Replace Nikon 18-200 VR with??

Marlene

I would like to replace my workhorse 18-200 VR. I am looking at the following three to place on my D7K.

16-85 3.5-5.6G ED VR DX
24-85 3.5-4.5G ED VR AF-S new Nikon
24-120G f/4 ED VR

I want to improve image quality. I know that using a tripod is one terrific way to do this, but when I am out for the day, with no specific goal i don't always have my tripod/monopod. I alway carry my P7100 for quick grab shots.

I like taking photos of parts of objects close up, and I want this as my all purpose street shooting lens. Weight is an issue. the 24-70 is too heavy for me.

Opinions, photos and help is appreciated. Comparison to 18-200 quality.

I have the following 50mm D 1.4, 85D 1.4, 60 Macro 2.8, 1.5 macro 2.8 vr, 17-55 2.8 and 70-300 vr. I also have a 28-105 3.5-4.5 D oldie, but goodie from Japan.

Musetek

Marlene wrote: »

I would like to replace my workhorse 18-200 VR. I am looking at the following three to place on my D7K.

16-85 3.5-5.6G ED VR DX
24-85 3.5-4.5G ED VR AF-S new Nikon
24-120G f/4 ED VR

I want to improve image quality. I know that using a tripod is one terrific way to do this, but when I am out for the day, with no specific goal i don't always have my tripod/monopod. I alway carry my P7100 for quick grab shots.

I like taking photos of parts of objects close up, and I want this as my all purpose street shooting lens. Weight is an issue. the 24-70 is too heavy for me.

Opinions, photos and help is appreciated. Comparison to 18-200 quality.

I have the following 50mm D 1.4, 85D 1.4, 60 Macro 2.8, 1.5 macro 2.8 vr, 17-55 2.8 and 70-300 vr. I also have a 28-105 3.5-4.5 D oldie, but goodie from Japan.

Hi Marlene. Why do you want to replace a workhorse? Is the 18-200 in poor condition, or are you just looking to get better glass? Also, do you mean "replace" as in, sell the old lens to help pay for the new stuff?

Personally, I considered selling off my 18-200 a few years back, and then ended up keeping it because it's just so darn useful. No, it's not the best optical quality out there, but that's never been the nature of the beast - it's an all-around lens, not a specialist. If you can afford to keep it while acquiring new glass, I would if I were you. You'll still find yourself using it.

In your list of lenses, you have "1.5 macro 2.8 vr" and I'm not sure what that is - do you mean the 105mm 2.8 VR? If yes (I'm jealous! cos it's on my list of wants) I'd say keep it and maybe sell the 60mm 2.8 macro, since I think you can probably cover all the bases with its big brother. I'm not familiar with the 28-105 oldie, but the rest of the lenses in your list are all definitely worth keeping.

As far as the three potential new lenses you mentioned - do you have a decent camera store anywhere near where you live? I would recommend trying the new stuff before you buy to get an idea of image quality and compare their performance to the 18-200. If you don't have a nearby store, consider using Borrowlenses.com for this purpose. Yes, you'll have to pay for short rentals, but if you end up getting the right glass it'll be worth it.

I'd be wary of the first two you mentioned - although don't take my word for it, test them yourself - simply because variable aperture lenses tend not to be as good/sharp as fixed aperture lenses. (Some recent models buck the trend a little, hence the importance of testing.) The 24-120mm f4 is generally considered to be excellent, and will definitely give you a noticeable boost in image quality over the 18-200. However, consider what camera you'll be using it on: it's not a DX lens, so with the D7000 your effective range will be roughly 35-180mm. That's losing a chunk of real estate at the wide-angle end, versus the 18-200. If the 24-120 would be replacing the 18-200, that's something to consider; if you end up with both of them then no worries.

I would heartily recommend that you just automatically take your tripod with you wherever you go. Mine lives in the trunk of my car, so I have absolutely no excuse! One handy tip: try getting a tripod strap, so you can sling it over your shoulder for going walkabout. It really helps! (Op/Tech makes a pretty good, affordable strap.) Another thing to think about: do you use filters on your lenses? Maybe a UV or skylight filter to protect the lens? You'll be surprised how much these can impact (negatively) your image quality. I keep UVs on my lenses for protection in transit - but I take them off to actually shoot. (Unless I'm in a really dodgy environment - lots of salt spray at the coast, or a dust storm in the desert or something.) The 18-200 will look a whole lot better if you've been using a filter and try removing it.

