Glass

Characteristics

Characteristics

Messages
444
Name
Jason
Edit My Images
Yes
I have a Nikon 70-300mm, thinking of buying an Nikon 18-200mm VR.

Or sell the 70-300mm and don't get the 18-200mm and buy a Nikon 24-70mm.

I will have a D300s soon
 
so tempted. Its just the extra range of the 18-200 mm v the performance of the 24-70mm.
V the cost
 
Could you get the 17-55 and the 70-300VR? An alternative could be the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 XR Di VC -- I've not used this one but heard good things about it, maybe others could comment.

Obviously depends on what you mainly shoot but many prefer the wider lens on DX -- you've got the 18-105 to check.
 
acs said:
Could you get the 17-55 and the 70-300VR? An alternative could be the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 XR Di VC -- I've not used this one but heard good things about it, maybe others could comment.

Obviously depends on what you mainly shoot but many prefer the wider lens on DX -- you've got the 18-105 to check.
Click to expand...

Seconding the 17-55/2.8 DX. The wide end is useful to have on a zoom of this kind of range, and I frequently find myself using it at 17mm...so I don't think you'll get on well with 24-70 on a crop sensor. The 24-70 is a bit sharper and more flare resistant, but it's considerably larger, more expensive and less available 2nd hand. The 17-55 is sharp enough that it isn't an issue, and combined with the 70-200 gives DX some serious f/2.8 convenience.
 
I'm always impressed when people can advise on the choice of lens, even when the OP has said NOTHING WHATSOEVER about:
- what he wants/likes to shoot
- whether and how his existing kit isn't getting the job done for him
- what his budget is.

:shrug:
 
As the previous poster mentioned:

Do you have a kit lens? Or did you get the 70-300mm with the body?

Do you like the 70-300mm and would you be happy to keep it?

What do you shoot?
It sounds like you may have bought the 70-300mm as first lens but now feel that you want to get closer to your subjects.

Would you think about going for the D700 (could go 2nd hand) instead of the D300s?

The reason I ask this last question is that the 70-300mm is an FX lens as is the 24-70mm and if you are looking to take wider shots, it might be best for you to buy an FX body and FX lenses instead of buying DX lenses now for a DX body.

John.
 
StewartR said:
I'm always impressed when people can advise on the choice of lens, even when the OP has said NOTHING WHATSOEVER about:
- what he wants/likes to shoot
- whether and how his existing kit isn't getting the job done for him
- what his budget is.
Click to expand...

^^^He's right you know...

And why does everyone get hung up about "not buying DX lenses in case you move to FX"... for at least 90% of the people thats probably never going to happen... AND he's just said he's buying a D300S, which probably does mean he's not in a hurry for FX yet.

So he has a telephoto, clearly a telephoto (70-300) is not what suits whatever it is he is shooting, so is thinking about a walkabout lens (18-200). He also thinks that the 24-70 might make a good walkabout alternative.

Financially you are talking the 70-300 not being worth too much (assuming you don't mean the VR one), the 18-200VR is probably around the 400 quid mark second hand or about 650 for the new MkII one brand new. The 24-70 is about 1200 quid new or about 950 second hand.
 
I am selling mt D90, it has a 18-105mm.

I bought the 70-30mm when I went to a few air shows.

When I do sell the D90 with len, I need a replacement for the 18-70mm
 
The 24-70 is a great lens and no mistake, but its a bit heavy for a general walk around lens. The difference between 18 and 24mm at the wide end is probably more than you think too. On a full frame camera this lens comes in at the 18ish-50ish mm range, which is why people generally say its more useful on full frame.

The 18-200 is light, a good range of focal length and reasonable quality optically - although not great. Perfect for general photography of family, holidays etc where stunning image quality is of less importance to carrying around either a big bag of different glass or something more limiting focal length wise. Thats why Nikon make it...

My other suggestion to you is the same "general purpose" glass I use - a Sigma 18-50 f2.8. Its a constant f2.8 aperture lens and can yield some excellent results and being f2.8 its suitable even in murky conditions. Quite "cheap" too. Obviously at 50mm at the long end but see my earlier comment about the 24-70 on full frame ;-)
 
And why does everyone get hung up about "not buying DX lenses in case you move to FX"...
Click to expand...

FX lenses can be used on both DX and FX bodies with no loss of resolution
 
JohnD76 said:
FX lenses can be used on both DX and FX bodies with no loss of resolution
Click to expand...

If a lens such as a 24/28-70 works for you on cropped format it'll be suited to completely different use on FF. ...the change in apparent focal length means anyone moving to FF would probably want to buy new lenses anyway.
 
I got the 24-70mm,

wow.

the pictures are so crisp.

its almost like people are cut outs and have been pasted onto a background.

so much detail in each photo.

a lot of cash mind, and it is heavy.

looking forward to using it when the weather and I get better (man flu)

Thanks for your advice
 
Well, providing you don't get sick of lugging it around, it is a gorgeous bit of kit.
 
Obviously the 24-70 is in a different class than the 18-200 but will you be happy with the small focal range?
 
I have a 70-300mm
and intend to get a wide angle at some stage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top