Reading your post the lens that jumped to mind was the nikon 18-200mm VR. I'm surprised you didn't mention this as one you were considering.
It is not the last word in optical clarity, and at the wide end it has a little spherical distortion, but these are pretty minor things all considered. Color distortion is quite minimal, and the VR is nice. It also does pretty ok closeup photography at the 200mm end (but again, not the last word on macro photographs). Flare control is good.
When I go on vacation, and I only want to bring one lens, it is the 18-200VR and a polarizer. It has enough range that I can get all sorts of images. From wide angle views to telephoto closeups.
Being stuck at 70mm would be way too limiting for the vacation photos I do (though you may be different).
I'm not sure if you have already ruled it out, but I would recommend considering it. It is also easily within your budget.
I have to agree that 18-200 sounds very interesting and I have given this lens a lot of thought, but still cannot believe it is the best choice.
It's relatively light, has nice zoom range and ok optics with great VR system. Looking at its price however - I can get the forementioned Tamron 70-200 F2.8 that is a class better in every single aspect acording to dslrgear:
The Nikon seems to be a great holiday lens, but is a big compromise in optics and still leaves me with no real tele-photo lens.
Since I do most of my photography while on holiday if I buy the Nikkor I will have to use it all the time and compromise image quality all the time. and I would have to sell my 17-50 too a it would be pointless to keep both. lenses covering the same range. I do not want to do that, even if it means I will have to lug 1.5kg of lenses around - 17-50 and 70-200.
I am still undecided, but I think I do not want the 18-200 for it means too many compromises
EDIT: I know I am going crazy, but I also noticed the Nikkor 70-200 F2.8 that seems to be a great performer and even though its price is at least 2x the price of Tamron I am tempted to buy it.
That's a bit harsh.
I should have been more specific. When I said the 18-200mm was not the last word on optical clarity, I didn't mean to imply that it gives bad photos. I simply meant that it does not have quite the sharpness of nikon's best primes. The sharpness is still fine for me.
Having said that, let me show you just how much of a compromise in imagine quality you would be making:
Those are just a tiny sampling of photos I like from the 18-200.
With the 18-200mm VR, the biggest thing you are giving up over a lens costing 2-4x as much is that you have to put up with a little barrel distortion in the wide angles (if using digital, can be corrected in software), and at the tele end you have to make do with F5.6, I think, as opposed to F2.8 for example.
Oh well. Sounds like you have already made up your mind anyways. If you demand the absolute best, you'll have to buy the expensive glass and lug it around. ^_^ Then you should have no excuses for making world class photos. Though to be honest, if you want the absolute best just skip nikon and go straight to large format.
I wouldn't trade my 18-200 for anything. I have several primes, but none of them replace the 18-200. The truth is, just about all lenses are sharp at f/8. The expensive ones are faster, and perhaps have less distortion. But speed is the main difference, not sharpness in daylight.
If I had to survive on two lenses, it would be the 18-200 and a 35 1.8. I own the Tamron 17-50 too, and I love it, but the 18-200 is a really useful and well designed lens.
That's a bit harsh.
I should have been more specific. When I said the 18-200mm was not the last word on optical clarity, I didn't mean to imply that it gives bad photos. I simply meant that it does not have quite the sharpness of nikon's best primes. The sharpness is still fine for me.
Having said that, let me show you just how much of a compromise in imagine quality you would be making:
Those are just a tiny sampling of photos I like from the 18-200.
With the 18-200mm VR, the biggest thing you are giving up over a lens costing 2-4x as much is that you have to put up with a little barrel distortion in the wide angles (if using digital, can be corrected in software), and at the tele end you have to make do with F5.6, I think, as opposed to F2.8 for example.
Oh well. Sounds like you have already made up your mind anyways. If you demand the absolute best, you'll have to buy the expensive glass and lug it around. ^_^ Then you should have no excuses for making world class photos. Though to be honest, if you want the absolute best just skip nikon and go straight to large format.
It is not the lens or camera that takes photos - the photographer does. For a beginning photographer like me however, the better equipment the better result.
18-200 is a great all-around lens, but I do not want an all around one, I have my T17-50 and treat it as such, do not need another one, a more specialised one so to speak.
Besides, the Tamron can be had for the same or lower price than the Nikon. No contest here.
I still do not know what I will buy, but the more I look into this and the more reviews I read to more expensive gear comes to mind
You know, after reading your response over again, I have one more suggestion.
If your 17-50mm is your everyday lens, and you want to get a tele lens to compliment it, that sounds perfectly reasonable. Problem is, 70-200mm F2.8's are expensive.
If you are not in a rush, I would suggest trying the cheap nikon 70-300mm F5.6G. It costs about 150$.
The reason I suggest getting this cheap lens is so that you get an idea of what it would be like to work with 2 lenses, and to get used to the 70-300mm range. It's cheap enough to try, and if you decide you want something more expensive you can always sell it for half of what you paid (or just keep it).
