DSLRUsers.com

The kit lens formed ther corner stone of my photographic kit for a number of years and provided me with some great images. But lately Im feeling that it will soon be time for an upgrade.

Im tossing up between the expensive and heavy 17-55mm f2.8 and the less expensive 18-200VR. Im willing to invest a bit of $$$ to get the more expensive lens if the results are worth it. Picture quality and focal speed are important in the decision.

There are some other things im also tossing up. It has to fill in the gap between my 10.5 fisheye and the 50 + 105 primes I have in my bag at the moment. I figure if i get the 18-200 I can also turf my 70-300 G.
Be very grateful if you could give me your thoughts.

Thanks
Steve

Steve,

A thought ...

Why ditch your kit lens if you're going to replace it with ... another kit lens?

In this instance I'd be looking beyond the focal lengths, and considering the optical speed of the lenses in question as an essential part of the decision making process. The optical performance - acuity, resolution etc - will be better on the 17-55, but that shouldn't exclude the 18-200 from your considerations. The lack of a fast aperture should.

Steve, I have faced this question for about 3 years. I agree with Gary's comments above. I find the 17-55 is too heavy for a travel lens or general walkaround (at that weight I would prefer a 28-70 or the new 24-70) so am probably going to get the new Tamron 17-50 2.8 with internal motor. Cheap as chips and the non motorised version gets good reviews

Steve, I updated my lens bag last year whilst in Hong Kong and bought the 17- 55 F2.8 lens. Yes, it's heavy, but boy is it good and sharp. This is my main general lens. But, I have also bought the 18-200mm (thanks to Gary & Poon) to use as a general walking around lens when I don't really know what I want to shoot, say if I go into Central Melbourne for a walkaround. The general nature of this lens quickly pays for it self. Is it as good as the 17 - 55, no, definitely not. Nut there is a place in the bad for both.
If you want better than the 18 - 70, then you have to go for the 17 - 55.

Cheers

I would look at a 24-70 f2.8 or 28-70 f2.8 myself - a FF/FX lens not DX.

JMHO.... I love my 28-70 f2.8 personally.

who wrote:I would look at a 24-70 f2.8 or 28-70 f2.8 myself - a FF/FX lens not DX.

JMHO.... I love my 28-70 f2.8 personally.

Agreed, you shouldn't replace your kit lens by another kit lens (18-200), go for something with f/2.8 and a gold ring on top of it . Or you can save heaps of money with the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, very very good lens!

Thanks for all this feedback on my question guys.

I certainly am attracted to the faster and more professional quality glass. This is afterall an investment in gear I plan to use a lot in comming years. But im not rolling in dollars. Has anyone got any advice on how they perform on auto focus with moving subjects. Before I make the choice I hope to have a play with them both to put them through their paces and see what will suit my needs.

Thanks again
Steve

The 24-70 is very sharp and very fast at focusing. As for moving objects, I don't tend to shoot to many so can't say. It also balances out a D200 or D300 very well IMO - everything weighs about the same.

If you're thinking long term I would look at good full-frame glass over good DX glass as it should give you more options in the long term.

With the arrival of Nikon full frame (D3) are many photographers getting out of Nikon DX glass at the moment, or have the floodgates not opened yet. I guess what my question is - is are there good second hand bargains starting to come on the market?

Willy wombat wrote:With the arrival of Nikon full frame (D3) are many photographers getting out of Nikon DX glass at the moment, or have the floodgates not opened yet. I guess what my question is - is are there good second hand bargains starting to come on the market?

Not as yet.

I think that because Nikon has included a DX mode the the D3, it's giving the DX glass and extra piece of market that might not have been expected by the punters. Plus, of course, there's the situation that the D3 has not yet become more generally available (or affordable), and so people haven't yet started to pawn off their DX glass.

The few early adopters have had a big cleanout of glass already (Thanks Bob G ) Who apparently sold up his zooms under 70mm to buy the new 14-24 & 24-70 combo for his D3.

A lot of others aren't there yet. Or are keeping the 17-55 on a second body or the like.

Willy wombat wrote:I certainly am attracted to the faster and more professional quality glass...

