I swear, one last time-new walk around lens

[Wander]

I was given the gift of a new lens for Fathers Day and my wife and daughter being the smart people they are just told me to pick it out as I got way too far into lens geek world when I tried to tell them which lens I prefered.

So here it the short list based on recomendations from here and other sites. (there should be a drum roll or something..)

Nikon; 16-85
18-200
17-55f2.8 (I found a used one)
24-120
The winner will be mounted to a Nikon D70s and is intended as a walk around-do most things lens.

So...if it was your choice which would it be????

A couple of these lenses are available as refurbs-has anyone had any experiance with these-are they worth the risk?

 

[photoman]

There is no perfect walk around lens. You will always find times where you are too wide or not wide enough.

I would always go for the highest quality lens. Since you did not post the rating on the other lenses I am guessing they are all F3.5-5.6 or F4.0
I would recommend the F2.8 17-55 based on those choices for that reason as well that 17-55 is a decent range that can be used for landscapes, portraits, and anything else that does not require a long reach.

Maybe someone else actually shoots Nikon and has experience with these lenses though.

 

[DiploStrat]

No Woman can be too thin or too rich ...

and no lens can be too long, too wide, or too fast.

That said, you must define "walk around" lens. Do you mean a Swiss army knife lens that can do lots of things, or do you mean simply a lens that is not super wide or super long?

If the former, the 18-200mm VR is the king. Period. No other lens covers such a wide range with such quality. I own one and used it for years. If I must take one body, one lens, and I don't know what is out there, then that is the lens. (FYI - the 24-120mm is generally less regarded.) Even the Canonistas lust after this lens. (And a few Nikonistas despise it. )

I don't know the 16-85 or the 17-55.

My mid range lens is the 24-70mm f2.8. Lovely, large, expensive but you can see the difference in IQ. Since I tend to shoot longer rather than shorter, I often find that the 70mm is too short, even on an APS-C sensor like your D 70s. Remember, you invest in lenses and expense bodies, therefore, like photoman, I might lean towards the 17-55 F2.8 for the quality. (And, I assume, full frame capability.)

Back in the day, my short lens was a 35mm f2.0 (24mm on APS-C). Mild wide angle was more flexible than 50mm, but didn't turn mountains into molehills. Was great for wandering markets; when you saw something you could simply point and shoot. With a 50mm you almost aways had to back up.

Ever consider simply getting a nice prime?

Hope this is helpful.

 

[Ryanmb21]

what other lenses do you have? I have a Nikon D90 and recently did a lot of research of which lenses to buy. I went to stores and handled them and read online, looked at tons of pic examples on nikoncafe.com and it is there is no easy way to decide.

The lens that seemed most reccomended was the 35mm 1.8 and I can attest it's outstanding. I don't have a good recommendation because I'm so new to photography but one consideration for me is the size of the lens, I will not carry huge lenses around so I tend to use my prime lenses most.

Right now my favorites are:
1. 35mm f/1.8 $200, outstanding
2. Tokina 12-24 f/4, ~$500
3. 50mm f/1.8 $100

I also have the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 which is equally outsanding to the 35 1.8. I tend to use the 35mm a bit more as it's smaller and a tad faster focusing.

 

[Wander]

DiploStrat-I was thinking "swiss army lens" so the 18-200 is very interesting due to it's "do all" range. Yes they are all in the medium fast range except for the 17-55 f2.8 which is sadly DX only and my only hessitation due to the price of that lens and my interest in a FX body down the road. I'd hate to pay $900-1000 for a lens and not get the full use out of it if I swithc to FX format. As I understand it-the camera will automatically revert to a DX cropped setting if you put the 17-55 on a body like the D700.

Because of the swiss army concept I'm looking for (with understood concessions) I would rather have a zoom than a prime but I do share your effection for wide primes. My other lens currently is a 70-300f4 ED which is why I found the 16-85 interesting at first as there was little over lap, but then this is to be a one and body set-up so I doubt I'll have my longer zoom anyway-this is the kind of twist I can get myself in. FWIW-only the 24-120 will work with both formats,which is the reason it's on the list but that lens is more attractive as the film or FX lens than it is DX because you loose the wide in DX format.

 

[Lost Canadian]

Jim Richardson says...

Thom Hogan says...

 

[Wander]

Ok so it looks like I can't go wrong with either the 16-85 or the 18-200. They are both the same speed, both have VR and are very close in price. The 16-85 has less overlap and seems to be rated a little sharper no doubt due to it's less range and fewer elements but does that make a the 18-200 too much of a compromise? In a minor, getting picky way yes but in reality not enough to make this a slam dunk decision. The lens being replaced is a 18-70 kit lens so either will be an upgrade in function and quality. The worst things I've read on the 18-200 is lens creep and it's a little slow, which isn't shocking as it has a huge range and a host of technology, the 16-85 has neither issue but some distortion has been noted at 16-which can be easily fixed in post editing (next thing to learn). It's too bad the 16-85 doesn't work in FX format as that would be a kick butt range especially if it had a constant f2.8!

 

[DiploStrat]

Thom Hogan is not a fan of the 18-200VR but interestingly he agrees with my love for the 70-300VR. I tend to agree with most of what Jim Richardson says. But then I only shoot NatGeo wannabe pictures.

As you can see, the 18-200 VR is terrible. I suspect that the "weaknesses" of the 24-120mm are mostly in the eyes of lens snobs.

