Nikon zoom lens choice

bobman

bobman

Messages
653
Name
Russell
Edit My Images
Yes
Any recommendations?

I had made my mind up on getting a used 17-55mm lens to add to my current Nikkor 50mm f1.4g and Tokina 11-16mm lenses.

My main interest in photography is portraits (family) and landscapes so I thought this lens would fit the bill perfectly.

However I am also keen to have a lens at sometime that will have a longer reach for other subjects such as trips to the zoo and general events and have narrowed the other possibilities down to the 80-200mm Nikkor 2 touch version or the latest Sigma 70-200mm f2.8.

This will be the last purchase I make for a while as I have a young family and my budget is very limited so any recommendations would be greatly appreciated.

Regards, Russell
 
bobman said:
Any recommendations?

I had made my mind up on getting a used 17-55mm lens to add to my current Nikkor 50mm f1.4g and Tokina 11-16mm lenses.

My main interest in photography is portraits (family) and landscapes so I thought this lens would fit the bill perfectly.

However I am also keen to have a lens at sometime that will have a longer reach for other subjects such as trips to the zoo and general events and have narrowed the other possibilities down to the 80-200mm Nikkor 2 touch version or the latest Sigma 70-200mm f2.8.

This will be the last purchase I make for a while as I have a young family and my budget is very limited so any recommendations would be greatly appreciated.

Regards, Russell
Click to expand...

Hi Russell

I have the Nikor 80-200 f2.8 AF IF ED which in my opinion would work well for portrait and zoo expeditions ..... Great piece of kit but needs a body that will drive the auto focus.

Steve
 
SteveF said:
Hi Russell

I have the Nikor 80-200 f2.8 AF IF ED which in my opinion would work well for portrait and zoo expeditions ..... Great piece of kit but needs a body that will drive the auto focus.

Steve
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply, I have a D7000 body so this should drive the af, so tempted to take the plunge with the 80-200 but with a liking for landscape I fear Im missing out in the 17-50mm range at the moment but then again if I purchased the the 17-55mm I would be missing out on the 80-200mm range, unfortunately cant afford both:shrug:
 
I have the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 on my Nikons.I like the lens a lot, very sharp and I can not see any distortion at all.See Ken Rockwell for review.I use it on D90 and D7000 1.5 crop sensors.
 
bobman said:
Thanks for the reply, I have a D7000 body so this should drive the af, so tempted to take the plunge with the 80-200 but with a liking for landscape I fear Im missing out in the 17-50mm range at the moment but then again if I purchased the the 17-55mm I would be missing out on the 80-200mm range, unfortunately cant afford both:shrug:
Click to expand...

I have seen many fantastic landscape shots taken on the Tokina 11-16 that you have and you have the 50mm prime in your bag too.

Steve
 
The 17-55 is a brilliant, brilliant lens and the one lens I'd urge all DX users to try at some point. It's big, yes, and a bit heavy but it's absolutely solid and meets its pro-spec tag with gusto. It's my most used lens and a bargain really on the used circuit - I got mine boxed for £550 in mint condition for a shop, so there are deals to be had on the classifieds. It's the lens I always reach for when I have family days out.

However, if money is tight and you want to get something long as well, I'd say the Tokina should be fine for landscape work - possibly the sharpest ultra-wide zoom there is for DX.

I'd get the two-touch (twist focus, twist zoom) version of the 80-200mm AF-D; brilliant lens with outstanding optics and superb build quality. I had the Sigma and it was good (aside from a back-focussing issue) but the Nikon was just better in all respects. I only moved to the 70-200 VR so I could give my ageing D2x some help with the VR in low light.

You should be able to get a used 80-200mm for under £500 in the classifieds :)
 
kestral said:
I have the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 on my Nikons.I like the lens a lot, very sharp and I can not see any distortion at all.See Ken Rockwell for review.I use it on D90 and D7000 1.5 crop sensors.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I already have this lens as stated and am looking for something to bridge the gap between 16-50mm or maybe venture into a longer lens.
 
specialman said:
The 17-55 is a brilliant, brilliant lens and the one lens I'd urge all DX users to try at some point. It's big, yes, and a bit heavy but it's absolutely solid and meets its pro-spec tag with gusto. It's my most used lens and a bargain really on the used circuit - I got mine boxed for £550 in mint condition for a shop, so there are deals to be had on the classifieds. It's the lens I always reach for when I have family days out.

However, if money is tight and you want to get something long as well, I'd say the Tokina should be fine for landscape work - possibly the sharpest ultra-wide zoom there is for DX.

I'd get the two-touch (twist focus, twist zoom) version of the 80-200mm AF-D; brilliant lens with outstanding optics and superb build quality. I had the Sigma and it was good (aside from a back-focussing issue) but the Nikon was just better in all respects. I only moved to the 70-200 VR so I could give my ageing D2x some help with the VR in low light.

You should be able to get a used 80-200mm for under £500 in the classifieds :)
Click to expand...

Pat

Thanks for the advice, I wish the classifieds I'm checking had either the 17-55 at around the £500 mark or the 80-200 at £600 but all I can find is the 17-55 at around the £780 and the 80-200mm at £700, TBH I am swaying towards the 17-55mm as I think this would better suit my needs and I could maybe trade my 50mm lens.
 
£780 is a lot for a used 17-55.

