Nikon 18mm lens advice pls....

Yardbent

Yardbent

Messages
7,771
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
I have D40...and plan to buy a D90 body sometime y2010
with ... kit 18-55mm GII AF-S... and I like the 18mm end
35mm f1.8 AF-S G...not used yet so cannot judge
55-200mm AF-S VR

if I sell the kit 18-55mm lens with the D40... what do i buy to fill the lower focal lengths on the *new* D90 ?

mostly landscapes - no kids, pets, people or weddings..:cool:

Woodsy said ...
"the 18-70 AF-S is an awesome lens. No VR, but pretty sharp
" 17-55 f2.8 DX ...best available"

I found 18-70mm new at £300 or s/h £130 (=ok) - but the 17-55 is silly££££ for me

dont want UWA - so do i get .............
the 18-70 even though i have a 35mm (and dont need AF-S - correct?)
or 18-55 again but VR this time at £110
a 18-??mm ...
or just keep the kit 18-55 AF-S...:shrug:

thanks for any guidance up to about £250 -£300
 
I did exactly that. I have bought a 2nd hand D90 body off here and have a D40 to sell with it's kit lens (had to buy another as my son dropped the original one!).

I also bought a 18-55VR from here as, like you, I like the range and size of the lens. I guess the 17-55 might have been nice but the price was a factor.

I did think about an 18-200 but it felt a bit bulky as a everyday lens.
 
desf said:
and have a D40 to sell with it's kit lens
I also bought a 18-55VR from here
I did think about an 18-200 but it felt a bit bulky as a everyday lens.
Click to expand...

may i ask why you sold the kit lens ?
was the VR version more beneficial ?
agree on the 18-200

18-70mm new at £300 or s/h £130 .... did you consider this one ?

John
 
I bought the 18-55VR as I liked it for low light also thought it would make the D40 easier to sell as a kit with it's own lens.

I didn't really consider the 18-70 as it was dearer and I didn't feel the extra at the long end was worth it for me as I had the 55-200.
 
desf said:
.. I bought the 18-55VR as I liked it for low light
.. thought it would make the D40 easier to sell as a kit with it's own lens.
.. I had the 55-200.
Click to expand...

which model did you get, f=?
probably true
me too in VR

looks as if I'm following same route as you !
 
My 18-55VR is a F3.5/5.6.

If you were in Edinburgh you'd be welcome to borrow it for a try out. D90 too!
 
desf said:
If you were in Edinburgh you'd be welcome to borrow it for a try out. D90 too!
Click to expand...

thats very kind - maybe when the weather improves [still snow at the farm]
I'll have a day sight-seeing the East

have you had a look at the "Google" map of TP members in the West - very few!! - or all hiding..:suspect:
 
I'm impressed with my AF-S 16-85mm VR, it produces lovely sharp images, has a "proper" metal mount and the advantage of an extra 2mm at the short end. Quality wise it feels very solidly made in the same sort of way as the Canon 24-105L is. The only criticisms of the lens tend to be it's price at around £440 new but I found mine s/h but unused just about in your budget.
 
waspjunior said:
I'm impressed with my AF-S 16-85mm VR, it produces lovely sharp images, has a "proper" metal mount and the advantage of an extra 2mm at the short end. Quality wise it feels very solidly made in the same sort of way as the Canon 24-105L is. The only criticisms of the lens tend to be it's price at around £440 new but I found mine s/h but unused just about in your budget.
Click to expand...

Thanks...
Ken Rockwell (C) says
"The advantage of this 16-85mm VR over the similarly priced 18-200mm VR is that this 16-85mm VR has a slightly wider wide end, has less distortion, has somewhat more effective VR and can be sharper at the wide end"

so I'll keep a lookout for a bargain...........:thumbs:
 
The Tamron 17-50 2.8 is a cracking lens,try to find one without the inbuilt motor,it will autofocus faster on A D90......:thumbs:
 
I really can't stress enough how much better off you will be with the 18-70 or the 16-85 or even the D90 kit lens (the 18-105).

The 18-55mm is meant as a very basic lens, even with VR (which isnt really needed at those short focal lengths).

After using all of the above lenses and a lot of other Nikon lenses I would recommend the 18-70mm as it is a good value for money lens.
 
fracster said:
The Tamron 17-50 2.8 is a cracking lens,try to find one without the inbuilt motor,it will autofocus faster on A D90......:thumbs:
Click to expand...


:agree:

It's the one to have - a couple of hundred quid should see you with a minty secondhand one. Alternatively, a used 17-55 can be had for around £600, which might sound a lot but the build quality is worlds ahead of the Tamron if your buget will stretch that far.
 
fracster said:
The Tamron 17-50 2.8 is a cracking lens,try to find one without the inbuilt motor,it will autofocus faster on A D90......:thumbs:
Click to expand...

thanks - good write-ups and on sales at Purely Gadgets for £283

so well worth considering..................:thumbs:
 
Flash In The Pan said:
:agree:

It's the one to have - a couple of hundred quid should see you with a minty secondhand one. Alternatively, a used 17-55 can be had for around £600, which might sound a lot but the build quality is worlds ahead of the Tamron if your buget will stretch that far.
Click to expand...

£600 - if only!!....:'( thanks though
 
rotherad said:
.. better off you will be with the 18-70 or the 16-85 or even the D90 kit lens (the 18-105).

I would recommend the 18-70mm as it is a good value for money lens.
Click to expand...

I read the D90 18-105 is not as sharp at 18mm as the 18-55 kit ?
so will probably buy a D90 body only, especially as I have a 55-200 VR

cannot afford to do too much lens swapping cos I am sure you always lose money - pensioner..so have to watch the pennies..:(

i didnt know about a 18-70mm thanks...........looking >>>>>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top