Final note: Lens range and avoiding overlap matters on your shelf and in the studio. In the field what matters is having the right focal length mounted when you need it. Owning the perfect lens is meaningless if it is not on your camera. If you go out to shoot wide and you know that is all you will shoot, perfect. If, on the other hand, you are wandering the souk, the 18-200 VR may be a safer bet.

In any case, the lens you have takes better pictures than any you don't have.

 

[Wander]

Great shot DS!

You are correct about that I am putting way too much into this process-but I tend to do that. From reading Thom's comments he seems to lean toward his concern about the wobble in the lens cylinders and that he prefers the wider range option of the 16-85 (but it's only 2mm). I do kind of wonder if the 16-85 being a newer lens doens't have an unseen influence-we all like new stuff after all.

 

[DiploStrat]

Really comes down to the question - long or wide. I prefer long, so not having anything beyond 85mm matters to me. Others want every bit of width they can get.

But at the end of the day, this is one of my favorite shots. Sony T-10, credit card size camera, JPEG, compressed for the web, etc.

You can see the difference made by the larger sensor shooting RAW, but I can still get a good 8x10 print (at least).

It still comes down to luck for me and talent for the others.

 

[Lost Canadian]

I had an 18-200 some time back, note I said had. As a general walk around lens I found the 18-200 to be super handy, and it was great for what I'd consider casual travel shots. If you start to get serious though you will notice where it falls short. It's not a landscape lens or an architectural lens, and it doesn't do evening shots or dim light situations very well either. It's quite soft at 200mm and suffers from some harsh distortions at both the long and short ends of things. It is what it is, a jack of all trades, master of none. If your focus is mainly people in good light the 18-200 would be a great choice, otherwise, find the very best lens you can with the perspective you think you'd like to shoot with most and go with it.

 

[john101477]

I shoot nikon and am not a fan of the 18-200. while it covers a wide area it is just such a slow lens that it actually bugs me. of course i feel the same way about the 70-300 thats been sitting on my shelf for the last year. as one guy said 70 is just not wide enough to carry one lens. I think if I was to do it all over again and I may still add some lenses. i would carry 2 primes and my 70-200 2.8 the 20mm f/2.8 or the 35mm f/2 are fantastic lenses as is the 50mm. yes the 70-200 is big and bulky but once you shoot with it a few times it is hard to leave at home. couple that with a some light proimes and you can easily walk with in or out for composition. essentially a 20, a 50, and a zoom tele would do everything I need them to, but again the 18-200 is just not my cup of tea.

 

[ywen]

two lenses are needed:

1) wide to mid range zoom. F/2.8 or faster
2) mid range to tele zoom. F/4 or faster

Okay 3

3) a super fast prime lens such as 50mm f/1.8, for when even the f/2.8 is not fast enough.

To get a single lens that covers entire range of wide to tele, you're asking for bad performance for the other aspects of the lens.

 

[DiploStrat]

All Good Comments ...

but do remember that the issue was to select one "walk around" lens.

If yer hitchhikin' both ways 'round the world, doing markets to critter safaris, then the 18-200VR is hard to beat.

It was the only lens I had when I met this guy:

It was too short, the ISO was pushed to 500, and this is only 1/4 of the full frame (Say, 2.x megapixels), but it makes a nice 13 x19 print and it is way better than no image at all.

For any one single purpose, there is a better lens. I can easily see the IQ improvements of both the 24-70mm f2.8 or the 70-300mm VR. But the 18-200 VR is better than the 24-70mm at 20mm and at 135mm. And the 18-200 is better than the 70-300 at 50mm.

The whole point of a "walk around" lens, as opposed to the best lens for the job, is the ability to do a lot of different things and get the shot you might have missed. Even the "pro" lenses like the 24-70 or the 70-200mm VR are compromises is that:

-- They are zooms and not primes, thus compromising their ultimate speed and IQ, and,

-- Even as zooms, they are compromises, as they only have about a 2.5x range, as opposed to say, 5x. The restricted range being, of course, intended to maximize image quality.

And this is ducking the issue of price. The pair of the 24-70 and the 70-200 will cover the range of 24-200mm far better than the 18-200, but at about four times the price and weight and with the necessity of changing lenses.

Actually, there might be a strong argument to be made that for classic “walking around” use, you would be better off buying a high quality P&S (Canon G11 or similar) and spending all of your SLR lens money on better glass. (Invest in glass, expense cameras. &#8482 There are some safari threads that make a similar suggestions on wide angles – carry a tele for critters and use a P&S for the rest. I used to carry the Sony T10 all of the time, for just that reason. Thus I got the image of the lady serving popcorn. (The essential element of Ethiopian coffee.)

If you want a Swiss Army knife, the 18-200mm VR is an amazing lens. If you have the luxury of selecting the right lens, there are faster and better lenses at every focal length.

It's your money; understand the compromises and spent it wisely. (And yes, I am lusting after the 70-200mm VR II!)

 

[Wander]

You make a good argument DS, yes I would love to fast f2.8 lenses but other than not being able to afford these right now I also don't want to make that investment when I am very interested in the FX format and I know that I will make the switch sometime in the near furture so if I buy pro glass for my DX camera I'll loose out on the switch over and if I buy pro glass that will work on both formats the DX format I currently have will take away the wide aspect which puts me right back where I started-but mostly it's budget.

DS, have you ever used the 16-85?

Popcorn and coffee....I would have put those two together, do they serve it with any seasoning or just plain?