I can't afford expensive tele lenses, sadly, and actually make do with the nikon 70-300G. I use it for important events. I'll have my 18-200 on one camera, and my 70-300G on another camera. It actually takes some nice photos if you know to use it best.
Anyway, that's what I would recommend. Try the cheap'y first, and see what you think. That's what I would do at least.
Quote:
Szadzik said:
For a beginning photographer like me however, the better equipment the better result.
Beginners don't need better equipment. They need more basic equipment so they can focus on their technique. Better equipment takes the exact same pictures as inexpensive ones do. Internet forums are filled with advice designed to upsell beginners into buying equipment that is beyond their ability to take advantage of. No offense, but your replies and comments indicate to me that you're going down that road.
Decisions on equipment should be about features, not image quality. All Nikon lenses are sharp under the right conditions. Your job as a beginner is to learn to squeeze the most out of basic equipment.
The 70-300 or 55-200 would be good choices if you want a tele. VR is necessary for a lens in this range.
Thanks guys for all the valuable information, I appreciate it.
Main reason against 70-300 VR or non VR are sharpness and slowness. The Tamron I intend to buy will cost me 516 Euros delivered, while the 70-300VR (if I decide to buy it it will be the VR version) will cost me 400 Euros.
In my opinion these lenses are in a totally different class of quality. I will try the Tamron and if I do not like it I will rethink the whole thing and either give up for some time or buy something more expensive.
I know it sounds a bit expensive, but money is no object here so I do not wantto compromise quality for 100 Euros.
You should get a Nikon glass polarizer filter. Good to use sometimes.
A UV/ skyligh is what people used to use on the lens all the time for protection. @ Nocturnal310
You will find the polarizer with the 18mm to give you impressive landscapes with detailed sky shots.
Towert7 I am amazed at how clear you photographs are what equipment do you use? Telephoto zoom lens have come along way from my day!
Another cheapo way to get into Nikon prime telephoto would be an old 300mm IF ias lens. You see them on E-bay for anywhere from $250 to $400. The fastest they get is to f4.5 and if placed on a Nikon DX body you are getting close to 500mm but I love the quality of the lens. Not a lot of depth of field and the focus is critical most of the time. As I need glasses for reading (49) having the viewer lens dialed in just right is also a requirement. The lens is smaller than some telephotos. I paid $400.00 for my first one and liked it so much I found another perfect one on E-bay for $165.00! I took the chance and the lens was great when I recieved it.
These lens do not have VR or auto focus. The ED edition of the 300mm is prefered. I found no problem mounting the ais lens on my camera.
Another telephoto that is floating around is the 200mm IF Micro Nikkor. This is one of my favorite all time lens. Great for portraits as will as micro photography. Again no autofocus and the DX formate issue. They take 55mm filters too so it's cool!
I had one of those... The early model f/2.8 AI-S version, although it was in rougher shape. Absolutely spectacular lens once you practice focusing with it. Shooting sports I decided an 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S was more versatile though, and it weighs half as much. I'll get a 300 again someday.
Today I shot indoor box lacrosse... Absolutely horrid lighting. I was at ISO 3200 (HI 1 on my D200, actually), f/2.8 and 1/250s - any darker and I couldn't really have shot reasonable shots with my gear. I'm going to have to convert the underexposed ones to black and white - I accidentally stopped down my lens a few stops (the actual aperture ring) and didn't notice for almost half an hour. Even my AF had trouble with the low contrast - I ended up setting the "big AF points" custom function unique to the D200. A D3s would be nice...
Wow Blackbeard, I changed my photo I never had a f2.8.
I do want to get another faster tele than the 4.5. I see the 2.8s around and because they are mostly used by pros they have that pro/beat up look like you see. Was it heavy after awhile? What did yours cost? You must have great memories as wanting it again!
Hope your new camera brings you lots of enjoyment.
I will second what Redcar said.
I would buy a nice clear filter or UV filter and put it on the lens and leave it on. If anything were to scratch the lens, it would be much better to scratch a 10$ filter and replace it than to replace a 180$ lens.
Pretty much every lens I have I purchase it with a Nikon clear filter. There is a bit of a price premium, but the nikon's have fantastic optical qualities! Usually I unwrap my lens and put the filter on the second I remove the lens cap.
The polarizer is another very nice thing to get. For digital, a circular polarizer will work best. The polarizer can intensify colors, darken the sky, and reduce glare (just like any other polarizer). It can also serve as a 1.7 ND filter in a pinch.
These are two filters that I would highly recommend. The Clear/UV for safety, the polarizer for dramatic effects.
I would recommend this for an inexpensive start: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/136009-REG/Tiffen_52TPK1_52mm_Photo_Essentials_Filter.html
Gives you Tiffen UV filter, 812 Warming Filter, Circular Glass Polarizer, and a pouch to put them in for 46$. Not bad.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
