First lens upgrade

[AlfyB]

I got my first DSLR about 3 months ago, a D7000, and I'm already considering replacing one of the basic lenses I got to get me started.

It's an nikkor 18-55 and compared to the 70-300 lens I also got the images are nowhere near as sharp. I thought it was user error at first but even on a tripod it's noticeable.

I'm considering replacing it with a nikkor 16-85 and I have a couple if questions:

1. Does anyone have any none nikkor lenses they recommend as a alternative.

2. What are people's thoughts on selling the 18-55. It doesn't seem like it would be worth much but then it won't get used once replace.

 

[Zarch]

Going through a similar thing myself. (hence the following info i've compiled)

Your 18-55 VR should be worth around £60 minimum depending on condition etc, so worth selling to put towards any new (or 2nd hand) purchase.

Do you want more reach or just more quality? Although with your 70-300 I'm thinking probably quality upto 70?

In the Nikon "non 2.8" line you've got:

16-85 VR (3.5-5.6) - around £300 2nd hand
18-105 VR (3.5-5.6) - £120 2nd
18-70 no VR (3.5-4.5) - £100 2nd

All three come recommended, but I couldn't justify treble the price for the 16-85, so I went with the 18-70, and reach aside, i'm happy so far as i was told the 18-70 had faster focus than the 18-105.

They are also 18-135 and 24-120, but from what i've read, they don't come close to the 3 listed above.


The next jump up is the 2.8 type lenses

Nikon 2.8:
17-55 - around £600 2nd hand
24-70 - around £900 2nd hand

Other makes (some with VR (also known as OS or VC depending on make))

Tamron 17-50 2.8, £345 new, £200 2nd hand
Sigma 18-50 2.8, £240 new
Sigma 18-50 2.8-4.0, £170 new
Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 (and 2.8-4.0 model) around £230 and £280 new respectively.

The Nikon 2.8 do want you'd expect (from all the views i've seen), but you pay a price for that superior quality.

The Tamrom and Sigma are good, and much better than the 18-55 kit lens, but they aren't in the same league as the Nikon 2.8, but their price reflects that.

Hope this helps?

 

[AlfyB]

Thanks Zarch,

Your info is very interesting. It is IQ that I'm interested in and not so much the reach. I think this next lens will be a halfway step to a 17-55mm 2.8 but that's just a step to far in price terms at the moment.

I just had a read through the thread you created and there are some really interesting comments that have given me something to think about. From the comments, I can see why you went for the 18-70.

I'd still be interested to hear from any one that has any of the lenses that Zarch has mentioned, especially with regards to IQ in comparison to the 70-300?

 

[Nikon Fan]

Two more Len's you may also want to consider is the Sigma 10-20 and the sigma 24-70 f2.8, I use both of these lens and they produce great sharp images.

 

[Zarch]

Thanks Zarch,

I just had a read through the thread you created and there are some really interesting comments that have given me something to think about. From the comments, I can see why you went for the 18-70.

I'd still be interested to hear from any one that has any of the lenses that Zarch has mentioned, especially with regards to IQ in comparison to the 70-300?

Hi Ian,

No problem. I probably should have pointed you in the direction of my 18-55 upgrade thread in the first place.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=308154

But you seem to have found it.

 

[AlfyB]

Thanks again Zarch.

Nikon Fan, just had a quick read about the sigma 24-70 and it sounds like it could be just the thing. Still need to compare it with the other lenses mentioned and it would be pushing my budget but has a lot of potential if I save a bit longer. Thanks.