Lens Overload!! Too many choices

[Wander]

As I've mentioned in the Lens thread I need an all round lens for my D70s. I've read a lot of reviews and I think I've got it down to 2-3. At the top of the list is the 17-55 f2.8 but the $$ is an issue. The 16-85 f3.5-5.6 is about 1/2 the cost and I like the range as it works very well with my 70-300ED but I'm worried it will be slow and too limited in clarity. There is also a 24-85 f2.8-4.0 IF that appears to have a nice macro setting, this lens is also about 1/2 the price of the 17-55f 2.8.
Please let me know what you think of these lenses if you've tried them or own them.
Is the 17-55 f2.8 the DSLR version of the old standard 24-70 f2.8?

The main use for this is a walk around general use lens and something I would like to have with me most of the time so I can try to get some of the shots I've seen many of you get.

 

[Every Miles A Memory]

Hey Matt, I dont shoot on the Dark Side, so I cant comment on the specific lens, but here is what I've found in the past.

I've went ahead and bought a lens that I thought would get me by for a little while saying to myself "I'll move up to that more expensive lens at a later date when I can afford it"

You can never afford it, so always save up and buy the best there is. A 17-55 f/2.8 sounds like a pretty awesome lens for a walk around lens.

I know from experience that f/2.8 lenses are the bomb. I save up and spend the extra money to get every one of my lenses in a f/2.8 because of how much faster they are.

Save up and get the better option, you'll be much more happy in the long run

 

[Lost Canadian]

The 17-55 is pro quality build but crop frame limited, so if you ever go full frame you'll be selling it. The Nikon 17-35 would be a better option if you're in it for the long haul with full frame in mind. The 16-85 is also a DX lens but adds VR. This is the lens I'd go for if I was stuck on Nikon DX. The 24-85 AF-S is the steal of the bunch with great optical quality and low price tag but it's build is cheap. Honestly though, considering all your choices are DX oriented I'd look at either the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 or the Tokina 16-50 2.8. I've never handled the Tamron but I've read nothing but good things as far as optics go. Tokina makes wicked pro lenses, and they are built every bit as good as those from Nikon and Canon, better in many cases, and their glass is damn good too. The only caveat with Tokina pro glass is they are all DX lenses, a shame, so they won't work on a full frame camera. My buddy uses a Tokina 16-50 and 50-135 on his D300 with wonderful results, and having handled the lenses myself I can say without hesitation that Tokina's pro glass is superbly built. Sorry if I just muddied the waters.

 

[Michael Slade]

i know from experience that f/2.8 lenses are the bomb. I save up and spend the extra money to get every one of my lenses in a f/2.8 because of how much faster they are.

+1

 

[Wander]

Gee..thanks Trevor:coffeedrink: and Pat...darkside??? that would mean that Cannon is the brightside???:snorkel: I'm just kidding, that's a fun debate to have and one I used to have with our staff photog before he moved to a bigger job. I used to think of it as Cannon came out with the newest gadget first and Nikon figured out how to make it work in the field but really they are pretty dang similar these days.

No I appreciate the options and it's good to hear you like the Tokina. I've always been a little leary of the off brand lenses but they appear to offer more for less money and Tokina seems to have the best warranty of the non-Nikon lenses.

About the full frame aspect-that is true if I get another Nikon film SLR. My 35mm choices right now are an old K1000 and an old Cannon compact RF. I will admit to being tempted by the low prices for used top end bodies like the F4 and F5. In that case I would think the 24-70 f2.8 would be the best choice as it was built for film and adapted to DX later.

 

[C-Fish]

I would poke around here. Ken seems to favor the real man.

I love the fast glass as well, but recently purchased a 18-55 VR ($125) for a walk around lens. Excellent lens, yes it is the plastic mount. Is it a pro, lens? No, but I'm not a pro...I have my 80-200 f/2.8 and 11-16 f2.8 when I feel like pretending.:victory:

Another lens that Ken recommends highly is the 18-200 VR. I'm contemplating this for a one lens solution...

 

[Every Miles A Memory]

Hey Matt, darkside + Nikon refers to the color of Nikon's lenses.

Big Canon 'L' Lenses are white, so us Canon shooters call those who use Nikon's the people who are on the Darkside. Joke, simple camera geek humor

I didnt know that Nikon made a 16-85 with VR, but that sounds like a pretty sweet set-up.

I'll agree with Trevor, you can probably afford a much nicer lens if you go second tier in the name brand. I cant affor many of the Canon lenses, so I shoot Sigma and I'm very happy with their build quality

 

[Wander]

No worries Pat, I knew you were kidding-dang internet doesn't allow me to laugh and slap you on the back in a jovial way. It's the Ford/Chevy thing for cameras and all in good fun. If we were sitting around a camp fire I would probably throw out that Paul Simon didn't sing about his Cannon and then you would ask to see my pictures and I would quickly call Uncle and hand you a cold beer.:beer:

The 16-85 is a VR and I like the range but knowing me I would still want the 17-55 f2.8 for the better glass. On the other hand, having a lens that cost 1/2 as much would be less risky to have as your walk around lens, here I go again....

The 24-200 seems like too much to put into one lens without compromising something, I have looked through the 24-120 VR and it's very nice but it is a little slow, especially far out. That 24-120 was an "it" lens when it hit the market so you can pick one up used that is in great shape.

