Lens.. or lens and filter?

N

Noobylooby

Messages
4
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

First post here! After some opinions if possible.

I've gifted away a lens to a friend, 18-55mm and now want to replace the lens with an every day lens, something I can use for landscapes and other things. I've been looking online at a local store (I want to get a new lens, daft I know) and was considering the Nikon AF DX 16-85mm. I can get that for £439 or there abouts.
I was wondering though, I've also considered getting some filters, about which I know little about, and so was thinking, would I be better off getting a cheaper lens, such as the 18-105mm (£169) and then using the rest of the money for a starter filter set, and then use the two together to practice?
I can either get the cheaper lens and a starter filter set to learn with, or get the 16-85mm and practice using that and learning my camera to it's full capabilities, before investing in filters...

What would you do?
Thanks for any advice you can give
Noobylooby
 
Buy cheap, buy twice - particularly when you suspect that it's not what you want in the long run.

Have you thought about saving by buying used?
 
You're better off with a higher quality lens imo & the 16-85 is a really good lens!
Re filters, again buy the best you can afford.
Just about any filter will degrade picture quality, but the cheaper ones even more so.

btw, 16-85mm £428 on amaz0n
 
Get a quote off digital rev on here too. Might be able to beat Amazon price.
 
Thanks for the replies all. I think i'll go for the 16-85mm. I'll try popping in my local shop this Saturday and seeing if they'll let me try the lens out first.
It's getting good reviews
 
Noobylooby said:
Thanks for the replies all. I think i'll go for the 16-85mm. I'll try popping in my local shop this Saturday and seeing if they'll let me try the lens out first.
It's getting good reviews
Click to expand...

Not sure where you are based, but if you have a local shop, ask if they have a pre-owned one in.
You should be able to pick up an excellent > mint one for around £300-£340
Mifsuds. Wilkinsons & Grays have them advertised.
 
OldCarlos said:
Not sure where you are based, but if you have a local shop, ask if they have a pre-owned one in.
You should be able to pick up an excellent > mint one for around £300-£340
Mifsuds. Wilkinsons & Grays have them advertised.
Click to expand...

Thanks, i'll give that a go. I guess I'm a bit wary as i've never bought second hand lenses, always worried they might be knackered/go wrong easy. It's probably a really stupid thin to worry over I know.
 
As long as you buy from a reputable source there should be no probs. Most shops will give you some warranty anyway.
 
That does seem a lot of money for a relatively slow lens..
def better value to buy used :)
 
That does seem a lot of money for a relatively slow lens
Click to expand...
If like most photographers you are not shooting wide open Image most of the time than quality will be more important than max aperture
 
Before you get ANY filters at all, learn to use the camera and its lens(es) by themselves, regarding composition and exposure. There's quite enough to take on board and digest, without adding extra fiddly bits. Having no filters hardly precludes taking (making) photographs. Learning to judge existing light is a given, before you start to entertain thoughts of modifying it.
 
Last edited:
droj said:
Before you get ANY filters at all, learn to use the camera and its lens(es) by themselves, regarding composition and exposure. There's quite enough to take on board and digest, without adding extra fiddly bits. Having no filters hardly precludes taking (making) photographs. Learning to judge existing light is a given, before you start to entertain thoughts of modifying it.
Click to expand...

Thank you, I'm definitely set to get the lens now and become proficient with that before looking at filters.
I hope the lens will be good enough for an all general use lens
 
redsnappa said:
If like most photographers you are not shooting wide open Image most of the time than quality will be more important than max aperture
Click to expand...

nice to have the bigger aperture when you do need it though. VR isn't always a substitute for a faster shutter. ;)
i'd spend half the money on a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 zoom which is widely regarded as a decent DX walkaround lens (unless you really need the 50-85mm range?...)
 
If you are anywhere near Park Cameras in Burgess Hill, Sussex they are very helpful, but phone first to make sure they have one for you to try.

It's not very easy when we don't know your rough location! :)


.
 
James Blonde said:
I was toying with the 16-85 myself, but the Ken Rockwell review isn't so great...

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/16-85mm.htm

I've got an 18-200, which he rates and I think is awesome (particularly for IR work) but I know that the 16-85 is fairly highly regarded! hmmm...
Click to expand...

