Like

Nikkor lenses

 

Silver Member
Username: Claudermilk

Post Number: 354
Registered: Sep-04
OK, Berny this is mostly pointed at you. :-)

I'm not as familiar with Nikon's line any more & have been tasked with making some recommendations for my sister. She shoots a D100 & needs something better than the kit lens that came with the old N80. Basically looking for a faster walk-around to take pictures of the 1-year-old (isn't this one of the driving forces behind lens sales?).

So, I'm looking for something equivalent to the Canon 17-55 IS, 17-85, or 24-105 IS. Primes are not an option--I've already floated that idea. Research is just beginning, so several options would be great. I don't immediately see anything between a $200 bottom feeder type & a $1100 premium lens.
 

Gold Member
Username: Project6

Post Number: 8738
Registered: Dec-03
So far, the best walk around lens that is readily available is the 18-70mm AF-S. This one came with the D70 kit and well worth having. If you can find and 18-200 VR, which is really hard to find these days (retailing for about $700), I would highly recommend that she grab it.

Nikkor also has the a 17-55 lens that came with the Nikon D50, but I did not like the way it performed.
 

Silver Member
Username: Claudermilk

Post Number: 355
Registered: Sep-04
Thanks.
 

Gold Member
Username: Project6

Post Number: 8750
Registered: Dec-03
No problem!
Can you believe this ben idiot?
 

Silver Member
Username: Claudermilk

Post Number: 356
Registered: Sep-04
Gotta love trolls. Some people just don't want to hear the truth; I'm tuning him out.
 

New member
Username: Rwin

Lehigh valley, Pennsylvania

Post Number: 2
Registered: Jan-07
The nikon 18-70mm is a sweet lens. Extremely sharp. Not as fast as the 17-55mm but far less cash. Not as much crying if you get sand in it.

Had considered buying the 17-55mm and did lot's of research on it. Saw lots of info about inconsistent focus, soft images, from a percentage of the 17-55mm -- so make sure to test the actual 17-55mm lens before you buy, and that it's giving you a $1,700 image at a wide aperture. I still may buy the 17-55mm but will test the snot out of it before handing over any plastic.
 

New member
Username: Rwin

Lehigh valley, Pennsylvania

Post Number: 3
Registered: Jan-07
By the way, are we talking about the same 17-55mm nikon lens? I mean this one

http://search.ecoustics.com/a.php?search=17-55-nikor

Looks like the price is coming down :-)

Surprised it's offered on the D50?
 

Platinum Member
Username: Project6

Post Number: 12644
Registered: Dec-03
oops, that should be the 18-55
 

New member
Username: Rwin

Lehigh valley, Pennsylvania

Post Number: 4
Registered: Jan-07
The 18-55mm is currently $170. It's my opinion that Nikon has realized that the money is with the masses of consumers. Not surprised you didn't like this lens. Perhaps this lens is another sign of the future for Nikon? Not like the old days. Be careful and do your research when buying any product. Nikon has good stuff. And today they've got 'other' stuff. Just my personal opinion. As with anything, stay informed when considering any product, Nikon or otherwise.
 

New member
Username: Cried

Erie, PA US

Post Number: 9
Registered: Jun-07
I just bought one last christmas, and I love it!
 

New member
Username: Ukcritic

Post Number: 4
Registered: Dec-08
Also have the 18-70mm which I bought as an upgrade from the standard 18-55mm kit lens. Very pleased with it on the whole but don't forget it's not a Pro lens and will soon succumb when put into low light situations. Unfortunately there's no alternative - you get what you pay for with lenses I'm afraid, but at least if you stick with Nikon you'll be sure to get fair optical quality for your money. Get tempted by the Sigma, Tamron or Tokinas and you'll likely be disappointed as they fail to deliver on promises when pushed to their limits.
 

New member
Username: Bigwatchhe

Post Number: 6
Registered: Oct-09
Thank you for sharing it !It writes well!
 

New member
Username: Jim1987

Post Number: 7
Registered: May-11
I will suggest you that always go for zoom lens instead of Prime lens.Its true that picture quality of Prime lens is always better though you will get focal length variation option in prime lens.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 2508
Registered: Oct-07
Primes are generally faster, too.
Never underestimate the power a couple stops gets you when it comes time to hand hold....and yes, even with stabilized glass, of which I own a pair.
At about 100$ the Canon 50mm 1.8 is a terrific addition to any Canon setup.
I use this at weddings for flash-free, available light shots / candids, as well as anyplace a flash would be too.....obtrusive.
My 20-35 2.8 is a close second especially up close or small groups.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 3544
Registered: Oct-07
My, how things have changed in the last few years since I added to this thread.

BOTH Nikon and Canon now have budding lines in the Mirrorless space. The Nikon 24-70 F4 is a VERY good lens when shooting JPEGs. It might need more help with RAW files, which most

people interested in Kid Photos won't bother with, anyway.

Both Nikon and Canon have 'roadmaps' extended forward 18 to 24 months for lenses to be issued.

But don't sell SONY Short! The FE series, and 'GMaster' glass gets good reviews, though it can be $$$$. Sony is ahead of the game a little but the gap is closing VERY fast, indeed.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 3568
Registered: Oct-07
Jim,
I've been a photographer since I was 10 years old, give or take a year.

I've settled ona the 'Three Lens' solution.

1. Good normal zoom. Depending on if you have a FullFrame or APS-C sensor, the focal length will vary. The idea is to go from wide angle to short telelphoto. For Full Frame? A 24-70 will work fine. And for the REALLY wealthy? You can get it in F2.8 which is a large, heavy and Expensive lens.

2. Short telephoto zoom. Extending from where the first zoom Stops to maybe 4x or 5x (again....depends on sensor size) For my nickel? The 70-200 focal lenght is fine. Perfect for the Zoo, light nature stuff and candids from a distance. Also available as F2.8, but are very heavy and can be $$$.

3. Fast PRIME. Yep. I'd go with any of the short prime lenses. For full frame? 28mm? 35mm? 50mm? 85mm? 100mm? The last can be a double function lens and include MACRO focus capability. This will focus to 6" or 8" and is perfect for Bugs and Flowers.

I have an 85mm f1.8 VERY good when it starts getting dark.

And as it turns out, great strides have been made in low-light performance. This means, at least to me, that I don't generally need an f2.8 zoom. One of the lighter and much less expensive f4.0 lenses works perfectly. In the Nikon line, at least, the f4.0 is optically as good or better than the 2.8 of the same 70-200 spread. Don't believe me? Go to DxO lens tests and read the measured data.
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Add Your Message Here

Bold text Italics Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image Add a YouTube Video
Need to Register?
Forgot Password?
Enable HTML code in message
   

Facebook

Shop Related Deals

Directory

Main Forums

Today's Posts

Forum Help

Follow Us