I know exactly what you mean about weight being an issue - it is for me, too. It wouldn't be so bad if the 24-70 had VR, but... that would make it even heavier! For this reason, I've been using the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 (which has macro capability also) for years. It's light, compact, and produces excellent images. It doesn't have image stabilization, if that's important to you - but they're bringing out a new version which does (the Tamron designation for that is VC as opposed to Nikon's VR) which looks very interesting.

Hope that gives you some ideas to chew on!

Marlene

Comfortable 18-200 but is there something better?
Thanks, you gave me a lot to think about.

I may have to limit my use of the 18-200 not because it is broken, but because I just grab it when I go out. The lens is what it is, and I would like to improve IQ. Still looking for quality zoom that I can carry. Pets and people sometimes require the zoom factor.

I do have the 105 macro, but I bought the 60 as a light weight solution.

Still looking for reviews from dgrinners that use the 16-85 vr or 24-120 f4 on the d7000. For landscapes I use my 17-55 2.8 . I plan to look at LR4 to see what my focal length I use the most.

TopCat

16-85 and 70-300
My "travel kit" consists of the 16-85mm VR and the 70-300mm VR; both use the same filter size and the combo covers a substantial range of focal lengths with good IQ at low weight. The 16-85 is on my D300 at least 75% of the time while traveling, and the 70-300 is conveniently close by in my fanny pack worn over the shoulder as a chest pack. Both lenses are capable of producing quite sharp images, and the VR helps significantly with hand-holding which is often required in tourist situations. I used to use this combo with the D80 but prefer the AF and ISO capabilities of the D300 in spite of the increased weight. Have considered the D7000 as a lighter-weight alternative but haven't yet felt the need to move from the D300. I recommend this combination of lenses, and since you already have the 70-300 you only need to add the 16-85 to have a top-notch travel set.

ziggy53

Marlene wrote: »

Thanks, you gave me a lot to think about.

I may have to limit my use of the 18-200 not because there it is broken, but because I just grab it when I go out. The lens is what it is, and I would like to improve IQ. Still looking for quality zoom that I can carry. Pets and people sometimes require the zoom factor.

I do hav the 105 macro, but I bought the 60 as a light weight solution.

Still looking for reviews from dgrinners that use the 16-85 vr or 24-120 f4 on the d7000. For landscapes I use my 17-55 2.8 . I plan to look at LR4 to see what my focal length I use the most.

I suggest a 2 - lens kit for walk-about and for when you are, "out for the day, with no specific goal".

Use your Nikkor AF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 G IF-ED DX as your standard zoom lens in the kit. It is amazingly capable for social situations (including PJ) and some architecture.

Add the Nikkor AF-S 70-300mm, f4.5-f5.6 G IF-ED VR for your telephoto zoom requirements. From 70-200mm this lens is extremely nice, and it's pretty good at 300mm stopped down a bit. Fairly strong lateral chromatic aberration at 30mm is mostly correctable in post-processing.

I also recommend adding a close-focus diopter accessory lens to the kit to allow close-ups and nearly macro shots. It makes flowers, etc., viable targets. Be sure to choose a color-corrected, 2-element diopter for best results. The Canon 500D should work very nicely with the Nikkor 70-300mm VR. (77mm version of the 500D, adapted to the lens with a 67mm-77mm step-up ring.)

Marlene

Last weekend at Petapalooza I followed your advise and used the 17-55 and the 70-300. Worked out well. Took dog portraits using 17-55 and the Splash Dog event I used the 70-300 VR. Think I need to retire the 18-200 as the go to lens. Just been too easy to grab and go.

Check out my images on my website.

http://marlenefrankel.com/blog-3/

Art Scott

did not read all the replies........so i apologize if this has already been suggested....from your list I would go 24-120f4 ...now this is my personal preference....because I am not a fan of variable aperture lenses.....I have shot with the 24-120 variable and did not like it, but the images I got were great, it was just too slow after passing up 50mm or so....another to think about might be a sigma 24-70 f2.8, I really loved mine.


Good Luck

Marlene

Sold 18-200
Sold my 18-200 and purchased the Nikon 24-120 f4
First images meets my expectations. I feel it was a good decision.

Art Scott wrote: »

did not read all the replies........so i apologize if this has already been suggested....from your list I would go 24-120f4 ...now this is my personal preference....because I am not a fan of variable aperture lenses.....I have shot with the 24-120 variable and did not like it, but the images I got were great, it was just too slow after passing up 50mm or so....another to think about might be a sigma 24-70 f2.8, I really loved mine.


Good Luck