Oh yes, that well known photographic genius who thinks we should all be using a D40 , an SB400, an 18-200 lens and shoot jpeg. Maybe he's modernised and changed his mind- who knows, who cares- the man is a clown. Anyone that buys anything on his recommendation should save that Oxygen for the rest of us:p
 
Maybe it's just unfortunate that he's top of the Google search list so is going to be the first place many people (including me) start, but fair point!

but I still love my 18-200.... :P
 
Last edited:
It is yes. He does have useful info about lens histories etc and at least he is openly honest that a lot of the info is guff for his own amusement- ''This website is my way of giving back to our community. It is a work of fiction, entirely the product of my own imagination''. Sadly not many people appreciate that and tend to think of his opinions as verbatim so there is a danger people waste their money going down a wrong path or believing that if you shoot raw you can't be very good as you haven't got it right in camera.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
I enjoy Ken Rockwell. He's unashamedly opinionated, and I don't always agree with him, but he's got an entertaining style and there's a lot of good advice on his site. You just have to take some of what he says with a pinch of salt.

I sent him an email when I was thinking about buying my first DSLR, and was worried that I wouldn't be able to get on with the tiny/dim viewfinder. He responded within a couple of days, with a courteous and helpful reply that helped me to make up my mind. I appreciated that.
 
FWIW, i've always agreed with ken's lens reviews that have, in my experience, always proved to be accurate in how he reviews them.

What would I do?

Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 or the sigma 18-50 or if I'm going with a variable aperture it would be the 18-200 which is fantastic.

No way would I be forking out lots of money on filters.

I have a £20 10 stop, £16 CPL and a £4 ND grad.

They are all great.
 
Last edited:
Sorry new here sp don't know if it is permitted to offer goods...
But I have a 16-85 in mint condition and if you are anywhere near Nottingham .... etc;)
 
The word "gifted" is not a verb. You gave it away.

Never skimp on lens quality. Filters, even the best ones, can reduce quality in certain lighting conditions, so putting filters on an already cheap lens will not do you any favours. Quality lenses will last a very, very long time, and are always a good investment. Only certain filters are really of any use these days. Grads for landscape... polarisers.... pretty much all you'll need actually. However... if you've not actually found yourself needing them, hold off buying them.

Great lenses are always worth investing in. It's the lens that creates the image.. not the camera.
 
Pookeyhead said:
The word "gifted" is not a verb. You gave it away.

Never skimp on lens quality. Filters, even the best ones, can reduce quality in certain lighting conditions, so putting filters on an already cheap lens will not do you any favours. Quality lenses will last a very, very long time, and are always a good investment. Only certain filters are really of any use these days. Grads for landscape... polarisers.... pretty much all you'll need actually. However... if you've not actually found yourself needing them, hold off buying them.

Great lenses are always worth investing in. It's the lens that creates the image.. not the camera.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I fully agree with you about lenses and filters, but why pick on someone posting for the first time and criticise their grammar?
 
Pookeyhead said:
The word "gifted" is not a verb. You gave it away.

Never skimp on lens quality. Filters, even the best ones, can reduce quality in certain lighting conditions, so putting filters on an already cheap lens will not do you any favours. Quality lenses will last a very, very long time, and are always a good investment. Only certain filters are really of any use these days. Grads for landscape... polarisers.... pretty much all you'll need actually. However... if you've not actually found yourself needing them, hold off buying them.

Great lenses are always worth investing in. It's the lens that creates the image.. not the camera.
Click to expand...

yet your signature say something entirely different -funny that

Les :exit:
 
Creatively, yeah.... People take photographs. No camera will help you if you're a sh1t photographer with no creativity.

Oh no. To many dots again.
 
Last edited:
ChasG said:
Sorry new here sp don't know if it is permitted to offer goods...
But I have a 16-85 in mint condition and if you are anywhere near Nottingham .... etc;)
Click to expand...
Many thanks only 50 days and 24 posts to go
 
ChasG said:
Many thanks only 50 days and 24 posts to go
Click to expand...
Damn! should have been 59 days not 50 Was the sp instead of so a given?

23 to go!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top