Lense quandary Zoom Vs Wide

[Magnum Johnson]

So I will make this long story as short as I can...I have a D7000 that I use on a regular basis. I have three lenses for it a Nikon 50mm 1.8, Nikon 18-200 VR, and an inexpensive fisheye that I use as a novelty lens. I have the 50mm on the camera 95% of the time because I usually take pictures of my wife and daughter and its mostly indoor/low light @ F2.0 ish. I recently went up to the Sierras and had an opportunity to really use my 18-200mm but found that I usually had it locked in place at 18mm and that the F3.5 was difficult to use around the campfire. I can honestly say that I had a few shots that made me appreciate the zoom but after going through my photos the longest I had the zoom out to was 130mm, and aside from using it in the Sierras it's just been a weight to hold my camera bag down. I really don't have the cash to just throw at another lens at this time so would I be better off selling the 18-200mm and getting something like a Tokina 11-16mm F2.8 and maybe getting a longer zoom lens down the road?

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

 

[ywen]

a wide angle only lens will get old fast... you have a good range.. just because you don't use it much now doesnt mean you won't use it later.. i'd keep it.

 

[Saiyan66]

Disclaimer: Im super new to photography in general so take that into account.

It sounds to me like you used the 18mm setting on your zoom lens so frequently because you are so accustomed to shooting with your prime lens. I am sure as you get more time outdoors with your 18-200mm, that you will learn to appreciate and use all of its range. Especially once you get to that great vista with the waterfall in the distance that you need to reach out and capture. I have an 18-250mm and love it for walk around shooting because it is so versatile.

 

[ywen]

a telephoto is great for landscape.. not because you can zoom in on something far away, but because you can "compress" the background relative to the foreground, to achieve hella dramatic results..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fX7iBhvYUqM

 

[Sirocco]

Stick with what you have. A 11-16 Tokina wont be much different and you wont really notice the extra stops.

If you want good campfire photos up the ISO and/or use a tripod. There is no substitute for keeping the camera steady.

If you want to lose some weight you could buy an inexpensive 'kit lens' 2nd hand. 18-55 or 18-70. I love my 18-70mm. These go in the UK for around £55 and £150 respectively.

G

 

[photoman]

I'd keep the lens because it offers a lot of versatility. Save your penny's and get the 11-18 as well for wide angle landscapes. You should be pretty set after that. BTW- use that 18-200 for portraits and get some sweet background blur.

 

[Magnum Johnson]

Ok, thanks for talking some sense into me guys, I think your rite that im too accustomed to shooting with my 50mm prime so I have a harder time adapting to the 18-200mm. Ill just wait and get a dedicated wide angle when I have the cash.

On a side note anyone have any suggestions for shooting stars at night with the lenses I have now? I have been kinda using my fisheye but it only goes to f3.5 so I end up setting my ISO to about 1000 to get the exposure I want and have been getting a lot of noise in that period of the night where there is just enough light to really notice the ISO noise. Im thinking I should just be using a larger than f3.5 aperture so I can lower the ISO but if anyone has any other input I would appreciate it.

 

[nwoods]

I use a 16-35 f2.8 for the vast majority of my shots. There are times I'd like it to be a little longer, but not many, and I have a 70-200 for when I need it. I don't know the nikon lineup, but if they have anything like the 16-35, rent it! Actually, I recall seeing a third party lens recently that was very nice. I think it was something like a 14-80 f2.8. That would be sweet.

Edit: I think I found it:
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical IF SP AF

 

[Lost Canadian]

With respects to the OP's question, personally, I'd skip out on the super zoom and go for the Tokina now. The Tokina is wicked good on cropped bodies, and built like a little tank. It's probably the best ultra wide angle lens available for DX,...that or the Sigma 8-16mm which also gets stellar reviews. I myself could live with just an ultra wide and a 50mm on DX and be a happy camper, but that's fitting of my style. The super zooms, for me anyway, are too much of a compromise option. They're not really great at anything other than covering a huge range of perspectives. They're not the sharpest lenses, they typically suffer from heavy distortion and chromatic aberration, they're slow, and the bokeh they produce is usually pretty harsh. They're good enough for good light, casual shots, but there's certainly trade off for convenience sake when you're looking for top image quality and usefulness outside of well lit areas. The Tokina will give you the goods optically, is fast, which is great for low light shots, and will open up a new perspective for you. Not to mention working within a limited range of options will also force you to stretch yourself.

I use a 16-35 f2.8 for the vast majority of my shots. There are times I'd like it to be a little longer, but not many, and I have a 70-200 for when I need it. I don't know the nikon lineup, but if they have anything like the 16-35, rent it!

Nikon has the king of all wide angles, the 14-24mm, and is absolutely worth renting, even if just to see what all the fuss is about. Nikon also have a 16-35mm VR, which is very good, and offers a few more options, (VR in a wide) but is not in the same class optically as the 14-24mm. The 16-35mm however would be a very useful range on a cropped body that works out to about a 24-52mm equivalent, and as Nathan suggests may be worth trying.

Sidebar, back to the 14-24mm for a sec, you know a lens is good when there are seemingly just as many Canon shooters using it with adapters as Nikon shooters. Just skim the reviews at Fred Miranda and look at all the Canon shooters using it.

Also, judging by all the photographers I follow, if you were to name the top landscape shooters working with full-frame DSLR's today, I'd be willing to bet that a very sizable number of them are using the 14-24mm, even on Canon bodies. I know Marc Adamus was/is. He had it adapted to his 1DS III before switching to the D800. Here's Ian Plant's take on it, another top landscape photog.

 

[DaveInDenver]

Personally I agree with the wayward Canook. I've never been a fan of zooms and one like 18-200 just doesn't appeal for me. I run a 35/50/105 kit most of the time, although also have a 24mm prime and a 180mm prime that I might use rather than the 35mm or 105mm. I also have a 16mm Zenitar fisheye that is pretty fun. There is a place for a zoom, just that I like the challenge of framing within the constraint of my lens. It forces me to sometimes think about the subject differently, pick a detail or something unusual about it. In the end do whatever makes you happy, it's your hobby.