What lens to buy to go Nikon d7200

Smiffster

Smiffster

Messages
192
Edit My Images
Yes
good morning all. I expect there will be a few yawns for the same questions being asked. Sorry I want to purchase a new lens after buying my 7200 Last year and held off until I was going to get a bit better or decide what I want to do, I bought the 35m 1.8 on here after seeing different posts as a starter. I currently have the older 18-200 version as my all round go to lens and it has served me ok for the last 6 years or so. I am just finding I can't seem to get things as sharp or clear. I know it's my technical knowledge too but am working on that. I just wondered if it was worth looking at something else to replace this one. I.e.,. 18-300 or 18-140 . As they would both cover bit of portrait and landscape but without blowing

a budget which I cannot justify just yet. I am just not good enough yet. I have read reviews and so many different opinions I am bit lost to decide. Open to suggestions.

Many thanks.. budget about 400-600 not much more unless it did everything
 
Been looking into the same lens options myself. From research I would suggest the 18-140. Squeezing all that extra focal range in the 18-200 and 18-300 means compromising elsewhere so you will get sharper images from the 18-140.
I was looking at these as a walkabout lens too, the 18-55 just isn't versatile enough.
 
Had one of these and was very impressed with it on my D7100.....wish i'd kept it now tbh
 
I don't honestly think you're going to see a huge difference between any of them. They're all decent enough but all a little compromised by covering a large range. If you feel your technique/knowledge is letting you down, I'd work on that first. And if you're simply looking to get a sharper lens, you'd be better served looking at much shorter zoom ranges or primes. All in my humble opinion.
 
What do you want and/or expect from it? For a general walkabout lens, the 18-200 is hard to beat - wide enough for most things and a usefully long long end. Sure, there are a few compromises in it but there are with most things! If you want significantly better performance, I reckon you'll need to spend significantly more money and the law of diminishing returns rears its ugly head.
 
Yes I think you are right @Nod. I have been out this aft to Ponsticill as had an hour or so free and I need to learn a lot more first. The photos on my phone were better!I think it is keep what I have and get out more. . Practise...
 
If you have any good local camera shops, visit them and see if they have a demo 18-200 for you to try against yours. If the images from yours are worse and those from the new lens are enough better for it to be an upgrade (as well as being good enough for your wants/needs!), it makes a decision easier.
 
gad-westy said:
If you feel your technique/knowledge is letting you down, I'd work on that first.
Click to expand...
This is the thing. I know it might not fit what you're trying to do, but there's a lot to be said for going out with a single prime lens, and concentrating on the mastery of exposure, 'seeing' photographs and framing them in the viewfinder. In a way it means that you've got less to think about. Then, as your discipline improves, you can think more effectively about lenses ad infinitum.
 
I have the 18-300 as a walkabout lens for events etc. It's ok, my daughter uses on my spare camera body and is happy enough,
but I find it doesn't produce the clear sharp images I used to with my other shorter zooms
 
droj said:
This is the thing. I know it might not fit what you're trying to do, but there's a lot to be said for going out with a single prime lens, and concentrating on the mastery of exposure, 'seeing' photographs and framing them in the viewfinder. In a way it means that you've got less to think about. Then, as your discipline improves, you can think more effectively about lenses ad infinitum.
Click to expand...

This was almost exactly what I was going to suggest. Superzooms are fine for snaps, and if you're lucky then you my find one that's reasonably crisp at some apertures & focal lengths, but generally they will be disappointing *if you are critical*: I have several, and if I want crisp, clean images then I leave them at home. FWIW my brother has the 18-140, and was quite disappointed.

You could do much worse than just set the 18-200 on one side and go out with the 35mm.

If you want to spend £400-£600, for a zoom I would probably look at the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di II VC. Alternatively I'd look for a used Sigma ART 24mm - that will take all your budget, but you won't get a better lens.
 
Last edited:
I always considered the Nikon 16-85mm lens the best combination of quality, range, size, weight and cost. I was very happy using it for many years. It is the best range for most photography on a crop sensor imho.

I would have liked to have got the 16-80mm lens when it came out, but considered that Nikon overpriced the lens. Luckily I was able to get one new with a £250 saving at the end of last year. I got it for £690, which is over your budget. The 16-85mm is still a very good lens though, and can be had for about £500.

Over the years I found the 16mm end most useful, and a surprisingly large difference than the18mm of the 18-70mm lens I had first. I really liked the 18-70mm at the time I had it, but the 16-85mm was a big improvement in quality imho. The change from 16-85mm to 16-80mm I haven't found to be as big an improvement. I'm very happy with it though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top