Recommend a lens for my Nikon before I go crazy with indecision!

net1994

I'm on the fence right now...I may get a new camera body, or maybe a new lens.
I have a Nikon D50 w/ the 18-200VR lens and a 50mm 1.8 Prime lens. I love my 18-200 as I mostly do walk around shots.

I’m open to getting a good suggestion for a lens. The 70-200mm VR lens is probably sharper than my 18-200VR, but its too bulky for walkaround photography and I already have that focal range covered with my 18-200. I have used the Nikon 80-400 VR and despite its drawbacks, it’s great optically if not better than my 18-200. But I would only use it 10 times or less per year.

I am not into birds, or other nature/wild animal photography. Wide Angle landscape pics don’t do too much for me either so wouldn’t be interested in the 12-24 Nikon DX lens or similar. Is there a lens that covers 18-300mm and sharper than the 18-200 I have now? If so, I would be definitely interested. I can spend up to $1,500 or so. It doesn't have to be a Nikon, just a good/great F mount lens. If I don't see something that stands out, I will get a D300 and wait for something else to come along in a few months.

Look forward to your suggestions. Thanks!

Tee Why

Is there anything specific that you are looking to do with a 300mm focal length that you cannot with a 18-200mm?

net1994

Tee Why wrote:

Is there anything specific that you are looking to do with a 300mm focal length that you cannot with a 18-200mm?

Well I wouldn't use that length too much. I do occasionally have a need for it...but the 18-200mm covers about 90% of what I do. I am just wondering if there are lenses out there that are better optically and sort of fall within the 18-200mm range.

Tee Why

I'm not sure but it sounds like you may not need a lens if the 18-200mm serves your needs about 90% of the time and you aren't sure what you are specifically looking for.

I'd say spend less and shoot more.

HarveyMushman

Tee Why wrote:

I'm not sure but it sounds like you may not need a lens if the 18-200mm serves your needs about 90% of the time and you aren't sure what you are specifically looking for.

I'd say spend less and shoot more.

Exactly.

It isn't hard to find a lens that is better optically than the 18-200 but you won't find anything more flexible.

net1994

For those suggesting a lens, your making a good case I’ll give you that. However here are a few things I am looking for if I get a new lens.
-95% of my shooting is outdoors.
-I do NOT do portraiture.
-I would like to get a single lens.
-Not too heavy, the weight of the 70-200-VR might be too much.

-90% of what I do is walkaround photography. Using a 3lb lens without a mono/tripod will soon tire me out.
-I don’t really do Bird/Sport photography.

-Rarely do I do landscapes, and see no value in buying a 12-24, or 14-24 Nikon wide-angle lens.

Is there a lens that is a bit lighter, but offers the same optical quality of the 70-200 VR lens? Someone suggested to try the 80-200 2.8 ED lens. Not VR, but for the price the optical quality is just as good and a few hundred dollars less?? At this point I’m willing to spend the dough, but with the 18-200 VR lens anything I will buy will overlap. I would like to try to the 17-55 2.8 and see what the quality is like at that end.


What about Sigma, Tamron etc… Can I get optical quality like the 70-200VR lens for a bit less?

SloYerRoll

If your just doing walk around photography. Then what's wrong w/ your 18-200VR? It's probably the best lens around for simple walk around use.

If your so hell bent on spending money, but can't make up your mind. Just rent the lens's your thinking about buying from borrowlenses.com. Take the glass for a test drive andfind out if it fits your needs.

Or another thought, save your tax refund for somethign you really want. I genuinely believe that for your purposes. Your not going to find better glass than your 18-200VR. Sure there's a ton of glass out there. But why spend the money on your not going to really love.

bkatz

SOunds like you are having a tough choice there. I can tell you that I love my 70-300 VR lens which is about $485. The drawback being that it has a high f stop - starts at 4.5 I think and goes to either 5.6 or 6.3.

Tee Why

Light and fast and relatively cheap?
How about a sigma 50-150mm f2.8 II or a Tokina 50-135mm f2.8?
Much cheaper and lighter than a 70-200mm f2.8 and just as fast.

swintonphoto

The 18-135 is a bit higher in quality than your current zoom, but it doesn't have the range either.

SavedByZero

just get a 50 f1.7.

Harryb

SavedByZero wrote:

just get a 50 f1.7.