 

[Lost Canadian]

About the full frame aspect-that is true if I get another Nikon film SLR. My 35mm choices right now are an old K1000 and an old Cannon compact RF. I will admit to being tempted by the low prices for used top end bodies like the F4 and F5. In that case I would think the 24-70 f2.8 would be the best choice as it was built for film and adapted to DX later.

The 24-70 actually came out just a couple years ago. Nikon has gone mad, in a good way, of late upgrading and introducing a bunch of new lenses to mate with the full frame D3 and subsequent D700, D3x, and D3s.
If you ever upgrade to any of these digital full frame variants those DX or cropped frame lenses won't work.

I agree with Pat also, if you can afford it, buy once and save yourself the headache of upgrading later. If you're committed to Nikon for the long haul I'd honestly skip all DX lenses and focus on getting full frame glass only. It will cost you a bit more now but full frame sensors are and will continue to trickle down the market into the lower priced cameras over the next few years which could make DX sensored cameras a thing of the past. Just something to think about. The Nikon 17-35, 16-35 (new), 24-70(newer), 24-85, or 28-70 fit the full frame bill for the range you're looking at. The 24-120 is reported to not be very good optically so I'd skip that one.

 

[nwoods]

You can typically rent these lenses from your local pro shop. It's a great way to try before you buy, and often, if you do buy, they deduct the cost of your rental from the new in the box lens you just bought. On average it costs about $80 for a weekend (Friday to Monday), at least it does around here in SoCal.

 

[Wander]

I'm not sure if the kind of pitiful version of a local shop does that here NW-it's a great idea and I'll check with them.

Trevor, do you know if there is any issues with the full frame lenses working on the DX based bodies? I admit I not up on this subject but I suspect my D70s is a DX based body.

 

[john101477]

I would poke around here. Ken seems to favor the real man.

I love the fast glass as well, but recently purchased a 18-55 VR ($125) for a walk around lens. Excellent lens, yes it is the plastic mount. Is it a pro, lens? No, but I'm not a pro...I have my 80-200 f/2.8 and 11-16 f2.8 when I feel like pretending.:victory:

Another lens that Ken recommends highly is the 18-200 VR. I'm contemplating this for a one lens solution...

never ever ever go by anything that rockwell says. He is only a star in his own mind. most of the photography world really looks down on him. I see he has since revised his website but it used to say that non of the articles in his website should be taken seriously and that most of what he wrote was made up. So much so that B&H photo stopped advertising with him.
If you want real life reviews look at other pro photographers and DpReview usually does a good job.
http://www.dpreview.com/
http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/

 

[Wander]

He sure seems to be a polarizing person from what I saw when I googled him.

I like that if I stick with a lens that will work both full frame and DX it brings my choices down to three and two have a fixed f2.8 and the other is variable starting at f2.8-4.

B&H has a used 28-70 f2.8 in a 9+ condition that looks nice. It gives up a wide angle in DX mode but that lens is legendary for it's clarity and robust build. The "standard" pro kit for Nikon shooters used to always be that one, the 80-200 f 2.8 and a fast 50 f 1.2 but that was in film days but I think you could do far worse with this combo and a DX body.

 

[HB 4X4]

He sure seems to be a polarizing person from what I saw when I googled him.

I like that if I stick with a lens that will work both full frame and DX it brings my choices down to three and two have a fixed f2.8 and the other is variable starting at f2.8-4.

B&H has a used 28-70 f2.8 in a 9+ condition that looks nice. It gives up a wide angle in DX mode but that lens is legendary for it's clarity and robust build. The "standard" pro kit for Nikon shooters used to always be that one, the 80-200 f 2.8 and a fast 50 f 1.2 but that was in film days but I think you could do far worse with this combo and a DX body.

If by robust you mean large and clunky, then yes. Its nickname is "the brick". The 24-70 is a much better lens than the 28-70, and much easier to carry around. However, you have the price to consider.

I just picked up a 24-70 recently and so far I love it, although my 12-24 is still my favorite lens. I really love wide angle, and I will miss my little DX 12-24 when I upgrade to full-frame. I may keep my D300 just so I can still use my DX lenses (35mm 1.8, 18-200, 12-24, etc).

I'll be getting the 70-200 VR II next, and when I go to full-frame I'll be replacing my 12-24 with the new 16-35mm (which is actually 2mm wider than the 12-24 on a DX sensor). I would get something in the range of these 3 lenses, as you want a set that will work on FX and cover the focal length of all your needs.

 

[Wander]

Thanks HB-yeah $500 isn't pocket money when I'm having a tough time justifying $1200 for the 28-70 to my cheap and critical self.

Do you think the 28-70 would be a bad walk around lens due to it's weight?

Excuse the dumb question but is this full frame digital still fairly new? I was looking at the D700 last night and it appears to be about $2,500 discounted and the D3 variations range from about $5-7K. I would guess that if the full frame CMOS body is still new we will see those prices drop within 2 years?

I really appreaciate all the advice from everyone. Learning how to really use my DSLR is a goal that I am working one. I used to do a good amount of 35mm photography and then I got busy with other boring life things when the DSLR market took over and never learned to get the most out of my D70s.