Before I make the choice I hope to have a play with them both to put them through their paces and see what will suit my needs.

hi steve, I know someone who can lend you a 17-35 and a 28-70

I doubt you are overly concerned with the weight of a lens... the 2.8 glass is great, and think you would also like the ergonomics of the 28-70. they are dear, but will last you 20 years... there are sigma/tamron equivalents too...

I have had the 18-200, and wasnt impressed with the "jack of all trade" for anything except its use as a single travel lens.

there is another nikkor 2.8, think its 20-35, older, highly recommended I hear.

alternative, keep the 18-70, and get a sigma 30mm 1.4? know someone who can lend you a tester on that too..

whats your budget, $500, or $1500?

I don't think DX will extinct out anytime soon (we're talking about 5-10 years at least). Even though they yield less quality in resolution and more prone to noise, they actually a lot lighter and thus more suitable for amateur and traveler users. So yeah, if you're not rolling on money and cannot a FX body atm, just go for a decent DX glass.

how about the new 16-85mm DX VR?
has anyone had a play with it yet?

RRP will be around the $1000-1300 mark i'd say
finally Nikon comes out with something to take on the versatile Canon 17-85IS!

-j

Steve,

here is an option:

-keep the 18-70 for now
-get a second hand 35-70 f2.8
-get a new or second hand 17-35 f2.8
-sell the 18-70 or just keep it if you want to walk about light and keep the one lens.

I have just purchased a very nice 35-70, they can be had from $350 to $450, depending on condition or seller. They were the pro lens prior to the introduction of the 28-70 f2.8. Sure it is not AF-S but it is much more compact and very sharp and solidly built.

there was one being sold by Underload in early Feb for $400.

Upgrade your 70-300 later on for one of the better options.

Plenty to think about and lots of options

Cheers,

André

Some very good food for thought being provided (thanks to all who have contributed). I didnt even know about the new 16-85mm DX VR, although looking at the specs of f/3.5-5.6G ED its probably going to be another one of those replace the kit lens with another kit lens issues.

or look at Sigma or Tamron 17-55 range in F2.8..They are well priced Just another option.

My two cents worth is the Tamron 28-70 F2.8. It's light, its sharp, its fast and its a good price. Check out the reviews around.

I was faced with this dilemna when I decided to upgrade to a D3. I settled on a 24-70 2.8. I have not regretted it as the lens is superb, but on a full days shoot it is very heavy and necssitates the use of a neck strap (which I hate).

Oneputt wrote:I was faced with this dilemna when I decided to upgrade to a D3. I settled on a 24-70 2.8. I have not regretted it as the lens is superb, but on a full days shoot it is very heavy and necssitates the use of a neck strap (which I hate).

Try carrying two D3 bodies, one with a 24-70 and the other with a 70-200 for the whole day

I'm keen to try - where do I pick it up from ?

kiwifamily wrote:I'm keen to try - where do I pick it up from ?

come to melb and you're welcome to give it a go

stephen - PM sent!

Julian,

seeto.centric wrote:how about the new 16-85mm DX VR?
has anyone had a play with it yet?

RRP will be around the $1000-1300 mark i'd say
finally Nikon comes out with something to take on the versatile Canon 17-85IS!

-j

This was posted earlier in the week.

hahah oops Gary! i am a bit delayed

not a bad price i guess.. but as noted, it will only fall in the kit lens category.
+1 for the Tamron 28-75. However, keep in mind it isnt very wide at all on a digital body so if you take lots of shots in cramped spaces or pics of large groups, you may wish to reconsider this lens.

Tamron 17-50.. im scared to buy one - google/youtube "tamron 17-50 wobble"

-j

I have played with a 16-85 VR, NICE!!! but not fast enough would prefer it to be f/2.8

I have a 17-50 f/2.8 tamron, that is my main lens on my D300, it will remain my main lens until i can afford s 24-70 f/2.8 Nikkor.

I would vote 17-50 tamron, cause it is pro quality glass, although not as good at the 17-55 nikkor, but the money u will save leaves u with some money to upgrade out of that horrible 70-300G. otherwise get the Tamron Territory Action Plus kit, u will also get the Di LD 70-300mm (1:2 Macro) and a Cokin portrait kit. not that that 2nd lens is all that good, but price wise it is a great kit, esp if u dont have a 70-300G.

Thanks for the tips!