Lens question - should I or shouldn't I?

ProG77

ProG77

Messages
637
Edit My Images
Yes
Here's another 'should I or shouldn't I' question that I'm hoping you can help me with please:

I'm looking at adding a 4th lens to my collection - something that's sharper than my current collection and a walkabout lens and I am looking at the Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 VR DX. My current lenses are:

  • Nikon 18-200mm f3.5 - 5.6
  • Nikon 50mm f1.8
  • Tokina 105mm f2.8 macro

My question is, given I already have the 18 - 200 f3.5 - 5.6, is buying the 16 - 85mm f3.5 - 5.6 just duplicating the focal length I already get?? Should I be looking at something like the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8? (much more money I know and significantly heavier). Something else maybe?

All advice greatly appreciated. Thank you.
 
I can't imagine that you would want to carry both a 16-85 and an 18-200 around together though maybe you envisage using them on different occasions?

Personally I'm not a huge fan of the 18-200 (though I can see why some are). So what I would do it buy the 16-85 (or the 17-55) and then sell the 18-200 and put the money towards a 70-300 VR. That would be a really nice set of lenses.

The only thing I would say is that none of these options are likely to be sharper than your 50mm 1.8 or Tokina macro lens but that is generally the way with zooms vs primes.
 
The 70-300 vr is an awesome lens. I'd consider the tamron 17-50 as an alternative to the Nikon. It's a damn good lens and £ for £, difficult to beat.
 
i would save up and go for the nikon 17-55
 
callumduff said:
i would save up and go for the nikon 17-55
Click to expand...

Agreed, it's an awesome lens, but for the same price of a second hand 17-55, I've had a new 70-300vr and a mint s/h tamron 17-50 f2.8.

It's the old balance of costs! Depends on what the op wants I guess?
 
yeah, thats a fair point actually
 
Thanks for all the input guys - very helpful and given me some food for thought. I do like the suggestion of selling my 18-200 and replacing with a 16-85/17 -55 and the 70 - 300VR as I do miss the reach of a 300mm for wildlife pics. Better start saving up for a 17-55 then!
 
Do consider third party alternatives to the 17-55. It's a lovely lens but very pricey. I'm slightly biased having the tamron 17-50. I got a sharp copy for under two hundred pounds. The Nikon goes for five to six hundred second hand. In my case I didn't feel that the fractionally, IMHO, better IQ was worth the extra 300 pounds.

Don't get me wrong - if money was not an issue I'd have the Nikon. Unfortunately it is!

S
 
I'd say sell the 18-200 and get the lens you mentioned. Won't be as versatile. But should be sharper and generally better. The lenses that go from "wide" to telephoto generally have to compromise slightly on image quality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top