Lens Comparison

[gingerweasel]

Hi Guys,
just doing some last minute thinking before jumping into any purchases.

I've decided on the Nikon D300 Body but I'm not 100% on the lenses I should buy. The recommendations I've had are:

Nikon 10-24mm [£799]
Nikon 18-200mm [£549]

However I've been looking around and noticed that I can pickup other lenses of the same focal length for a lot less. I'm assuming Nikon are the top dog in this area hence the price. But are they worth the difference?

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I've tried Tamron 10-24mm at LCE and was extremely disappointed with it. It is incredibly soft wide open, but improves by f/9-11. Nikon is better, but Tokina 11-16mm is best.
Tokina 12-24mm is excellent and much cheaper. I can't fault it.

18-200 is a jack of all trades and doesn't quite do anything that well. Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (VC version is coming out shortly) and a good telephoto would be a much better idea.

 

[HoppyUK]

That is a rather unconventional pairing, and you need to be very clear before dumping that kind of dosh.

What is wrong with starting with the regular walkabout range 18-55 or so, and building around that? What are you planning to photograph? What is the thinking behind those choices?

 

[gingerweasel]

As I'm just starting out I don't want to limit myself to any particular type of photography but the main areas that interest me are: FineArt, Landscape, Architectural, and portrait (of my kids at least). In the future I wouldn't mind trying out some marco shots but for now I'm less interested in that.

I'm not really that clued up so I've been looking on google a lot. Ken Rockwell recommends the 18-200mm as a good general purpose and suggested the 10-24mm as an excellent lens for landscapes.

I have a lot to learn I know, but this place seems to be a great starting point

 

[HoppyUK]

Ken certainly knows his Nikons and now you've said that, your two choices make sense. There are loads of others though, all slighty different, some very different.

It's the 18-200 which is a bit out of kilter. It's an all-in-one lens and its main appeal is convenience. It does that very well but is a bit of an optical compromise throughout. Just for comparison, how about the 17-55 2.8? Much lower f/number, less distortion, vignetting and CA, extremely sharp. With the exception of wide landscapes, it would make a very good fist of the things you've outlined.

Just food for thought. The only way to really make your mind up clearly is to use these things - you can get an idea from forums like this, then have a go in the shop, but ultimately you need to use them, see what they can do and what they can't. Which is why I suggested the basic kit lens as it's a very good starting point and low risk in terms of cost, while you find your feet.

If you go for the 18-200, I think there's a new version with a zoom lock mechanism which stops the lens barrel tromboning when it's hanging off the camera.