thousand on one of your own. You can compare specs all day but this will really be the acid test to determine if you can effectively handle a pro lens while on a cliffside.

Ruahrc

Thanks for the feedback on the 16-85. It's on the radar for me thanks to you guys. I'll try to get some hands on time with it. I don't think I'll get rid of my 18-200 anytime soon. It's just too easy to grab when headed out the door on the weekend. Even if I'm lucky enough one day to own pro lens I'll probably hang on to it.

 

[JDDavis]

Or, hey, look into a PEN or GF1.

I bet you'll find the weight trade-off desirable (for sure), the cost acceptable (you can get camera and lens packages for the price of a new DSLR lens), the ability to shoot one-handed much easier than any DSLR, and you can be the judge of the performance. I think most people's complaints about the EVIL format are regarding low-light performance and focus speed. I don't think they would affect you much while dangling from a rock. Check out some samples.

When the Sony EVIL cameras where announced I saw how thin they were and thought about what you are suggesting. I'd like to try one that's for sure. I worry about them being a little too small. I'm a pretty big guy and I worry about dropping the P&S all the time. See the cracks in my iphone glass for example. The D90 is about the minimum that fills comfortable in my hands. My brothers D40x seems way to small in my hands. I feel clumsy with it. An option for sure though. I'll just tell my wife I need the guest room as my gear closet that way I can walk in like Bond in a spy movie and select the appropriate gear for what I'm doing from racks of gear hanging off the walls. I'm only half way joking about that as it would be awesome.

 

[OreoCookie]

I think most people's complaints about the EVIL format are regarding low-light performance and focus speed. I don't think they would affect you much while dangling from a rock. Check out some samples.

Well, I thought most (serious) people would complain that the UI is that of a toy rather than a serious camera. My best friend has just gotten a GF1 and I'm already anxious to give it a spin.

 

[leighonigar]

A fair statement for sure. I just meant his work is so far out of my league that there is no comparison...

Ok, OK. I didn't mean to give you a hard time. I just know a lot of people spend more time thinking about gear that they don't need rather than focusing on photography itself. You seem to know your stuff though, and I know the 18-200 has its limits, so I wish you well!

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

Good point I'd like to move into a D700 (or whatever is next) at some point but I think I'd like to have a crop sensor around as well.

I'm an idiot, and got the 16-85 confused with the 16-35.

It's the 16-35 f/4 and the 70-200 I'd recommend. 16-35 is almost as versatile as the 17-55, a little loss on the long end, and a stop slower, but the optics are certainly on par, and it's an FX lens.

SLC