I'd check the major used retailers - fords, MPB, apertureUK, mifsuds, carmarthen cameras (got mine from CC) - to see what they have. MPB have them in for £690 and I'm sure you'll get one closer to £650.

Keep your eye on the TP classifieds too, there are some good deals around although it may be worth putting a request in the wanted section - you never know who may be thinking about getting rid of theirs. The last two that sold on here went for £550 each.

Jeez - 80-200 for £700!!!! I sold mine on here for £450 a year ago.... :eek:
 
Last edited:
specialman said:
£780 is a lot for a used 17-55.

I'd check the major used retailers - fords, MPB, apertureUK, mifsuds, carmarthen cameras (got mine from CC) - to see what they have. MPB have them in for £690 and I'm sure you'll get one closer to £650.

Keep your eye on the TP classifieds too, there are some good deals around although it may be worth putting a request in the wanted section - you never know who may be thinking about getting rid of theirs.

Jeez - 80-200 for £700!!!! I sold mine on here for £450 a year ago.... :eek:
Click to expand...

Thanks for the heads up Pat
 
No problems at all - it's a cracker of a lens, it really is. Mine has been drenched, dropped, covered in all sorts of unsavoury matter yet still works in all temperatures, even when my body is shutting up shop in -20˚C :lol:
 
bobman said:
Thanks for the heads up Pat
Click to expand...


I have seen numerous for sale from £500/600 over recent weeks....keep your eyes peeked but go for the two touch with tripod mont.

Steve
 
I wouldn't dismiss getting the 80-200 before the 17-55. You say you have a young family so you might find the extra reach that bit more useful....I have a 70-200 which I use on my D7000 quite a bit. It's great for capturing shots of my young family when we're walking in the park, off to the zoo or even in the garden. It's also a great portrait lens for little people.

You can do a bit of zooming with your feet to cover some of the gap between you current lenses...harder to do with longer stuff.

What about the 24-120 F4? That might suit your needs ? There's also the 28-70 F2.8 which I think is in your price range. Both of those fill the gap a bit but also give you more length....
 
I would go for 24-70 f2.8
 
Please be aware that although there is only 4mm difference in focal length this equates to 10 degrees which is actually a lot of extra coverage. The old 28-70mm is a very capable pro lens but the new 24-70mm, with it's Nano Crystal coating and newer optics is a better lens... But at a higher cost too!
 
My most used lens on my D90 is the Sigma 24-70 2.8

its a great lens and I've been very pleased with the results
 
Would have to agree with specialman here, the Nikon 17-55 F2.8 AFS is a pretty special lens, with a decent DX range equivalent of the FX 24-70. Unless I'm shooting wildlife or sports, it stays on my D300 most of the time.

I also own the D3 and the 24-70 F2.8 AFS, but just find the 24mm not quite wide enough (approx equivalent of 36mm on DX), when I use it on my DX cameras.
 
Sootchucker said:
Would have to agree with specialman here, the Nikon 17-55 F2.8 AFS is a pretty special lens, with a decent DX range equivalent of the FX 24-70. Unless I'm shooting wildlife or sports, it stays on my D300 most of the time.

I also own the D3 and the 24-70 F2.8 AFS, but just find the 24mm not quite wide enough (approx equivalent of 36mm on DX), when I use it on my DX cameras.
Click to expand...

That's my key thought - the 24-70 is a beautiful lens but it's wasted on DX and there is an equally good equivalent with the same effective field of view and that's the 17-55.
 
get the 17-55 f2.8 first then look around later for the 80-200 f2.8 or 70-200 f2.8.

You won't regret of getting the 17-55 to behonest but if you planning to stay on DX then get the 17-55.

I was on the same boat before but i went for the 28-70 f2.8 because i'm moving to FF sometime this year so it make sense for me to do that.
 
bobman said:
Took the plunge and ordered a second hand 17-55mm, hope its a good example:thumbs:
Click to expand...

Good man. You'll be amazed at the heftiness (??) of it - it really is a solid lens. If (when) I go to FX it'll be the lens I miss :)

The other good thing about this lens is that it holds its value well - people talk about what if you move to FX in the future and the money you'll lose...... all the deprecation seems to be when they're bought from new and used copies hold their prices well. Same with most of these pro-spec Nikon lenses, they all seem to plateau on the used market. Plus, the 17-55 is a much more sensible option on DX than the 24-70 and TBH, if Nikon upgrade the D300s with high ISO and incredible image quality, a'la D700, then there's less of a need to move to FX unless you need that larger sensor....

On'y reason I'll be going FX is because Nikon decided to ditch pro-spec bodies with a built-in grip. If they did a D2 with the D7000 sensor in it I'd happily stay with DX for the foreseeable future :)
 
Last edited:
I would expect you to be very happy with the 17-55. I've had mine for 2-3 years now and find it to be very versatile, handling a variety of jobs quite well...from landscapes to city scapes to street photography to portraits and family events. It has excellent IQ, even at f2.8 wide open, and stopped down to f/4 it is razor sharp. It has excellent clarity and contrast, too.

You will need to play with it some, though, to get a good feel for what it can do and where it may have some limitations, too.

Good luck, and don't be shy about sharing your photos with us.
 
bobman said:
Had one briefly and sold on, did not rate this lens at all.
Click to expand...

18-200 VR

Got one when they first came out and where all the rage,OK for a holiday all in one,but if you need really sharp images I would also give it a miss.
Got the 17-55 and agree this is a magic lens.......
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top